In Our Time

[Woland]

A question that has been nagging me lately,

What would you say defines our age? How does our current age differ from other periods in history?

[Jarndyce]

Massive access to information. No one in the history of mankind has ever had as much acess to stores of information as do we. Unfortunely, we may also be among the least informed...

[mono]

Simply, I believe that time defines quantatative age - 9 months after conception, a child born, living to the average age of the mid-80s, depending on multiple factors.
Compared to other periods in history, the average lifespan has increased drastically, especially in the U.S., yet I have not researched a lot into many other countries of the world.
I have no desire to call it 'qualitative' age, but specific disorders causing mental impairment may hinder one to continue age quantatatively, while his/her cognition, personality, and behavior may only reach that of the average toddler or young child. In a more contingent way, this can define age more from a psychological perspective, depending greatly on the individual, rather than on time alone.

[ShoutGrace]

Massive access to information. No one in the history of mankind has ever had as much acess to stores of information as do we. Unfortunely, we may also be among the least informed...

I think that's very true. We take for granted superbly crafted resources which are free of charge and utilized entirely for promoting both the free flow and examination of information of all kinds. Our 'information age' is a truly unrivaled fragment of history, in my opinion. Both mankind's knowledge as a whole and each individual's opportunity to attain that knowledge has never been greater, and I think we should all feel thankful for that.

[mono]

Oops, I just realized that Woland probably refers to a different sense in the word 'age,' as in era. Silly me - I thought he/she meant individuals' ages. :rolleyes:
In my opinion, just as the industrial revolution marked the turn of the 20th century, the technological and information revolution marked the turn of the 21st century; suddenly few illiterate people live in technologically-advanced countries, access to health care has improved, increasing life expectancy, the Internet and other media appear at the fingertips of all ages in all abodes, and we even have technology for leisure (various games, CD players, iPods, laptops, etc.).
As for how this age differs from other ages in the past, I would have to agree with Jarndyce and ShoutGrace, attributing to the access of information, and, in essence, the access to everything, including other parts of the world by plane, space, far into the ocean, and we have even accessed, as psychologists and psychiatrists would like to think, others' minds, not to sound too cliché.

[IrishCanadian]

We don't know where we're going. We are recycling almost all artforms: most modern music borrows from old music, poetry from old poetry, theatre from theatre. I wouldn't say that wer're a dying culture, just a lost one.

[Chava]

or one with a lack of creativity...

[Redzeppelin]

I like this thread - perhaps it can be resurrected :)

The "information age" is an apt description of the 20-21st century; I might qualify that by saying that this time period's relationship to information is unrestricted: I mean that information is now widely available that once we either a) witheld (for the sake of children) or b) was illegal (child porn, for instance). Now - it's all "out there" (courtesy of the www) for all to see - childen included.

Secondly, I think our age could best be defined by a full and complete disillusionment: we don't think that Truth exists anymore, so we either choose a cultural relativism where everything is true or skepticism where nothing is true. No wonder we're in so much trouble.

[Sir Dovesinn]

I like the point Redzeppelin touched. It is true, many of us feel this as the most pressing condition: we have no absolute value any more, we do have to define new standards.
There is the discussion between modernism and postmodernism. Can we really talk of postmodernism or is the flow of information, and globalisation as greater trend, just an amplified modernism, that is, not different in ground principle but just in quantity? Some tend to deny postmodernism for that reason. Well, whether we call it postmodernism or nor, I experience the world different as before 1960. Cultural relativism as effect of increased access to information and increase international interrelations. Yes, there is something to it. And more, (and I know that this is not just a personal experience) what are we suppose to do of ourselves. Yes, true, one has at least theoretically the possibility to become what ever one chooses. The problem is that one chooses according to some standards that one, and the world around him, value. And here comes the trick. Which standard? There is such a plurality of them. Which is the right one? It’s difficult to choose.
I do think our age is young. I do think we still have to understand it. I think it is most difficult for us now, because we must make head and tail of this world, and we need big minds and heroes of our own, that is, of our age.
What I mean to say… When one reads about past historical ages, one can trace a few distinctive features, a distinctive Weltanschauung (way to see life), this things have practical implications in human conduct.(for example, when we read a Russian romantic novel we do expect that characters behave in a certain way, and it is not surprising when they do fulfil our expectations because they are the carrier and impersonators of an epoch spirit)
So much freedom! It is a blessing! Oh, and a curse!
:confused:

[dramasnot6]

Tis the age of the biological sciences! Look at all the progress made in research around DNA and evolution.

[Redzeppelin]

Hi there, Sir Dovesinn - you elaborated well on the point I made. To add a bit: one of the reasons the information overload is so disturbing is that - without a clearer "frame" with which to sort this information with - we have no way to discriminate what info is valuable, which is absurd, which deserves seriouis consideration or immediate dismissal. That's the legacy of postmodernism's claim that there is no such thing as objective truth - that all truths are valid. Once that happens, we now have chaos in terms of trying to make judgments about morality, behavior, art, beauty, truth - garbage and art become interchangeable, "wrong" and "right" become blurred.

[B-Mental]

I think this is the age that will see the end of the book in paper format. Everything will eventually go digital...sort of like Fahrenheit 451.

[Bookworm Cris]

Redzeppelin said:
"one of the reasons the information overload is so disturbing is that - without a clearer "frame" with which to sort this information with - we have no way to discriminate what info is valuable, which is absurd, which deserves seriouis consideration or immediate dismissal."

I heard a saying that "paper accepts everything"; so does our computer screen. We have access to an amount of information today that we couldn´t imagine some years ago. But we (as people of our era) don´t know what to do with it; or even which information is valuable, important, or true.

This lack of values, I think, is a main problem of our age; and it comes from the lack of unity in families, and the fact that parents don´t (or seldom) transmit values to their children, and prefer to assign this task to schools.

And values are the "frame" that is missing.

[Redzeppelin]

This lack of values, I think, is a main problem of our age; and it comes from the lack of unity in families, and the fact that parents don´t (or seldom) transmit values to their children, and prefer to assign this task to schools.

And values are the "frame" that is missing.

You said it. Exactly.

[Bookworm Cris]

Redzeppelin:

Thanks for your comment.

That´s a problem that bothers me for a long time. And it seems our age is suffering the late effects of all the changes in 20th. century; we had a generation who forbid everything, followed by a generation who allowed everything, who created children without limits; these children couldn´t establish limits to their own children, who now have access to all the information available, without the inner skills to separate what´s useful and important from what´s garbage.

This new generation is lost in a sea of information, without the background that should have been given to them by their parents. And it´s this generation who will be in charge, some years from now.

Scary.... but every effort we make to give a better education to our children is a step forward. And, by education, I don´t mean only scholar education, but the above mentioned values.

[Redzeppelin]

Scary.... but every effort we make to give a better education to our children is a step forward. And, by education, I don´t mean only scholar education, but the above mentioned values.

I agree - and I think that school (high school and college) should be in the business of teaching young people how to sort through this info overload to find what is valuable and what is true (instead of indoctrinating them into the ridiculous post-modern idea that truth is "relative" and subject to our definitions - because that trap leaves them with no way to sort all the info they're being overwhelmed [and often mislead] with - because it's all equally true [and hence, equally false]).

Wow...look at all that silly parenthetical tom-foolery...:eek:

[Bookworm Cris]

Redzeppelin:

Yes, you´re right.... young people now use to say "Google said..." as if it was evidence of undisputed truth; it´s in the Net, so it´s true.

And, IMHO, schools (a long time from now) don´t teach how to think; they only require the "right" answer, and schoolworks that are conforming to what they want; no wonder these young people get totally disoriented when they come to the working world, and face a problem that has to be solved, and which doesn´t have a definite answer. They don´t know how to think, they don´t trust in their judgement, because they weren´t taught how to do it.

And when, as you say, they have to choose what´s true and they only know that "truth is relative", how can they define it? If all is true, and all is false, how someone who don´t trust in their insights can know it? When families taught such values, one could choose; somehow they knew they were on the right track (quite instinctive)...

Good debate here...

[Redzeppelin]

An essential one, in my opinion - because I (as a high school teacher) am constantly confronted by young people who think "truth" is what appears on a screen in front of them. Their ability to question and probe the value of something is greatly compromised by their failure to have any internalized standards of right and wrong, truth and falsity, good and evil. Information is our god, but his (or her - let's not be politically incorrect ;) ) "theology" is that "all is good."

How can future generations lead us if they can't discriminate between things?

[Bookworm Cris]

That´s it. You put things more clearer, and that´s exactly what I meant to say.

Let´s keep on doing our part, and educating our children.