Day,
In the "Let's Revisit Da Vinci's Code Again" thread, you said:
> The post I wanted to
> respond to asked about the honesty of civilizations; AFAIK, almost all
> were subjected to this kind of fraud. But that issue deserves another
> subject line- say, "Corrupt Cultures"
My question above in this thread was:
>> But 'civilization' means that you didnt havta watch the butchery that
>> goes on for your benefit. The slaughterhouses were far away; the
>> butchery of warfare was also far away; and those who came back from
>> it, did not put you on a lap to tell you of the gore. But now, but
>> now you can see it on this screen for yourself. You can watch a man
>> being hanged in the name of "justice", whether you think it is just
>> or not.
>
> This is interesting. Does this imply that modern society is no longer
> civilised, or that former civilisations were not honest?
One of the functions (if not the function) of civilisation as you have
described it here was to ****eld the 'civilised' from the violence and
death upon which the it is often built. Whether you call it defence, or
justice, or farming, death is an integral part of life - but
civilisation, as you suggest here, conceals much of it from us, or moves
it further away so that we do not have to think about it.
But you point out that the violence is getting closer to us again.
Through the media, and various campaigns, not to mention the rise in
criminality, we are becoming more aware of the violence that surrounds
us.
So civilisation is no longer serving the purpose you ascribe to it: it
is no longer ****elding us from that violence - or at least, it is not
doing it as effectively as it did.
This raises the question: does this mean that our modern society is
surrendering its right to call itself civilisation; or does it mean that
earlier cultures were dishonest in calling themselves civilised? Is the
****elding of its citizens from violence and unnecessary death an
essential attribute of civilisation?
|
