The BIG FAT THEORY of BIG FAT FANTASY

[Grantaire]

Sorry I didn't reply to you earlier Gemquest, I didn't see your post. I agree with you actually, but why do you say that belief being irrational equates to a "so what?".


Texmex, yes what you said is basically the essence of my argument. However, since I do not have proof as to the existance of a "soul" or "mind", and even if for the sake of argument I considered they did, since I do not know the rules that you say would govern them, I will not argue you on that front.

I don't know why you say that evolution being proven would disprove the existance of a God, as some people see evolution as being a process that could have been divinely started, but I'd rather this NOT turn into an evolution vs creationism debate. I agree with you that all theories should begin on an equal plane for consideration- however, that takes us back to our original argument, which is a better proof, sacred texts, or recorded observation of events?


Aldarion, those are certainly interesting images to consider..however, since you argue that science is devalueing structures that once gave our world meaning, I must ask you this- why does that matter? Are those structures of meaning that important? I know that for myself, I would rather have a scientific explanation than to be left in the dark, I have a yearning for some learning

Sorry that I didn't reply at length more to each of you three, but I'm somewhat busy at the moment. I should be able to post a better reply to each of your responses to this.

 

[Scott Bakker]

My purpose was to defend my statement in regards to knowing ones own existence -- I can and I do.

Just to amend a bit, Texmex: the question was one of whether you could know the PURPOSE of your existence. Though I believe you might have faith in your life's purpose, I don't think 'know' is the appropriate word, since we tend to reserve that word for claims that compel rational consent from others - and then we were off to the races!

All this stemmed back to my thumbnail sketch of Adorno-lite.

I actually think our debate (or whatever it was!) amply illustrates the straits we as a society find ourselves in when it comes to questions of purpose and value: things go on and on, back and forth, up and down, and exhaustion alone closes down the issue. In other words, there's no regress enders.

You can go on and on about how you have knowledge rather than faith of your purpose, or that you have some hybrid 'reasoned faith,' but that is all 'knowledge' comes down to anyway, be it scientific or spiritual, and so on and so on.

The bottomline is that you cannot, at least not with the consistency scientists can, compel rational consensus. You might think this is an inconsequential difference, but I think things like nuclear submarines and PET scans attest otherwise. (It was this, what I call the 'cognitive difference,' that led me to abandon Heidegger).

Now back to fantasy. Imagine what it was like BEFORE science came along and put philosophical and theological thinking to shame. In a powerful sense, I think, certainty of one's purpose could be socially justified. The majority of people would have responded to your claim with a sage nod, instead of 'Sure you do, buddy' skepticism. I think the success combined with the nihilism of institutional science have stripped us of that socially justified certainty, and for the majority of people, has left a vague, inchoate apprehension in its place.

We see this repeated over and over in the modernist ethos, where you have protagonists struggling to find meaning in an apparently meaningless world - typically through romantic love (Spider-man 2 is actually a good example of this, I think). Science has transformed our world against our inclinations. (And I find this utterly remarkable, given the self-congratulatory bent of our worldviews prior to science: 'We are the chosen(so long as we do what we're told, of course!), the centre, the image of God, the exception, the exalted, and the list goes on and on).

In the fantastic ethos, on the otherhand, we find worlds that are infused with meaning, purpose, divinity, magic, moral certainty - all the things science has rendered problematic. It's no coincidence, I think, that authors tend to return to prescientific contexts to model their worlds. And it's no coincidence, I think, that the worlds they create resonate so deeply for so many.

I'm saying that the draw of fantasy worlds is, to some extent, driven by the alienation generated by the scientific worldview. That alienation has at least two major components: the comparative inability to find rational consensus regarding matters of purpose and value (faith in objective meaning has become a matter of 'personal preference' - almost a consumer choice!), and the portrait of a cosmos where humanity is little more than a random mote of dust (s**t, as the bumper sticker puts it, just happens).

 

[Grantaire]

No-Dog, I must ask this. What is the purpose in even arguing all of this? People who only accept proven fact will still only do that, and people who have unfounded beliefs will continue that. Even if it is proven that either way is correct or not, would it have an impact?

I fail to see why the nihilism of modern science is a bad thing. I'm happy with it, I don't need a reason to exist, a purpose to fulfill. My existance needs no justification, I didn't ask to exist, but I do. And yet, with that viewpoint, it doesn't seem that by your argument I should be attracted to fantasy- and yet I am. How can you connect that?

 

[Gary Wassner]

It's no coincidence, I think, that authors tend to return to prescientific contexts to model their worlds. And it's no coincidence, I think, that the worlds they create resonate so deeply for so many.


As an author of fantasy, and as a former teacher of philosophy, I relished the prospect of writing in such an unconstrained world. Science as well as philosophy did not answer the questions for me that I still struggle with. I may have completely agreed with the logic of an argument, but the reslut may have been unfulfilling. I write fantasy for entertainment and I write it in order to try to explore the issues in a different context that I had spent years exploring on a purely academic level. You can ask questions and raise issues repeatedly in a great epic story, and you don't even need to answer them all. You accept the questions as part of the journey and just by posing some of them, you find some sort of satisfaction. Granted, it is not the same type that you would find if you compelted a arduous mathematical formula or scientific experiment. It's a different kind of satisfaction, almost like recognizing the futility of attempting to understand everything and finding that recognition itself to be an epiphany.

 

[Scott Bakker]

No-Dog, I must ask this. What is the purpose in even arguing all of this? People who only accept proven fact will still only do that, and people who have unfounded beliefs will continue that. Even if it is proven that either way is correct or not, would it have an impact?

I'm not sure what you mean, Grantaire. If you're right, and minds never are changed (which is not the case), then your very own question is confronted by the futility you allude to. Why argue anything? Why question?

I fail to see why the nihilism of modern science is a bad thing. I'm happy with it, I don't need a reason to exist, a purpose to fulfill. My existance needs no justification, I didn't ask to exist, but I do. And yet, with that viewpoint, it doesn't seem that by your argument I should be attracted to fantasy- and yet I am. How can you connect that?

So you accept that you have no free will, that right and wrong are simply illusions, that not only your life, but what you suffer and hope are pointless, and that those you love are simply biomechanisms generating emergent behavioural outputs driven by environmental inputs, and whose death has no more intrinsic meaning than the death of an insect?

If so, you're made of sterner (and dare I say, more frightening ) stuff than the vast majority of us!

I may have completely agreed with the logic of an argument, but the reslut may have been unfulfilling. I write fantasy for entertainment and I write it in order to try to explore the issues in a different context that I had spent years exploring on a purely academic level. You can ask questions and raise issues repeatedly in a great epic story, and you don't even need to answer them all.

We have a lot in common, Gemquest. That's the thing for me too. In narrative, you can at least reenact the scene of the crime.

 

[Grantaire]

I'm not sure what you mean, Grantaire. If you're right, and minds never are changed (which is not the case), then your very own question is confronted by the futility you allude to. Why argue anything? Why question?

I'm not saying that minds arenever changed, simply that most argument is futile in cases such as these. As I said before, most science cannot be argued- if you are presented with proven numbers, you must accept the truth. But in such a place here, where we argue our cases using only our minds, and the nimbleness of our language, we cannot prove anything- everything we say can and will be argued. If we cannot prove our point beyond doubt, is there a good reason to try? (yes, I know that in saying that I'm arguing my point, and thus going against my point, but oh well )


So you accept that you have no free will, that right and wrong are simply illusions, that not only your life, but what you suffer and hope are pointless, and that those you love are simply biomechanisms generating emergent behavioural outputs driven by environmental inputs, and whose death has no more intrinsic meaning than the death of an insect?

If so, you're made of sterner (and dare I say, more frightening ) stuff than the vast majority of us!

Yes, I have accepted that for quite a while. Maybe those are the very truths of our existance, but truths we don't really wish to accept. I didn't ask to exist, and as my existance is in a society, I need to abide by their rules and ideas of right and wrong, for I crave the freedom to think and reason that (insofar as I know) I can have only in this thing we call life. I know and accept what you said, although I cannot help but make the motions that society demands. Read this No-Dog, I posted it on another forum a day or two ago, maybe it will reveal to you my perspective (it was written on the spur of the moment, so forgive me if it isn't exactly too organized or precise, and even in the time since I've wanted to change some of it). It doesn't deal with exactly what you spoke of, but it says a little of my worldview.

Humans. We are (somewhat) intelligent species of macromolecule life living on the surface of a ball of rock orbiting in the cosmos around a medium sized orb of fire and nuclear reactions, in the outer arm of an average galaxy, in a cluster of galaxies, in an unknown position relative the the unimaginably huge universe.

Our day to day life is filled with what we view as the ordinary- driving cars, working at whatever our job may be, using computers, going to school, etc. And yet, are the simple things of life that we are so used to, and even consider trite, are they not unbelievably wonderous? Against that foreground on life in which we do what we find to be normal- courting and dating, playing sports, and so much more, should we not find ourselves in constant incredulity and joyful wonder at this very existance?

Each day the scientists of humanity discover more and more about the universe around us, from the scale of galaxies to the shadowy realm of the msot fundamental particles. There is so much randomness and uncertainty in the universe, what are the odds that the universe would form in such a way that our solar system would develop in a way that earth would come together in such a way that would facilitate the development of life, and eventually us.

Sometimes when I read various passages of science books, I shiver in awe at this, and I feel so insignificant before the mighty expanses of the cosmos...in the foreground of life, I'm a teenage guy who likes reading and music and all that...but in the background that we don't look at all too often, I'm simply an arrangement of billions of atoms in such a way that another creature called a human exists.

I gaze up at the stars at night, feeling not only awe at my and their existance, but also feeling like my life doesn't truly matter in the grand scheme of things, the entire existance of humanity is less than the blink of an eye to the universe, and my life even less time than that. My birth, time on earth, and death will have no impact on the grand majesty of the cosmos. And yet I am here to think and to marvel at that.

At one moment I am just one person among billions, an ant on this rock, marching out the path of my day with the occurances we view with so much importance, getting good grades, getting a date, and so forth. And yet at another, I am alone in the universe, a spectre haunting the depths of knowledge and the universe.

I think it will be interesting to see what you make of that. Maybe I am made of sterner stuff in that I can accept a frightening truth, but I feel that to not accept the truth is to do myself a great injustice. Knowledge is all I want.

 

[Dawnstorm]

So you accept that you have no free will, that right and wrong are simply illusions, that not only your life, but what you suffer and hope are pointless, and that those you love are simply biomechanisms generating emergent behavioural outputs driven by environmental inputs, and whose death has no more intrinsic meaning than the death of an insect?

If so, you're made of sterner (and dare I say, more frightening ) stuff than the vast majority of us!

So you're yearning for absolutes, but can't bring yourself to believe in them? Is that it?

For the record, my personal reactions, to the above:

No free will - *shrug* (I make decisions, whatever that means; "free will" is a non-issue in my life)
Right and Wrong simply illusions - I propose action and consequence as a more tractable concept;
those you love are simply biomechanisms generating emergent behavioural outputs driven by environmental inputs, and whose death has no more intrinsic meaning than the death of an insect - check (perhaps not in these words; too many assumptions in there). Doesn't matter, though, as there's nothing to keep me from loving them anyway

I fail to see, why a value you hold must be validated by a greater authority. Or why you must hold onto a value past its expiry date. Does that make me a nihilist, I wonder?

I do think you should be nice to your fellow beings (human and others). That doesn't make it an absolute. It's part of my make-up, be it nature or nurture or fate or whatever...

Action and consequence is quite enough for me. In the end, I feel, I'm you're opposite, No-Dog. I feel, that what I think you refer to as the "nihilism of science" is very appealing to me, but I don't really see how science has anything more compelling to offer than religion or philosophy. And in the end, the human condition mucks up the "purity" (conceptual, not essential) of science, religion and philosphy, anyway.

 

[Bond]

Bond: So you're saying, all things being equal, then self-interest does count?

The situation is similar to the case with Descartes' dilemma. It is interesting that you choose to label the driving motivation as "self-interest". What is the alternative?

But if you come to the conclusion that the question of God's existence cannot be answered, isn't that actually what you believe? Deciding to believe in God simply to cover your bets smacks of bad faith, don't you think?

Is deciding to believe something the same as believing something? Belief is not as cheap as you purport it to be.

I've always joked that being honest to what you know has simply got to be good enough, and that if there is a deity waiting on the other side, and he punishes my honesty with oblivion or hellfire or the like, then the Cathar's were right: the greatest trick Satan ever played on humanity wasn't convincing them he didn't exist, but convincing them his name was 'God.'

Sounds the same as following your conscience.

 

[Grantaire]

The situation is similar to the case with Descartes' dilemma. It is interesting that you choose to label the driving motivation as "self-interest". What is the alternative?
Interest in others.

Is deciding to believe something the same as believing something? Belief is not as cheap as you purport it to be.
It depends on the case. In deciding to believe something, regardless of reason, you're putting belief into it. Belief is quite cheap, because it doesn't need anything to back it up.

 

[Scott Bakker]

Much of what humans used to cherish has now been devalued. Scientific inquiries have led to inventions and discoveries that have enabled us to live longer and relatively healthier lives. But at what cost? The discussion of Life and Meaning have gone from "Why has God created this system?" to "Who am I?" It is a very existentialist crisis that we're facing these days. The fabled Meaning of Life question didn't have that much importance in the days of the Malleus Malificarum, because Life just was, with its set orders of existence along a Great Chain of Being. Yet now, we humans seem to be struggling to place ourselves in some sort of working context, one that cannot be destroyed by the next round of scientific discussions. It is definitely that proverbial hard row to hoe for us now.

Ayuh. Great expression of the dilemma, Aldarion.

After pages of jousting over the relative merits of scientific and religious theoretical truth claims, I'm hoping that minimally, people can agree that the rise to dominance of the latter has had a profound impact on the social status of the latter. I take it to be a truism that most people (in the industrialized world anyway) think that belief in religious theoretical truth claims is a matter of 'personal preference,' which is to say, beyond the pale of rational consensus. This was not always the case.

It occurred to me while pondering your post, Aldarion, that the differences between ancient epic scripture and modern epic fantasy (over and above the scripture/fantasy dichotomy) might actually be used as a cipher in trying to determine the underlying social roots of fantasy.

For instance, take to the juvenile protagonist, which is quite common to epic fantasy and entirely missing from ancient epics. The 'identity crisis' of the juvenile hero seems to be a matter of straightforward 'wish-fullfillment.' Mundane and powerless in appearance, but actually secretly 'exceptional.' But what else might explain this difference?

 

[Larry]

Ayuh. Great expression of the dilemma, Aldarion.

After pages of jousting over the relative merits of scientific and religious theoretical truth claims, I'm hoping that minimally, people can agree that the rise to dominance of the latter has had a profound impact on the social status of the latter. I take it to be a truism that most people (in the industrialized world anyway) think that belief in religious theoretical truth claims is a matter of 'personal preference,' which is to say, beyond the pale of rational consensus. This was not always the case.

It occurred to me while pondering your post, Aldarion, that the differences between ancient epic scripture and modern epic fantasy (over and above the scripture/fantasy dichotomy) might actually be used as a cipher in trying to determine the underlying social roots of fantasy.

For instance, take to the juvenile protagonist, which is quite common to epic fantasy and entirely missing from ancient epics. The 'identity crisis' of the juvenile hero seems to be a matter of straightforward 'wish-fullfillment.' Mundane and powerless in appearance, but actually secretly 'exceptional.' But what else might explain this difference?

You're planning on making sure that I have plenty of paper topics in case I ever want to collect them all into a book, huh?

The bit about a social cipher has occurred to me, actually. But for me to address it adequately, I'd have to take (and this is a conservative estimate here) about a year or two at least to refamiliarize myself with about a few hundred works of the ancients and medievalists, not to mention try to recall all the forms of social discourse that I remember discussing in my early modern cultural history classes, just to begin answering this in full. But in short, I do believe there are certain elements of epic writing that affirmed the existing culture (and if you haven't, you really need to read Torquato Tasso's Jerusalem Delivered to see how Tasso simultaneously tries to preserve a fast fading social order (he wrote in the 1550s) and mythologicize it into a form that rendered much of it ambiguous in meaning) and others (such as the Kalevala) that served to weaken existing structures.

The bits about the change from a more demigod-like main character to a vulnernable person, such as the peasant youth, is definitely something to work on, but likely for a related paper and not this one (at least not in detailed focus). I'll have to consider this at some length before being able to give a more complete answer.

The scary thing about all this research and writing is that perversely I'm being tempted to write some of this in verse, having read so much of it recently.

 

[Gary Wassner]

Interesting, No Dog, that you brought up the juvenile heroes in modern Epic Fantasy. Yes, they were absent to an extent in ancient epics, though children of heroes were frequently present. The life span of humans was also much shorter, so the older characters were even older in our terms.

But, the fairy tales of the middle ages were rife with young characters. So the tradition began long before Epic Fantasy was a clear genre. The genesis of the child-hero/protagonist would be an interesting one to study.

 

[Grantaire]

After pages of jousting over the relative merits of scientific and religious theoretical truth claims, I'm hoping that minimally, people can agree that the rise to dominance of the latter has had a profound impact on the social status of the latter. I take it to be a truism that most people (in the industrialized world anyway) think that belief in religious theoretical truth claims is a matter of 'personal preference,' which is to say, beyond the pale of rational consensus. This was not always the case.

(I like how you put it as jousting ) Yes, I can certainly agree to that. Of course, people's views on exactly
what the change of the social status occurred, and what it entailed could be quite different. Could you explain what you mean by the latter half of that paragraph please?

 

[Larry]

But, the fairy tales of the middle ages were rife with young characters. So the tradition began long before Epic Fantasy was a clear genre. The genesis of the child-hero/protagonist would be an interesting one to study.

I hope you're not trying to talk me into writing two papers now, are you?

 

[Gary Wassner]

My thought exactly Aldarion. I just concealed it in a reply to No Dog. I knew you couldn't resist.

 

[Scott Bakker]

But, the fairy tales of the middle ages were rife with young characters. So the tradition began long before Epic Fantasy was a clear genre. The genesis of the child-hero/protagonist would be an interesting one to study.

Very interesting... Were fairy-tales typically a child-oriented literature from the get-go? Did the Romans or Greeks have them? I know next to nothing about them - 'cept that they tend to be as scarey as hell!

The bits about the change from a more demigod-like main character to a vulnernable person, such as the peasant youth, is definitely something to work on, but likely for a related paper and not this one (at least not in detailed focus). I'll have to consider this at some length before being able to give a more complete answer.

I was just thinking aloud, Aldarion - no need to start another paper!

Here's one possible way to read it.

One social transformation that might partially explain the shift from the demigod to the innocent has to do with the breakdown in traditional forms of adolescent self-identification. Before the Enlightenment, for instance, juveniles could pretty much count on inheriting their parent's social identity. With the concentration of production and the resulting proliferation of possible social roles (there's literally tens of thousands of occupations nowadays), suddenly social self-identification was no longer a given. Thus the 'who-am-I' anxieties of the modern teenager.

In a society organized around free-markets, need equals profit: not surprisingly, a large part of our contemporary culture industry is devoted to marketing (usually pseudo-rebellious) social indentities to juveniles - helping them develop their 'individual style' through accessories and corporate affiliations. Would it be too cynical to suggest the 'juvenile hero' in epic fantasy is in part a bid to make money by giving our angst-ridden, pseudo-rebellious teenagers something to identify with?

Another social transformation has to do with the discrediting of old age. Not so very long ago, it was possible for older individuals to embody the 'wisdom of the tribe' - to be very valuable members of the community. But now, given the specialization of knowledge and the incredible pace of technologically driven social change, the wisdom of the elders has come to seem as much a liability as anything else. Our 'revered elders' have become 'sticks in the mud.'

Can't get that image of Aeneas fleeing Troy out of my head...

 

[Erfael]

One social transformation that might partially explain the shift from the demigod to the innocent has to do with the breakdown in traditional forms of adolescent self-identification. Before the Enlightenment, for instance, juveniles could pretty much count on inheriting their parent's social identity. With the concentration of production and the resulting proliferation of possible social roles (there's literally tens of thousands of occupations nowadays), suddenly social self-identification was no longer a given. Thus the 'who-am-I' anxieties of the modern teenager.

I think this has everything to do with it. Not just this, though, but also the demythification of our world. There is no longer any ritual to help these kids figure out HOW to fit into a world this big, not just what their place will be. And it doesn't just apply to kids. There are plenty of 20 and 30 and 40 year olds now who are in the same situation, have never figured out how they fit into the world. And with the mega-commercialization that's going on, they don't have to figure it out to keep living, but to live healthily (physically as well as mentally) they have to. However the corporations aren't interested in them living healthily, just as good consumers. I think the last generation that really had a good sense of their place in the world was Brokaw's Greatest Generation. They really understood their place in the world after being put through WWII.

 

[Larry]

Very interesting... Were fairy-tales typically a child-oriented literature from the get-go? Did the Romans or Greeks have them? I know next to nothing about them - 'cept that they tend to be as scarey as hell!




I was just thinking aloud, Aldarion - no need to start another paper!

Here's one possible way to read it.

One social transformation that might partially explain the shift from the demigod to the innocent has to do with the breakdown in traditional forms of adolescent self-identification. Before the Enlightenment, for instance, juveniles could pretty much count on inheriting their parent's social identity. With the concentration of production and the resulting proliferation of possible social roles (there's literally tens of thousands of occupations nowadays), suddenly social self-identification was no longer a given. Thus the 'who-am-I' anxieties of the modern teenager.

In a society organized around free-markets, need equals profit: not surprisingly, a large part of our contemporary culture industry is devoted to marketing (usually pseudo-rebellious) social indentities to juveniles - helping them develop their 'individual style' through accessories and corporate affiliations. Would it be too cynical to suggest the 'juvenile hero' in epic fantasy is in part a bid to make money by giving our angst-ridden, pseudo-rebellious teenagers something to identify with?

Another social transformation has to do with the discrediting of old age. Not so very long ago, it was possible for older individuals to embody the 'wisdom of the tribe' - to be very valuable members of the community. But now, given the specialization of knowledge and the incredible pace of technologically driven social change, the wisdom of the elders has come to seem as much a liability as anything else. Our 'revered elders' have become 'sticks in the mud.'

Can't get that image of Aeneas fleeing Troy out of my head...

Very plausible answer, No-Dog, but I'll have to think on it some more. I suspect there are some other counterarguments besides the fairy tale protagonists, but I need to read up some more. Can't you tell that I'm ever the skeptic, even when I agree with the main premises?

And as for Aeneas, here's a bit that'll make you and others curse me:

Infandum, regina, iubes renovare dolerem,
Troianas ut opes et lamentabile regnum
eruerint Danai, quaeque ipse miserrima vidi
et quorum pars magna fui. Quis talia fando
Myrmidonum Dolopumve aut duri miles Ulixi
temperet a lacrimis? Et iam nox umida caelo
præcipitat suadentque cadentia sidera somnos.
Sed si tantus amor casus cognoscere nostros
et breviter Troiae supremum audire laborem,
quamquam animus meminisse horret luctuque refugit incipiam.

Book II, verses 3-12

And before you ask, I can still understand most of that

 

[Bond]

The situation is similar to the case with Descartes' dilemma. It is interesting that you choose to label the driving motivation as "self-interest". What is the alternative?
Interest in others.

You jump the gun. How can you begin to talk or think in terms of the other when you cannot even reference the self? The conundrum presented by Descartes I think has parallels to this faith problem brought up. You can conclude this world doesn't exist if you wish. If you've become that cynical, I don't think science can help you because by then even the application of science I would think would be suspect. It comes down to faith.

Is deciding to believe something the same as believing something? Belief is not as cheap as you purport it to be.
It depends on the case. In deciding to believe something, regardless of reason, you're putting belief into it. Belief is quite cheap, because it doesn't need anything to back it up.

It doesn't? Doesn't it need your conscience to back it up?

 

[Gary Wassner]

I don't think that the dilemma is unique to this generation of youth. Throughout written history, the struggle to determine personal self worth and meaning is rampant. Sure, today's world is different and the perspectives are different, but looking back on ages past, when was there a time that change was not dramatic?
Who has ever really figured out 'how they fit into the world'? We find our places and we either grow comfortable in them or remain restless, but when has man ever found the answers? Even the question has not really changed over time. The world today may be more complicated, but I don't feel that the personal quests have changed all that much.