I found the excerpt from the “Tenth Epoch” of Outlines of an Historical View of the Progress of the Human Mind by the Marquis de Condorcet to be extremely applicable to my understanding of history, and very prophetic for a man of his time. On a broader level, I found the excerpt relatable to my undergraduate studies in music history (particularly those focusing on the 6th century Roman Christian philosopher Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius). On a more detailed level, I mostly related the excerpt’s content to my understanding of modern American history.
Condorcet’s division of the hopes for the future condition of the human species and his description of the interplay between each hope instantly brought to mind the attempt of Boethius to divide music into three immutable levels, among which existed an equal degree of interplay. It seemed apparent that Condorcet had constructed a hierarchy in establishing equality among nations at the very top, equality within each nation in the middle and an improvement of men at the very bottom. Boethius established a hierarchy with musica mundana (globe/world music) at the top, musica humana (human music) in the middle and musica instrumentalis (vocal/instrumental music) at the bottom. The mutual hierarchal relationships I discerned between the two concepts, and more importantly the common theme that emerged made this comparison imperative to relate in this essay.
The common theme, which I felt bound the two concepts, was that of striving for equilibrium per hierarchy component, and ultimately striving for collective equilibrium. The equilibrium to be attained in the case of Condorcet’s hierarchy began with the health and robustness of an individual, which relates to Boethius’ musica instrumentalis (music attained by an individual instrument or voice). In ensuring members of a nation are made to know their rights to resist tyranny and inequality, equilibrium is attained at the next highest level of Condorcet’s hierarchy, which relates to Boethius’ musica humana (external symmetry of the human body and the balance of its members and their placement). A nation’s transcending prejudice, monopoly, treachery and disrespect towards all other nations achieves equilibrium at the highest level of Condorcet’s hierarchy, which relates to Boethius’ musica mundana (harmony standing as a foundation of the world around us). As much as Boethius seeks to avoid dissonance in any level of his hierarchy, so too does it behoove humanity to do the same.
While I largely share in the view of Condorcet that through heavy human investment in the sciences and arts could we rapidly unearth truths for the betterment of mankind, I pondered the context of his questioning why should a philosopher be proscribed from conjecturing upon the development of the intellectual and moral faculties of man. Being that this question was posed following an explanation pertaining to the foundation of faith in the natural sciences, I initially supposed that Condorcet, while perhaps indignant about the treatment of philosophers by organized religion, sought to win over a more devoutly religious audience in connecting two disparate and warring moral authorities. These thoughts were later reinforced by his bold and unsparing decrying of the “….proselyting fury or the intrigues of our priests,” whose passage arrived suspiciously four pages later (perhaps to pad the effect upon a more religious audience?).
Much of the excerpt’s content brought to mind my personal observations of modern American history in the form of supportive evidence. Much of my evidence pertains to policy established under the administration of George W. Bush, as I feel his presidency to have brought and to eventually bring about the direst of consequences for the United States, which leaves little doubt in my mind as to the certainty of Condorcet’s philosophies. Other evidence draws from more positive moments in American history.
To begin, I felt Condorcet’s question of whether inequality was a natural byproduct of civilization or else an imperfection of social order to be a conundrum. On the one hand, Darwin teaches us that in nature only the strongest, fastest and smartest species survive. This would tend to support the notion that inequality is naturally produced by civilization. On the other hand, political leadership will often tip the scales to favor particular demographics over others (e.g. – the Bush Administration’s steadfast dedication to preserving and augmenting the wealth of the richest one percent of Americans with lopsided economic policies). It is also very often true that a society’s choice in leadership can reflect qualities of the society itself (e.g. – many Americans eagerly accepted Bush’s now-known manufactured case for invading Iraq without critically examining or demanding the facts, which is not unlike Bush’s push for war without critically examining or demanding the real facts from the Pentagon). I suppose the best way to resolve this conundrum is to answer that civilization is naturally unequal in as much as its inequality is due to the imperfection social order.
Condorcet’s notion that the reciprocal influence of the sciences and instruction being among the most prolific and powerful causes of the improvement of the human race can be no better illustrated than with the hostilities demonstrated toward both science and education by the Bush Administration. Thanks to framing his policy towards stem cell research in a strictly ideological manner, Bush has drastically slowed scientific research for potential cures to numerous diseases. As for education, his “No Child Left Behind Act” has vastly reduced the actual education of children in public schools in favor of heavy testing for the purposes of defunding public schools with low test score averages. Bush’s attitude in these instances as well as in many other instances when confronted by concepts outside of his narrow ideologies proves Condorcet’s notion to be irrefutably true as we are tragically left to wonder about the betterment of mankind that might have been.
I found Condorcet’s vision of science building upon itself exponentially to be amazingly prophetic for a man of his time. While I am admittedly ignorant of the state of science in his time, my thoughts became absorbed with visions of rapid American innovation occurring between the latter part of the nineteenth century well into the twentieth century. Communication, transportation, exploration and entertainment were enhanced in ways that rendered the human condition undeniably more robust thanks to American inventors who benefited from the scientific contributions of predecessors and subsequent instruction provided to them.
Condorcet’s notion that a society’s consciousness of freedom measures the influence of political instruction is well illustrated by the large degree of misinformation charading as news on cable television networks in the United States. Particularly, Fox News (a network recently confirmed by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellen to be a personal propaganda mouthpiece for the Bush Administration) has been constantly engaged in the act of injecting right-wing ideology in the context of news programming since the late 1990’s. This misinformation has helped to shore up support for self-destructive policy-making, while demonizing liberal politicians to the degree they are seen by many citizens as mere caricatures of derision.
Condorcet’s notion that the perfectibility of man in indefinite has become self-evident. Over time with medical science expanding our lifespans, mankind has already proved Condorcet correct and continues to do so. I support both meanings of the word “indefinite” as applied to the notion that the interval between birth and death may be extended indefinitely. Ultimately, it takes merely accepting that man will maintain the lifespans we have achieved thus far, as well as to occasionally surpass expectations resulting in an increased overall expectation of our collective lifespans. We can only assume the more our doctors know, the longer we will live and the higher the expectation in our lifespans will grow.
The Marquis de Condorcet serves as an excellent example of somebody who drew from his past, and through logic and precision was able to cast a very accurate reading of mankind’s future progress. I am sure it would please him to know that he has served in the role of the very philosopher he writes about, whose conjectures may well be regarded as fact by any sound mind today.
No comments:
Post a Comment