There is a great struggle in our society between tradition and change for the advancement of our species. I, as a liberal arts student, hold it to myself that there is value in the achievements of mankind and our civilization, and that there ought to be at least some sort of emphasis on studying the ideologies of past philosophers. Naturally, there is a contesting of two different forms of thought: traditionalism versus dynamism. Now while it is important that progress is made, there is purpose in practicing at least some form of traditionalism. The challenge is that both are necessary in our democratic society today.

The largest contributor to the prevalence of dynamism in modern society can be credited to technology; it is no longer a tool of necessity so much as it is a luxury. The two most recent generations have been raised to be addicted to the screen (phones, television, computers). Technology allows for us to be more efficient, get what we want more quickly, and now has allowed for our wants to go unchecked (perhaps it is worth it). Some traditionalists argue that this element of society has allowed for our lives to begin revolving around empty novelty (the quality of the human experience declines). For example, forms of entertainment such as television shows are getting worse in quality because they are gratuitously gross. This is a direct result of our country suffering from a lack of censorship. We suffer from a lack of censorship, because of the sheer speed at which information can be shared (in the previous example, shows are being watched faster than quality content can be produced so we must appeal to sex and violence to maintain interest). Things are having to be dumbed down in our civilization, and it is causing us to leave past values, well, in the past.

One more problem worth presenting to dynamists is the increased decay of moral values, which arguably serve as an adhesive for our society (in this case, religion). One of the biggest concerns for our society seems to be with the decaying of moral values. Charged with this crime could be the decrease of religious practice/belief. The explanation of how cultural values/identities are dissolving because less and less emphasis is placed on maintaining them is a point worth considering. As moral fiber atrophies, the demand for profit augments.

So what to take from this? One, progress cannot be stopped, so traditionalists ought to get used to that thought. Since we live in civilization, we are far from nature; we constantly pursue the advancement of technology and our economic status (we try to get as far away from the state of nature as possible). Second, if we must constantly change the status quo of our social structure, it is important to maintain a foundation for our moral behavior; this is a plea for the preservation of religion, because it offers a definite answer for our existence (unlike science which merely suggests). And three, we need science in order to further ourselves from a chaotic state (it is a pillar of civilization). Closing thought: the human condition cannot exist in the perfect society, so we must choose one of two things: humanity or transcendence. Dynamism pursues the “perfect” society and traditionalism tries to preserve the human experience.