From: jimruttshow8596

The intellectual respect given to different historical periods often varies, with contemporary societies often failing to critically assess their own perceived superiority [00:02:43]. This phenomenon can be understood through the concept of “presentism” or “temporal chauvinism” [00:07:16].

Varying Degrees of Respect Across History

We are accustomed to not taking past periods seriously [00:01:50]. For instance, if someone from the Old Kingdom of Egypt spoke of a giant dung beetle pushing the sun, we would humor them rather than argue, recognizing the intellectual disparity of their era [00:02:00].

Different periods in history receive varying intellectual respect:

  • The intellectual achievements of the Italian Renaissance are highly respected [00:03:01].
  • In contrast, late antiquity, marked by impending invasions and a perceived intellectual decline, garners less respect [00:03:07]. While figures like Plato, writing 800 years before late antiquity, are taken seriously, contemporaries like Prudentius are not [00:04:05].

Presentism and the Inability to Self-Critique

Modern society tends to look in the mirror and perceive itself as akin to the Italian Renaissance [00:03:52]. However, this self-perception may be a form of “presentism,” the assumption that one’s current world is entirely real and deserving of immense respect [00:07:24].

This intellectual complacency mirrors the scholars of the late Roman Empire, who did not perceive their empire as declining, even as it was clearly “falling because it’s just out of touch with reality” [00:07:34]. These scholars focused on pretentious intellectual traditions and flattery, ignoring the visible decay around them [00:08:01]. For example, Sidonius, a politically influential writer, focused on mundane social visits in his letters rather than the collapse of the Roman Empire, which he barely mentioned [00:09:02].

A thought experiment involving a Victorian intellectual transported to the present day highlights this bias. While we might view Victorians as “racist, sexist, hung up,” they would likely observe our society and question “what had gone wrong” [00:06:15]. An academic historian might simply dismiss Victorian critiques, asserting modern society’s superiority, which exemplifies temporal chauvinism [00:07:01].

The Mythos and Political Formula

Societies operate under a “mythos,” a set of shared beliefs that most people uncritically accept as right and good [00:10:33]. The “political formula” is the specific element of this mythos that makes people believe the government or power structure is legitimate [00:11:55]. For instance, an Egyptian peasant might love the Pharaoh because he is believed to be the son of the sun, controlling its very existence [00:12:11].

Modern political formulas often make the individual feel powerful and important, fostering a belief that “you matter because you support the government” [00:12:31]. This mythos can prevent individuals from critically assessing societal competence. The shock of the COVID-19 pandemic revealed widespread incompetence in institutions, which shattered the prevailing mythos for many, increasing the “number of ears to hear that the status quo the emperor is wearing no clothes” by “at least an order of magnitude in one year” [00:14:56].

Lessons from the Past

The inability to foresee major societal shifts, like the fall of the Soviet Union, underscores the blindness of presentism. In the late 1980s, even radical dissidents and Cold Warriors did not predict its collapse, with one book in 1987 or 1988 ranking Marx as the third most important person in history, stating Marxism would be a major force for “at least the next 200 years” just three years before its dissolution [00:15:27].

The concept of a “Stupidity Quotient” (SQ) can serve as a lens to evaluate institutional decision-making by asking if a six-year-old would make a more rational choice [00:18:16]. For example, a child would instinctively suggest stopping international flights from a disease-affected area, a logical step the US government failed to take in early 2020 due to concerns about disrupting travel and trade [00:19:20]. This highlights a system where institutional priorities (like maintaining prestige or preventing economic disruption) outweigh effective sense-making and decision-making, revealing a profound “conflict of interest” at the heart of their operations [00:20:48]. This “conflict of interest” influences their advice and actions, leading to decisions that prioritize the institution’s image over the well-being of the population [00:39:08].

This historical and philosophical perspective suggests that genuine intellectual respect for an era requires critical evaluation of its underlying “mythos” and the incentives driving its institutions, rather than simply accepting its self-perception as truth [00:03:52].