Today, many people are totally disgusted when they read historical literature that violates the current social norms, and they heavily criticize those writings. This is called presentism. Is it reasonable to criticize in this way?
This is one of the most relevant questions I’ve seen around here and I find it rather surprising that it hasn’t drawn a lot of attention.
I have a short answer and a long one to your question. The short answer is, Yes. We ought to judge artistic and literary works of yore by our own current standards. Otherwise we would be endangering these very standards by condoning atrocities that some of these works have naturalised and even endorsed, insofar as such atrocities were commonplace practice in the olden days when they were written or otherwise created.
The long answer involves a more complicated outlook towards culture and tradition. We can, yes, though we have to do so scientifically, cultivate all works of the intellect that were passed down to us whatever their content, and it is certainly our duty to protect their existence and provide for their conservation. They constitute, at the very least, invaluable historical documents, as well as evidence of our own cultural accrual. But in a world that’s undergoing significant structural transformation, with a brand new conscience arising as to the objectionability of previously sanctioned, and terribly widespread, discriminatory social practices, there’s just no room to take for granted archaic (not just out-of-style) works that only reinforce the self-importance, contemptuousness and submission patterns of so-called ‘superior’ people or peoples, hallow detestable indignities or subscribe to all kinds of biases and stereotypes.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Philosophy