Mouprise.com

Art, Machiavelli and the eternal improvement of the human condition – How art can change the world

progress huh? – You can’t stop it.

Lately, I’ve been chewing on the subject of progress in a what’s it all about kind of way. What are we all fighting for and where does art fit into it? Does it have any function beyond the beautification of our environment? Can it really impact modern thought, or is it now out of the loop? Technology has undoubtedly advanced in recent centuries and irrevocably cemented its central role in our lives; However, music and art, although they have undeniably developedhow far they have progressed is anyone’s guess.

Ho hmm. As I flip through my history books and touch the golden orb of truth that is Wikipedia, I can’t help but wonder what the other civilizations in the intergalactic gym of truth must think. When Humanity stumbles through the door every day in her puffy spandex and hot pink leg warmers. As he continually skims, he kneels on the wheel of self-improvement and embarrassingly entangles himself in the rowing machine of enlightenment.

Kirkpatrick Sale*’s essay “Five Facets of a Myth” argues that the very term progressit’s a cultural misconception: “nothing more than a useful myth, a deeply ingrained unexamined construct.”

Hmm, and I guess humanity is meant to be a couch potato, and that’s it. We should all stop trying.

The core of his argument is his view that the technological progress we have enjoyed over the last century has failed to herald an era of peace and personal enlightenment, and has instead brought us to the brink of ecological disaster. Well I guess you have a point there.

Over the centuries, so many dubious initiatives have been endorsed in the name of progress, it’s not hard to make a compelling case that progress might simply be a misnomer, exploited and propagated by those in power or those seeking it. .

He goes on to suggest that its origins are rooted in the Renaissance, in which its proponents “promoted the idea of ​​the regular and eternal improvement of the human condition.” As the maxims say, I think this is pretty good. But if, in reality, this shining ideal requires a daily routine of 200 mind bends, an ethical five-mile jog, and no more chocolate, I can see where we might be in trouble.

Furthermore, from this maxim the materialist interpretation of capitalism was later born:

“The eternal material improvement of the human condition.

And if Sale’s observation is correct, surely so is the Machiavellian pragmatic approach to politics:

“The power and money people will throw at anyone who promises improvement of the human condition.

Which paints an intricate and more complex picture than first thought.

The darker side of human nature is a perennial weed that threatens to hijack the noblest ideological rose beds. [ttt]**. where Plato, and othersbuilt impeccable republics to which we could aspire, Machiavelli demonstrated that these same republics would have to be built on the mud of human frailty.

Machiavelli, so often misattributed for coining the phrase “the end justifies the means”, can be seen to subscribe to this notion of progress throughout his writings. The end in this case paraphrased notes the common good; improving the current human condition. The meanings is a logical progression from this goal. It implies that we have not yet reached the end of our improvement. Recognize, therefore, that we are imperfect, perhaps seriously flawed, and therefore will cut corners, cheat, lie, or simply fall short. This presents an interesting premise.

How can something that is imperfect create perfection?

Human beings are trying to build a better society. We are quite capable of noble ideas, but as tools to implement this society we are inescapably flawed. Machiavelli saw this and realized that, in reality, any large-scale attempt to improve civilization would inevitably be hampered by the nastier aspects of human nature. So he wrote a rule book about the realities and pitfalls of running society in the face of these flaws.

Some saw it as a cynical guide on how to get sixteen powers in ten easy steps. I prefer to see it as an honest observation of human tendencies: a warning to the citizens of the world: “Beware! This is how your leaders can really be.”

Publicly, a ruler must be seen as blameless, as the embodiment of this eternal self-improvement, and must persuade the nation that the human condition is being nurtured under their leadership, whether or not it is.

That is why scandal is such a powerful political weapon; why politicians go to great lengths to demonstrate the long list of improvements they have brought us during their tenure.

Sale’s interpretation of this seems to be that progress is not necessarily something we should embrace. He cites a range of statistics that show us that our technological advancement is killing the environment, wiping out flora and fauna, widening the poverty gap, increasing laziness and apathy. He cites higher levels of stress, unhappiness and working hours.

“Progress is the myth that assures us that moving at full speed is never wrong. Ecology is the discipline that teaches us that it is a disaster.”

Sale’s arguments use many hard facts and statistics. But I do not think that this requires the abolition of our attempts to improve ourselves. I would say that his statistics simply confirm that getting in shape is not an easy task.

The crux of the problem must always come back to our flawed human nature. Human beings are brilliant and inventive. The collective knowledge at our disposal continues to grow at an incredible rate, and this is something to be admired, not deplored. The scientist’s search for truth is similar to that of the artist, although the potential applications of his discoveries are many times more dangerous.

During the Renaissance, the arts and sciences seemed to be more closely intertwined. They seemed driven by the same philosophical principles: uphold cosmological truths; to explore the glorious order and harmony on which our wondrous domain must surely have been built. Perhaps this marriage was an illusion. Perhaps the image of Da Vinci – embracing both art and science – is too romantic to dispel.

But the truth is, while science presents us with an ever-growing arsenal of tools with which to design the world, art explores the hearts of those who would wield them. I feel like this is key. And perhaps there is a balance that needs to be rectified if we are to progress optimally as a species.

We are at a time when we have at our disposal the means to feed and educate the entire world. We could, if we wanted to, shape the world in almost any way we wanted. To redistribute wealth and empower the individual in ways we never thought possible. If we wanted to.

Because we do not want to? As Sale points out, why do so many of us face starvation, disease, and subjugation? The answer must be in the self-examination.

Is human nature an immutable constant, something we should simply accept will never change, or, like a disobedient bully, has it gone unchallenged for all these centuries while bookish philosophers complain about it behind its back?

Contemporary myths fascinate me. Heroes and villains and all kinds of archetypes appear everywhere in our culture, serving to encode all kinds of bits of contemporary ethics, just as the Olympians did in Greek times.

In discussing the Superman archetype, Elliot S. Maggin says that today, “the superhero is Everyman. Look at the way we live: traveling on Earth at astonishing speeds; … instantly communicating at will with people in the farthest corners”. of the world; engineering economics; driving environmental forces, working wonders.

In the comics, Superman hears someone scream and flies off to save the day. He is fixing the world. In real life, Superman is eating a TV dinner and flipping through the channels. He could take a look at the six o’clock news before sitting down to watch the big game.

Maybe that’s a bit harsh. However, it was fun to write. So what is my conclusion?

Good. Science deals with objective truth. What is physically possible. It gives us a region of potential to explore, but offers no advice on the best direction. Technology is the embodiment of the choices we make. Empty your pockets, what do you have? A nuclear bomb or a nuclear power plant?

If science is our motorhome, then the arts, in all their various guises, are our handy guide to the magical road trip of destiny. Politics, then, is the back row that follows when no one can agree on where to go. Either the father puts his foot down, or there is a threat to turn around and go home (which never happens), or a fragile compromise is made to put an end to everyone’s moody tantrums. Either way, we’re all going to sit there, arms folded, feeling a little disgruntled.

How this flight of fancy affects my work is anyone’s guess. The simple beautification of one’s surroundings is perhaps more significant than most people would realize. But if art has another role to play, perhaps it’s ensuring the guide offers the most exciting Technicolor destinations, with as many interesting (and relevant) alternatives as possible. So at least, despite the inevitable compromises, it could still lead to a satisfying road trip.