This morning, the lecturer taught about a concept Lewis called "Chronological Snobbery" or the idea that newer is better, that we now know what those poor ignorant ancients never grasped, and we can laugh at their cute ideas of nature, of humanity, and of the universe while recognizing our own moral and intellectual superiority. Related to the ideas of Darwin that we, as a species, are constantly evolving, chronological snobbery asserts that humanity progresses in knowledge and the past is not something we learn wisdom from so much as something to scoff at.
Lewis admits that in some areas, human beings have progressed and continue to progress, but he blasts the idea in general and asserts that it is logically untenable. One argument he presents goes something like this. If we are indeed constantly evolving, then the arrogant assumption that we now have it right is an incredible leap of faith. What about ten years from now when we learn something new? As an example, in post-Newtonian physics, scientists were pretty sure they had the mechanics of the Universe pretty well figured out. They had equations and models to represent the reality they observed and empirical and theoretical results seemed to match pretty well. Those models led to amazing advances in technology, some of which still continue today based on that foundation of Newtonian physics. But Einstein came along and said, "That's great, but it's not quite right." as he offered us his theories of special and general relativity. These theories break down to Newtonian physics under certain assumptions, but he challenged "laws" of physics that had been accepted for centuries. His theories are now widely accepted.
Poor ignorant Newton. Now we've got it figured out. But who's to say Einstein got it right? Scientists from Newton to Einstein were pretty smug about the ignorance of their predecessors and their own enlightenment. Why, in our arrogance, do we assume that Einstein got the whole story or that his models are even valid, or if they are, that they are exclusively valid? Each new generation, each age, makes their models of life and the universe over again in their own image. The medieval literati employed a hierarchical model of nature and the universe. We employ a democratic model with "laws" that nature obeys.
Lewis challenges the modern views on many things and often harks back to the medieval ages. The lecturer even stated that Lewis challenged some very common assumptions on medieval thinking and labeled them as propaganda. He claims that the idea that people before Columbus thought the world was flat is a lie and he quotes from many sources demonstrating an awareness that the world was round. He also attacks the idea that medieval people had no concept of the vastness of space. Lewis provides quotes to challenge that assumption. He says that the intelligentsia understood these things in a way similar to our modern understanding. He claims the common man really didn't think of them at all. Those ideas surprised me a little, but I'll have to look into that more to be sure for myself.
Lewis had more to say on the subject of chronological snobbery than I can post about, but if I made my posts long enough to really explore what Lewis said, no one would want to read my blog. I'm sure he defended his position much better than I have. But this is my blog, not his. And my thoughts superimposed on his ideas are the best I can offer.
If you haven't read Lewis, give him a try. He'll challenge your way of thinking. That's always a fun experience for me. I don't agree with everything of his that I've read, but then again, I've never read a book I agree with 100%. Give him a try and see if he doesn't challenge you to revise the way you see the world just a little bit. After listening to these lectures, I'm ready to re-read some of his stuff with new eyes and tackle some of his works that I haven't gotten to yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment