Such ideas are not new. Consider Ibn Khaldun the greatest Arab thinker (though some say he was of European heritage and he himself was a harsh critic of Arab culture and savagery) who had theorized that civilizations (a mass movement) have three phases. Rise, peak and fall, which per his view are inevitable outcomes. He then goes on to explain these and give reasons for their occurrence. As for collective wisdom, I do not believe people as a whole in a cumulative sense, can become so wise that they would be able generate a progressive society, let alone a utopia. It might happen perhaps in a science fiction setting where a society has reached such level of wisdom that does not even need politics and leadership (Here, Socrates would roll in his grave since he believed that the maximum wisdom a society can muster is to choose a wise leader).
I also want to note that a society can not exceed its actual realities and abilities even if led by a "philosopher king" with a detailed plan for a utopia. The people on individual levels must be intellectuals themselves at least a segment of them who steadfastly believe in power of knowledge and its implications. In other words, a society gets a leader that it deserves. No more no less. Even God has promised that
But your point of collective experience is more interesting. Because it is about how we perceive and even "feel" about knowledge gained through experience rather than its mere study. An interesting question, would be, in regard to your point of reference; if Iranian revolution had not occurred but the people, collectively had theoretically studied such a hypothetical revolution in detailed philosophical and scientific way (ie each and every Iranian) had these people been more mature and knowledgeable or would they actually be just
philosophical zombies?
To answer this question, I want to refer to qualia. For example take the case of
Mary the Super-Scientist (or for that matter even Fred the Super Eye) thought experiment. Will she learn something new when she sees color red for the first time? I believe she does indeed.
Another question, would then arise, given the experience of all these people. Are their qualia the same? Again I want to refer to another thought experiment, the infamous
Inverted Spectrum. We both see an apple and say it is red in color. But while you are seeing it in red and saying correctly it is red, I am seeing it in green and because I have learned language calls my green perception red, I go about thinking that you also are seeing green and calling it red. We are both clueless that we are seeing the world completely differently and have no way to communicate our true qualia to each other.
How we are going to ever know if we are seeing the world and its happenings the same way? There is no philosophical way to do it and neither there is a scientific way (as of today and to my awareness).
If we can not even know how others are seeing the world, how can we expect them to form such a deeply self aware society?
I think the best solution is always a compromise. Even wars and revolutions have to reach a compromise at the end. Rather than focusing on creating uniformity, it is a superior to strive for a society wherein compromises are routine affairs. A society where an idealist can go about his ideas but should not expect to convert every one and a realist should be able to tolerate and accommodate the idealist in his world. Or any number of other scenarios. Such a society does not come about by violence, exclusionism and obscenities of type 1 and type 2 mice. It comes about by a large segment of society having become the type 3 mice. In other words you can not expect such a society to exist in Saudi Arabia or Syria right now. You can expect it to exist in Canada or US.
As you saw above, this tool is not very reliable either. It can play tricks on you. As you saw above, the poor brain is rather imprisoned by its own qualia sometimes even with no way to communicate it.
That is why we have to remain objective if we want to reach a fairly accurate conclusion based on available facts and figures and even thinking. Otherwise, there would be no meaningful conclusion. Just chaos, myths and assumptions.
Well, I am not an akhond
, you might want to talk to an educated akhond on this subject. I can only tell about my perception of religion and how I see it not as a scholar of it but on a more personal level. First of all I do not agree with Nietzsche on this matter. Having grown up in a irreligious family, I have no prejudice on the matter but now I find religion rather important. Not really for worldly matters. At least in modern human societies, I find religion rather restrictive, anti-progressive and even anti-pleasure. But this is not the whole story. On a level, one wishes it was
, then the life would have been much simpler and enjoyable
(at least in modern times if you are in the West, have a healthy body and mind as well as money .... etc etc
).
From my personal perspective the sole reason for existence of religion are two questions one leading to another with the last one being consequential for us:
1) Where this universe and all that is in it or even beyond came from? The best science has been able to prove is the theory of big bang. But this is really not an answer. Because it would raise another question, where did big bang come from? and so on. No theory has been put forward to explain how from no existence, an existence comes out. Without this theory, no body can prove or disprove existence of God. Therefore using a random model, it would yield a 50% chance that he does exist. And 50% that he does not.
2) A rather continuation of the above question would be, is there an after-life? Now this question has implications for us. Rather huge ones. I myself believing in science and applicable philosophy, agree with Pascal that
we should play this gamble on the safe side. Even if we play it scientific and assume an extremely small probability for existence of God say 10e-googolplex, still rationally you have to stay a believer since other choices would not be safe bets.
As for why people who have no knowledge of the hilltop beyond their homes believe in God, you can make several answers for it. You can say they have qualia of the knowledge without being aware of the knowledge itself (philosophical argument), similarly you can argue there is a specialized brain center which is dedicated to spirituality and God (there is scientific evidence for this) or alternatively they can be like me, who has waged his option on the only safe side.
My words are clear, not everybody is talented in taqqiya like you.
. Meanwhile I had another "philosophical debate"
Thanks mate, I read it, and it was an interesting discussion.
