We have come to discover that a high level of serotonin (the leadership chemical, and what falls during depression) improves one's ability to think abstractly.

Some of our greatest gains in thinking about ethics that make us able to deal with a wider and more varied culture have come from abstract framing of fairness: Kant, Mill, etc.

At some point is that approach itself somewhat problematic? Have we passed that point? Are we just making higher demands on those less well equipped to deal with life, and is that not in itself unfair? Where can this stop, or can it be mitigated in some way? (These are just stops along the way, and not separate questions I would like to ask.)

It seems to me that people in the modern world are either drowning in detail they cannot accommodate or aspiring for a sense of order through abstraction they cannot attain or maintain. Is this just a subjective impression, or is it something philosophically addressable?


A few quick points and arrows, since there's something very interesting around you're hitting upon here. (I wonder if you can't draw it out a little bit further?)

There might be a line of inquiry here around the world-historical role of philosophy: perhaps to what extent it actually arrests thinking/abstraction (or did historically, this is something Deleuze for instance is curious about); and on the other hand how philosophy "hides" its real-structure-in-the-world behind the indeterminable complexity of the concepts it proliferates.

The accelerating complexity of the world is (more or less plainly) coupled with a reduction of the scope of ethics to theories of (efficient, agile) administration. This is something Baudrillard is particularly concerned with; and framed as a more general historical phase-shift is something Foucault is also curious about (his concept of governmentality would be something to investigate around this.)

Too quickly -- perhaps Virilio's ideas about the weaponization of speed could be relevant here as well. Negative Horizon seems maybe an interesting text to investigate in this direction, in terms of how to "live" an ethics after the Disaster, after the traumatic disappearance of distance. He seems particularly urgent in terms of crafting life-practices, though again there is a sterility here, a strangely "terminal" or administrative ethics, even though it is operating in a chaotic milieu of continuously exponentiating powers. Whereas of course there are other kinds of ethical visions entirely (which it might be worth returning to Spinoza to see clearly.)

  • I will try to refine the question. But thank you for the list of touchpoints. I think your third paragraph is kind of where my brain was in writing this. What seems to be simplification in ethics may always make it harder for those that need help with it, and easier for those who never did need that help -- and then allow folks on the upside to raise minimal expectations. That may have something to do with the capable seeing the difficulty in administrative puzzles, rather than real questions. – jobermark Dec 9 '14 at 23:48
  • You say 'are we just making higher demands on those less equipped to deal with life, and is that not in itself unfair'? Who is the 'we' making higher demands? If a highly intelligent person can 'see' that the people in the modern world are drowning in detail they can not accommodate do they have an ethical duty to help? If they just comment on this 'from a distance' that would be hypocritical. – 201044 Aug 16 '15 at 15:27

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.