Technique (part 5)

The Ancient Philosophical Problem That Remains With Us Today

As we have seen in this thread, the modern world has by and large adopted a value set that sets a high priority on technological development as an ultimate solution for problems facing society. This has brought us to our current crisis. There is an implicit faith in technological advancement that it will resolve the problems of modern man, despite the fact that careful analysis reveals that it is technological progress itself that has been responsible for the creation of many of these problems. This implicit faith that technological advancement holds the key to social progress, as well as to the problems it itself generates, deserves a name, as it is very widely held. It is sometimes referred to as faith in progress, or “progressivism,” but this lacks the technology-specific reference that would be hermeneutically proficuous. French writer Jacques Ellul has suggested the term “Technique” to allude to the “spiritual” side of this veneration of technology, and so we have used it in our title for this thread, but I suggest we need a more comprehensive term to describe this widespread faith in technological advance as the necessary and sufficient, means to human social progress….we are all somewhat imbued with this belief in the course of our early education, but as we have seen, it is by no means a unanimously supported belief...the Amish, for instance, categorically reject it, and “primitive” tribes throughout the undeveloped world seem to get on quite well without it.

The term “technocracy” serves very well to describe its ultimate political expression, of course, and we have seen in our previous installment how Ukraine is being developed by technocrats as a kind of “proof of concept” for the fully digitized future that awaits us all if we allow ourselves to be herded into it by the “polycrises” about which the globalists of the World Economic Forum tirelessly fulminate. Is this cyber-future utopian, as they insist, or is it dystopian? That is the question!

We have seen that original Christian scripture does not directly declaim against technology per se, but it takes very strong objection to the materialism that is its inseparable traveling companion and, we strongly assert, its propelling dynamic, per Marx –- never forget that the inexorable process of capital accumulation continues apace! This demonstrates again to Christian moral sensibility how completely and diametrically opposed to the Christian framework of charity and social justice is the unrighteous mammon of the capitalist juggernaut. But we digress…

The relationship between the Greek philosophic school of the Cynics and early Christian development is a matter of some controversy. Some argue that the two are incompatible, given that Christianity has an eschatological framework and a spiritual dimension that appear nowhere in Cynical literature. On the other hand are those who argue that as Cynical influence was extant in the Hellenistic world of the time, and that as there is such a close correspondence between the eschewal of creature comforts by both the Cynics and the early Christians, especially in the monastic expression of the latter, the influence of Cynicism on Christian praxis cannot be discounted. In 1992, F. Gerald Dowling published a controversial, now rare, book on the subject, “Cynics and Christian Origins,” ¹ which purports to demonstrate a very close connection between the two. He borrows from several early Christian thinkers who indeed made comparisons between the two: Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Celsius. I regret to disclose that I have not read this book, so cannot fairly comment on the success of his thesis. But we need not prove this case to consider the Cynics in their own right, while keeping an open mind on the question of how their earlier example might have provided a template for later Christian ascetic praxis.

The Cynics might be viewed as the “hippies” of their age. In terms of lifestyle, they were the strictest minimalists imaginable. They professed what we might call “natural living,” shorn of not only the creature comforts that the age put at human disposal, but even social mores, in this way presaging the later“adamists.” Here is Wikepedia’s short historical summary of this once influential philosophic school:

The classical Greek and Roman Cynics regarded virtue as the only necessity for happiness, and saw virtue as entirely sufficient for attaining it. Classical Cynics followed this philosophy to the extent of neglecting everything not furthering their perfection of virtue and attainment of happiness, thus, the title of Cynic, derived from the Greek word κύων (meaning "dog") because they allegedly neglected society, hygiene, family, money, etc., in a manner reminiscent of dogs. They sought to free themselves from conventions; become self-sufficient; and live only in accordance with nature. They rejected any conventional notions of happiness involving money, power, and fame, to lead entirely virtuous, and thus happy, lives.[21]

The ancient Cynics rejected conventional social values, and would criticise the types of behaviours, such as greed, which they viewed as causing suffering. Emphasis on this aspect of their teachings led, in the late 18th and early 19th centuries,[22] to the modern understanding of cynicism as "an attitude of scornful or jaded negativity, especially a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of others."[23] This modern definition of cynicism is in marked contrast to the ancient philosophy, which emphasized "virtue and moral freedom in liberation from desire."[24] ²

To the Cynics, then, their contemporary world of “advanced civilization” represented a retreat from the true good, from man’s unmediated relationship to his natural world, and the development of both a strong, quick mind and a fit body best effected by means of it. They regarded the accouterments of “progress” as obstructions to this natural virtue, and so led lives which their contemporaries regarded as grossly ascetic and “shameless.” Though they valued autonomy very highly, it is unclear whether they generally succeeded in attaining actual economic autonomy, as they were sometimes characterized as marketplace mendicants. Perhaps this is why they eventually disappeared as a salient philosophic school, though their profound influence on the later Stoics, whose philosophy we hope to examine soon in a future thread, should not be overlooked.

So let’s see if we can break down the philosophical conflict into its basic constituents: all rational philosophies acknowledge that humans need to meet their needs. What those needs consist of can be debated, but for the Cynics it meant basic physical and mental health, and the means thereto, stripped of all “civilized” overlay or refinements. Now, except for our properly nurtured infants, our needed food does not magically appear when we are hungry, but rather we need to acquire it through our own efforts. Ultimately, civilization regards the “work” required to meet our needs as onerous and even odious, whilst the satisfaction of the need is pleasant and rewarding. (Please note that even the biblical Genesis story sees work as punishment for sin, so in rather stark terms.) This leads to what we might call the ethical consensus undergirding the philosophy of the civilized world: the satisfaction of needs is pleasant, the possession of human “goods” should therefore be maximized, labor is odious and the need to participate in it should therefore be minimized to the extent possible. Over and over again we find civilizations replicating this classist view: those at the top of the social order revel in luxurious self-satisfaction without performing any useful labor, those on the bottom layers of the social order do the necessary work, which is regarded as odious, and hence this taint rubs off from the work to the worker. Modern capitalism is simply the latest iteration of this ancient social view, against which stood the early Christian church and those who channel her same spirit today. And the Cynics! The rationale for their opposition is indeed different, but the end effect is the same.

Christian opposition is premised on what is regarded as the self-evident, aboriginal will of God for social justice. But Cynical opposition is based on entirely natural premises, which we will now examine, for they may provide a complementary appreciation of our own Christian ethos. Let’s go back to the universal understanding that humans must meet their needs. Civilization (we are using this term for lack of a better, but the term “”progressivism” may probably be substituted for it by those for whom it has more heuristic value) posits that humanity is best served by putting human goods (the means of satisfying human needs however the latter are understood) within easy reach of all, and in abundance, so that minimal effort is required for their acquisition. Capitalism approaches this goal from the individualistic standpoint, and socialism from the universal standpoint, but the ethos is fundamentally the same. What then is the ideal lifestyle towards which civilization advances: it is the Dionysian ideal, or, in modern parlance, the “couch potato.” We lie back, mesmerized by our mainstream media, not moving a muscle except to feed our faces with the highly processed (ergo readily available) food delivered right to our doorstep by menials, ingesting recreational drugs and intoxicants to stimulate our soporific brains. Yes, the obesity epidemic of the modern world, especially here in the heart of capitalistic America, is no accident...it is predictable. That this trajectory does not generate human happiness is proven not just by the plethora of fad diets and weight loss pills that fail again and again to address what is essentially a lifestyle issue, but by the success of the more effective fitness centers throughout the countries where thousands go to assign their muscles unproductive work t compensate for the productive work from which civilization has rescued them. The Cynics take one look at this arrangement and laugh heartily: they see the folly in this whole idea of denying human beings their natural interface with the natural world that involves, yes, human labor and effort, but perforce exercises their mind and bodies along the way so that such a focus on artificially supplying exercise of either is supererogatory. Live as Nature intends, they argue, and you won’t need a physician to supply a lack. Depend on civilized society to mediate between you and Nature, and even a physician won’t be able to save you from the ill health and unfitness that invariably results.

So here we see the real dichotomy at its barest: the civilized, progressive world singing its siren song of laborless ease for the most fortunate, whilst the less fortunate strive to attain the same, and the Cynic who gets the last laugh at all of them with his fit mind and body ready for whatever Nature requires of him, but up to the task in mind and body at all times. Which path leads to happiness, and which ought to be the conscious goal of any human society worthy of the name? This is the true crossroads...yes the Social Problem exacerbated by capitalism is a problem in its own right, and has a solution which civilization still resists today, but even if the Social Problem were fully resolved, the problem of human mental and physical fitness remains to be fully addressed. The Cynics were the first to address it as a systemic problem. Hopefully, they will not be the last. But the further question, which seguès into our next topic, is this: when human dependence on technology becomes overweening, does that technology itself acquire a kind of deleterious spiritual energy which can defeat the very purposes for which it was purportedly created, to serve human needs? In the age of Artificial Intelligence, where so much of what happens in the real world appears to have been engineered with its assistance (and/or direction?), this is a question we shall approach carefully and with great trepidation...

1https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0567096130/ref=x_gr_bb_amazon?ie=UTF8&tag=x_gr_bb_amazon20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0567096130&SubscriptionId=1MGPYB6YW3HWK55XCGG2

2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynicism_(philosophy)