I fall somewhere between Pinker, who this article critiques, and its author, with a bias to the Pinker or optimistic side. I think we are becoming more peaceful and altruistic, but not as universally or quickly as Pinker represents, and – as Grey warns – it’s not an inevitable progression, but could be rolled back.
It’s over to those of us who think and care about such things to throw our weight behind peace and altruism and oppose darker solutions.
Originally shared by Laura Gibbs
This is a good read. I don’t know enough to have an opinion myself, but I was certainly surprised to see John Dee make an appearance here towards the end!
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining
Some good points, also some rampant strawmanning. I’m all for a more nuanced view of history and of philosophical movements so yay for that part. But he doesn’t really do his arguments a lot of favors by misrepresenting Pinker’s points and then calling them childish. Could have just as well made his own points without the rhetorical flourishes about people who see things otherwise being fools.
Of course its possible he thinks he is representing Pinker accurately.
I also find it amusing that the philosopher with the rose-coloured glasses is Pinker and the one who sees the world as dark and dreary is Gray.
Ha! Hey Central Editing, reality is being too on tho nose again!