Following the Why isn't Austrian School of Economics more mainstream? thread it got me thinking why are the most widely held doctrines fly in the face of reality: from economics, to climate change and as far as literary theory the accepted "truth" is as far from itself as east is from west.
The question is why? All of you who have read Hayek may blame the intellectuals which of course are a major factor though isn't fundamental. I believe the two major factors are the formal education system and societal nihilism.
The current formal education system has no compass. Nobody knows what its purpose is. Is it to cultivate virtue? Is it to aid the examined life? We have the deafening sound of silence (I'm going through a Simon and Garfunkel phase). To hear this, just listen to political debates and inane public contributions. All it boils down to is we can do it better than the other party and the public saying the old days never aged. What one means by better is never discussed. Now you may argue that may be what the comprehensive (public for you over the pond) schools are like but in the hallowed cloisters of the university truth seeking is the sole quest. In fact universities are some of the most debauched institutions around. Both in my economics degree and my brother's Theoretical Physics masters the sole aim was to churn you through the mill to receive a piece of paper. And this was at a true red brick university. But why? The unuttered, though sometimes occasionally, ad hoc justification is the Marxian idea that education is to develop men for industry: otherwise known as to get a job.
The state funding of the educational institutions fosters this mentality. The incentive for the schools is to get as many children through their books as possible to learn and regurgitate the state's curriculum since that's what they call the piper’s successful "knowledge economy" tune; in fact it’s one of the few tune’s he can call with such a centralised system and an incredibly qualitative area. Attempting cultivation of the person for the examined life is neither possible nor desirable as it would lead to the State’s delegitimisation; similar problems exist with the universities. Further the free at the point of incarceration nature of schools, parents are encouraged to abandon their natural nurture and care of their children and leave it to the professionals. With children abandoned to the state their minds are rendered indolent; the exception being the children of the ruling class who enrol in elite private academies.
In the more academic environment it encourages scientism of the highest order since nothing else will get that grant money. The state can only be a pragmatic institution otherwise it would have died a death long ago. The success in the 19th/20th advances in the empirical sciences all disciplines attempted to ape this by making their studies "scientific" one because it was fashionable but also since it produces “results” which is the only thing the state deals in. This led to emasculation of the social sciences and the arts. Why fund some one to read when you can do on experiment which produces numbers?! It also harmed the hard sciences as well: not once was the nature or appropriate method discussed in the Theoretical Physics masters. All they were concerned with was throwing maths at everything so they could test it irrespective of whether the maths actually makes any sense in reality.
This is not to say that in a purely private formal educational system that pragmatism would be the name of the game however I think it would be tempered. With the hard sciences research would either be directed towards developing useful technologies which could involve arbitrary reasoning or could follow the Baconian idea that technological advancement comes as an offshoot of pure science. The current statist system and the prevailing scientism conflate the two resulting in today’s system.
The more fundamental reason though is the prevailing societal view is nihilistic. There is no truth, no laws and no God. We came from nothing and are going to nothing (I’m not saying no God implies nihilism but you can see why most nihilists are atheists since if there’s an overarching designer it would mean presence rather than absence) A slightly more nuanced view is that truth could exist but it is unknowable however it makes little practical difference. Consequently society as a whole is underpinned by the intensity over profundity principle (Don’t think I’m so profound as to come up with that- I stole it from this clever chap’s lecture- The Self at the End of the 20th Century Part 3 ) Since there is no telos to discover the only way to feel truly alive is through intense physical experience. Now since the same level of thrill has diminishing returns the incentive is to turn things up to 11.
This can be seen in many elements in modern society. The increase in drug use and self harming are most immediate examples of this phenomenon. A less direct effect but nonetheless evident is the representation of acts of violence and sex in the arts; they are realised to create an intense experience rather than left to the imagination. The area with which I’m most familiar in this regard is film. Take the film The Shawshank Redemption and compare the level of graphic violence with say No Country for Old Men: both were rated 15 in the UK (second only to an 18) yet the latter is light years ahead in the violence stakes. If No Country had have been made when Shawshank had been, 15 years or so ago, it certainly would have received 18 certificate. No Country may be actually making point with the violence and may not be entirely artless but it shows the intensity progression. Maybe the best (sic) example of brainless violence are the so called “torture porn” genre exemplified by the Saw (the 1st could be an exception) and Hostel franchise which are just sadistic because they can- the violence is the entertainment.
Interestingly one of the most nihilistic blockbusters of modern times, the Dark Knight actually eschewed realisation in favour of imagination and was far more affecting for it, although the main reason was probably so they could do the deal with Burger King. For an in depth review of the Dark Knight see here but the main points are man is depraved and “Chance is the only reality in this cruel world. Unprejudiced. Unbiased. Fair.” Two Face.
The increase in graphic nudity and sex for pure titillation value is also pervasive in films. For no logical reason scenes are shot in pole dancing clubs or female “characters” will walk across their bedroom topless. In the Lars von Trier film Antichrist the actors actually have sex on screen to further the realisation process. Further most of life is becoming fetishised, even food- the Marks and Spencer food adverts are more erotic than Channel 5’s straight to video sleazefests. This is unsurprising when sex is viewed purely in materialistic terms and is no different than slugs copulating; since there is only the hormonal kick, why not get it anywhere, anytime?
Now I’m not decrying the use of nudity/sex and violence on screen but just how and why it is used. The sex scene in Nicholas Roag’s Don’t Look Now is graphic but is an incredibly intimate and tasteful scene. Further Shakespeare and the Bible have quite a bit of it in too. Obviously there has always been a tendency to put the intense before the profound: Aristotle said that man is most often closer to the beasts than the spirit. And yes we don’t have Gladiators yet. The point stands however we are certainly heading further into the pit of intensity and the prevailing worldview encourages it.
In conclusion the formal education system isn’t set up to search for the truth but merely in producing compliant AI (Artificial Ignorance); and society thinks only sexy needles “exist”.
