Plato Would Have Wanted Us to Unplug

https://eidolon.pub/plato-would-have-wanted-you-to-unplug-712a908a16e0

by fern12 • 9 years ago

112 72 9 years ago

The author of this piece is clearly incredibly well read and yet it seems she read all of these classical works with disdain for their authors or at least with the deeply held belief that they can't truly be taken seriously. That belief is probably so deeply held that she's not even aware that she holds it.

I know that in my own experience I grew up thinking that way. When you truly accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than the people that came before us it opens your mind to the lessons of history in a very real way.

After all, if we cling to this primitive idea that an addictive substance must be eradicated, and if we live in a world in which sex and food are considered addictive, where does that leave us as a species?

Have you considered that this "primitive" idea comes up over and over again among great thinkers and writers throughout human history because there's something to it? Do you think people today live happier, more fulfilling lives because food is superabundant to the point of excess and sexual proclivities are uninhibited?

Why are you so sure?

projektir2• 9 years ago

I think this view is more problematic than the one you're critiquing...

I don't think it's too unreasonable to assume more modern people (significantly more modern, even), are a bit more enlightened on some subjects. At least, we no longer consider things like slavery and sexism OK, yet ancient people did, which indicates some significant gaps in their philosophies and high influence from outside.

Have you considered that this "primitive" idea comes up over and over again among great thinkers and writers throughout human history because there's something to it?

Well, there is something to it... it's often reflecting the natural order of things, or the Zeitgeist of that time. Generally, a great thinker does not transcend time and is somewhat locked into their time, in that only certain strains of thought seem to exist during a time period and others do not, which indicates that overall variety of thinking is just not very high, regardless of how much of a "great thinker" you are.

This, of course, it true for our time as well. Very likely many things we believe today are heavily influenced by whatever is, in a sense, "fashionable". Some ideas are best left unstated.

The age, or lack of thereof, won't really tell you how accurate or useful something is, you'll have to evaluate it on its own terms. I don't like terms like "primitive" because they don't mean anything on their own, but that's a different question.

leggomylibro2• 9 years ago

On the other hand, we also live in a crazy extreme environment today compared to olde times. We have better sanitation and life expectancy, but also way more exposure to things like lead, diesel fumes, radiation, environmental pollutants magnified through the foodchain...

I mean, how many Greek cities had nuclear landfill fires smoldering underneath them? Fewer than modern America. And how much mercury and DDT was in the fish they ate? How many pharmaceuticals in their runoff water?

hnthrwawy5666• 9 years ago

At least, we no longer consider things like slavery and sexism OK

No one has ever thought sexism is OK just like no one has ever thought murder is OK. The term contains within it the implicit value judgement.

So long as there is sexual dimorphism among humans there will be a fundamental nature to the relations between the sexes and gender roles. If you would like to keep your mind closed and not think about the possibility that what we have now is not necessarily in keeping with that nature, that is your prerogative.

adrianratnapala3• 9 years ago

... When you truly accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than the people that came ...

The trouble is that we are more enlightened.

dasil003• 9 years ago

Scientific knowledge != enlightenment.

KGIII5• 9 years ago

... we are more enlightened.

We have always believed that.

dragonsky67• 9 years ago

The idea of Enlightenment has intrigued me ever since a conversation I had when I was working with the UN in a third world country.

The conversation was with a lady from an African country and she was talking about her tribe. She said she was from the enlightened tribe. My initial reaction was to question her belief in her own superior enlightenment. My subsequent reaction was to question my own level of enlightenment and ask what right I had to question hers.

My feeling is that enlightenment (or whatever metaphysical term you want to use) can only be gained following a long period of introspection and study requiring isolation, peace and calm, something that is sadly lacking in most parts of the modern world. Claiming that we are more enlightened than the ancients where such conditions only required finding the proverbial mountain cave is a bit of a stretch.

wildmusings• 9 years ago

Another trope that bothers me, along similar lines, also appears in this article: that people have always had anxieties about the changing ways and attitudes of the youth, and so we should dismiss such fears.

In fact, ancient civilizations did fall, sometimes because their people lost the will and confidence needed to maintain the institutions that they inherited. Because they became decadent in their abundance and abandoned the virtues that created their fortunes in the first place.

vacri4• 9 years ago

When you truly accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than the people that came before us

We're not necessarily smarter (native intellect) but we are a shitload more enlightened (educated, experienced). In Plato's time, only the absolute social elite could converse in this manner, whereas now we have much broader and deeper knowledge available (and discussed) on pretty much every aspect of life that is common between our times.

Don't fall into the trap of deifying past thinkers; they were humans too. Yes, we can learn lessons from them, but our populace as a whole is more enlightened than the populace as a whole in Plato's time. One simple example is egalitarianism; while not perfect now, Greek democracies were only democratic for elite men. Sucks to be you if you're a slave or a woman because... um... that's just the way it is? If you're going to be making theory, you should work from solid foundations - the ancient Greeks had some really wrong ideas about the role of the physical heart and brain of a human, and no-one today would talk about the left ventricle being the source of human heat, for example.

hnthrwawy5666• 9 years ago

they were humans too

Yes they were. However I'll put more stock in the ideas that have survived and been promulgated throughout the ages than I would, for example, some poorly thought out perspective from some random guy on HN.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

and no-one today would talk about the left ventricle being the source of human hea

No one today would seriously suggest that a low-fat high-carb diet was healthy and yet that's exactly what was advocated by the medical profession up until about 5 years ago.

lmm2• 9 years ago

Do you think people today live happier, more fulfilling lives because food is superabundant to the point of excess and sexual proclivities are uninhibited?

Yes, very much so.

Why are you so sure?

Because it aligns with my experience, ultimately. And because I have explanations for why these ancient thinkers thought the way they did - the kind of sexual behaviour that made sense in a world without modern medicine is very different from what makes sense with it.

hnthrwawy5666• 9 years ago

Because it aligns with my experience, ultimately.

The experience of one person over not even a full lifetime?

That's just laughably dumb. I don't mean to be rude but I also don't know what to say to that.

dvt• 9 years ago

Studies have shown that psychological issues, often caused by pain or unmet needs in childhood, are far more likely to lead to an addiction to something than that something (whatever it is—heroin, sugar, sex) is likely to cause an addiction in a psychologically healthy, happy person who has the skills to cope with the stuff life constantly throws at us.

Obviously having studies is nice, but I feel that this is pretty intuitive (I wonder why/if Dr. Andrew Doan would disagree).

With that said, I think the correct headline would have been "Socrates Would Have Wanted Us to Unplug." And, because it's Socrates we're talking about here, we can't really take him seriously. I'm not sure about him being the Ur-millennial, but he was certainly the Ur-troll. The author herself admits she's being a bit facetious (w.r.t. books), but I think the distinction is important.

Plato probably would have approved of Waldorf- or oppressive-Religious-homeschooling-style extremism—hell, he kind of invented it—and if we want to follow in his great tradition we should not only ban all screens but also all forms of writing and most literature.

This is really pushing it. Quoting from his "Republic" is kind of iffy because it's hard to tell whether or not the book is meant to be serious, sarcastic, taken literally, or taken in semi-jest. Interpretations vary wildly.

Either way, the article was a great read and I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion that instead of demonizing substances (or video games), we need to fix the underlying psychological issues.

jamesrcole2• 9 years ago

Obviously having studies is nice, but I feel that this is pretty intuitive

It's more than nice. Studies have shown that many intuitive notions are wrong. So it's really important to test the intuition.

AnimalMuppet• 9 years ago

Socrates would want us to not take anyone's word for it, including Socrates'. Plato might want the same.

icanhackit• 9 years ago

A verbose way of saying don't blame the drug, blame the shortcomings or trauma in one's life that created the impulse to abuse a drug. The article also touches on how something pleasurable doesn't become a drug until it becomes an unhealthy addiction - as long as it's used or enjoyed in moderation/with restraint, it's a medicine or tool.

If I could write that well I'd probably flaunt it, so no disrespect to the author.

davidscolgan4• 9 years ago

In the book "Reality is Broken" by Jane McGonigal, she argues that instead of video games being something that are a corrupting influence, real life is not nearly as engaging as it could be compared to video games.

Consider how some people get much more satisfaction out of being in a World of Warcraft guild compared to going to their public school. There is nothing that would make it impossible for a job or a school system to be as engaging as a video game, and there are actually people I once met at the Game Developers Conference (GDC) who are trying to do that.

On the other hand, from the perspective of evolution, the human brain did not evolve in the presence of things like high fructose corn syrup and infinite Facebook feeds, and so it can require unnatural efforts to use moderation, especially if someone is predisposed to be particularly addicted to something.

So, maybe like most things, the issue is more nuanced than just "video games are horrible" and "video games are completely good."

visarga• 9 years ago

As we're entering a risky new era in technology, it might be that same technology that would provide us with a cure.

davidscolgan4• 9 years ago

I am optimistic that that will turn out to be true. Some are pessimistic about, say, how there are so many different prescription drugs out there that now no doctor can realistically know how all of the interactions work. But, in the case of something like the IBM Watson computer, it (at least theoretically as it is pitched) can examine literally all the combinations and make it work.

My current running theory is that the world will become really great if we can just get to that point before everything explodes.

Sangermaine• 9 years ago

There is nothing that would make it impossible for a job or a school system to be as engaging as a video game

Of course there is: real life has real consequences like failing school or poverty or death if you mess up too badly. Part of the fun of video games is that you can do exciting things without actual risk.

amelius2• 9 years ago

This would mean that rich people have more fun, because their risks are lower.

ak_yo• 9 years ago

To tag on to this: I'd argue that work and school are more engaging than video games. When was the last time you just stopped going to work because it wasn't fun? Having to do these things in order to survive is extremely exciting, it just that the excitement doesn't feel good.

copperx• 9 years ago

If there were games where you could get physically hurt, they would easily have a bigger fanbase than regular games.

barce• 9 years ago

I'm not sure the author is doing an either/or. Instead she is examining the uses of the word "pharmakon" in Plato's work, and suggests that how it describes the innovation of written speech as a spell or drug or scapegoat could be inferred of technology, too. The author concludes, "Demonizing the substance, rather than the impulse, behind addiction is what leads us away from true healing and towards damaging narratives. Technophobia isn’t a soothing ointment, it’s pushing some guy you don’t like off a cliff and hoping your pustules magically disappear."

hnthrwawy5666• 9 years ago

The delay between the sacrifice and the gratification (and the corresponding neurochemical responses) in real life is often on the order of years or even decades.

In video games the delay is often on the order of minutes or hours.

The real world cannot compete with video games in the same way that milkshakes cannot compete with broccoli.

princeb• 9 years ago

the world is way more random than video games. in general most games reward effort with a small set of known outcomes, and for online RPGs and the like, the more effort (time) spent, the more rewards one can get.

in real life you could spend your entire life dedicated to a single craft and fall short for reasons outside of your control.

davidscolgan4• 9 years ago

Something that I've been thinking a lot about lately is the idea that due to the way humans evolved, we've spent most of the ~100k years of our species existence in an environment we evolved to be adapted to. Humans have spent most of our history as hunter-gatherers, and only in the last 6k years or so have we had civilization and only in the last 100 years have we invented abnormally pleasurable experiences (crack cocaine, Doritos, World of Warcraft, etc).

Milkshakes cannot compete with broccoli because milkshakes are far beyond the tastiness of anything we would have found in the savannas of Africa. But so my wonderance is - would life 70k years ago be as fulfilling and enjoyable as World of Warcraft, since that was the environment we were adapted to do well in?

Modern schools ask children to sit still for hours and do mental work. The savannas had us outside all the time, living with close family and friends, exercising a lot, etc.

I'm not trying to romanticize living in the jungle, just makes me wonder how our ancestors felt day to day.

deepnotderp• 9 years ago

The real world cannot compete with video games in the same way that milkshakes cannot compete with broccoli.

It's ironic that you bring this up because I actually quite like boiled broccoli.

jamesrcole2• 9 years ago

The delay between the sacrifice and the gratification ... in real life is often on the order of years or even decades.
In video games the delay is often on the order of minutes or hours.

Regarding the education component of the original comment, there can be just as much immediate gratification in education as there can be in games (note that the topic here is gratification, not how long it takes to really learn some topic). E.g. solving a problem that takes a minute to solve - whether there's the intrinsic gratification, or some sort of gamified element like getting points that will work towards you leveling up in some sort of scheme.

colordrops• 9 years ago

There is nothing that would make it impossible for a job or a school system to be as engaging as a video game

You mention "public school" in the previous sentence, which is important, because many private school do successfully address the engagement issue by having a much more rich and unstructured environment with better teacher to student ratios and passionate teachers that more freedom to innovate. That doesn't mean that there aren't great teachers at public schools, but that the standardization and lack of resources really hobbles them.

rtpg2• 9 years ago

Standardization is often talked about, but it would totally be possible to standardize on a "good curriculum".

It's extremely hard to find teachers that are willing and able to produce entire curriculums on their own for the group of 30 children. However, there are many teachers that would be excited to try out better curriculums if they were offered them. That curriculum can, of course, be less structured as well.

Hundred percent agree on lack of resources, of course.

coldtea• 9 years ago

In the book "Reality is Broken" by Jane McGonigal, she argues that instead of video games being something that are a corrupting influence, real life is not nearly as engaging as it could be compared to video games.

The same could be said for porn. But unless we think it's ok to turn everyday life in endless group-sex (often involving tentacled animals) I don't think it's relevant, either there or here.

Heck, the same holds for drug use -- drugged states can be more engaging as compared to "real life".

Games can be totally "exciting" by taking shortcuts and providing cheap dopamine thrills, in a way regular life can't easily replicate.

But the proper question is not what is more engaging, but what is more meaningful/useful.

davidscolgan4• 9 years ago

I agree with you - the threshold for what is engaging and what is over-engaging is not really very defined. That's where my thoughts from evolutionary psychology come, since it gives a way to define that threshold. Basically anything that is way beyond what we would have experienced 70k years ago might be best viewed with caution.

xchip• 9 years ago

Except that the guy in the picture of the article is Socrates.

kfk• 9 years ago

So far I’ve connected this blue-screens-of-death fear-mongering to technophobia

Writing style today in English speaking countries feels a bit baroque and over-decorated.

doctorstupid• 9 years ago

So we should allow children addictive substances and blame them when unable to control themselves?

mrdirt• 9 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFbMZkJJDk

danhess68• 9 years ago

Plato was a fascist.

Plato Would Have Wanted Us to Unplug

Related Stories