• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Yeah... I give up - Star Trek has abandoned philosophical naturalism - it's depressing/juvenile

Like the Q Continuum ?

I mean, TNG literally started with a Loki-esque God doing silly things to the main cast just because he was bored. There's nothing "philosophical naturalist" about that. And Q was a great concept.
I think the change happened in DS9. Compare how Picard treats Qo to how the Wormhole Aliens are treated. Both are super advanced energy being aliens, and Picard treats Q as such. Sisko on the other hand starts to treat the Wormhole Aliens like they were actual gods. I really didn't like that, others may have different views.

As for Discovery, I'm still not sure how this will go. I was actually pleased that Stamets being an atheist was flat out stated, and I certainly Interpreted 'Culber' just being product of Stamets' subconscious, though the scene was certainly portrayed with mystical tones.
 
This has been said many many many times before, but everything "godlike" in all previous Trek was presented as a product of the natural world, just beyond our current science - it was always treated as such - Picard didn't bow down and worship Q just because he was more powerful than Picard, quite the opposite - quite pointedly in fact, he did not. So the usual sophistry about Trek always being a work of mysticism is, with respect, wrong every time it is repeated uncritically on these forums, and easily demonstrated so. Q may serve the literal equivalent of Merlin, but he isn't a wizard any more than my smartphone is a magic wand, just because it can effect things invisibly at a distance.

But again, that isn't the point. DSC's phenomenon are also likely natural. The thing that irks me is the adoption of the trappings of 2000s era genre show drivel, where people spend more time swimming around in some fractured head-world, than actually doing practical things in the real world. And it's not like it's even a particularly instructive experience, like might be found in other works, its just purely soap opera padding.

And I'm not even discounting that it might be good in another work (in fact like I say, it was handled well in some other works), but it displays a lack of respect for Star Trek's unique genre that would be unthinkable in a person handling Star Wars - where Trek characters reach their solutions and wisdom through their engagement with reality.
 
Sisko on the other hand starts to treat the Wormhole Aliens like they were actual gods.

What ? No. If he believed the Wormhole Aliens were actual Gods, he would have simply accepted his role as the Emissary right away and would immediately start calling them "the Prophets" all the time. His reaction was not that different from Picard's reaction in relation to Q. His reluctance in accepting the fact that he was considered a Religious figure was a big part of his character progression throughout the Series... They even contrasted him with Kira sometimes, since she was supposed to represent the average religious person and he was the skeptical one.
 
The show has gone down the road of pseudo-"visions", talks with "dead" people inside a character's head, character "reveals" that are handled poorly, and other trite modern schtick. This was innovative only once, in the mid-1990s, when people like Joss Whedon did it, and used it far more judiciously, with self-awareness of how ridiculous it is. It has become a sickly cloying symbol of hack writing in other people's hands. What's next, maybe the show can incorporate psuedo-prophets having visions that nobody is sure whether to trust? A person inexplicably returning from the dead with a prophetic warning? Cara Thrace leading the Federation to it's destiny? The USS Destiny journeying to the center of the universe in search of "god", encountering will-o-whips that take the form of their deceased family members. Perhaps entire episodes can be dreams in future?

nsERRMd.jpg


zA9fL22.jpg


I wanted to like Discovery, I really did, and I gave it the benefit of the doubt, as you all know, for so long, but it's cringeworthy watching this. Perhaps io9's unremitting criticism was right.

Star Trek used to be a show which was grounded in a naturalistic view of the world. Society was what we made of it, not contingent on supernatural forces. Puzzles could be understood with observation/thought. Problems could be overcome or engineered, if society was wise and careful enough. Social issues could be solved with enough understanding. It was, at it's most popular, an unabashed moral sermon too. The two most popular shows, TOS and TNG, were the most earnestly formatted this way. Everything that history tells us makes civilization good - reason, science, humane ethics, realism, the ability to forgive, or to exercise discipline - Star Trek was a partisan for - like some collection of entertaining analects disguised behind an action show.

FGPveXY.jpg


It has now turned into something decadent in the worst sense of the word, with Discovery. It's like watching the ideas that a writing class in a school might come up with, "miss, what if they communicate via space fungus, meet each other in a dream world, and his dead boyfriend gives him a message". No attempt to clad it in a veneer of science any more, the audience has to perform constant gymnastics to justify it. What a pity; the show has hints of great ideas, the show could have been Star Trek's most diverse statement in favor of naturalism, instead it feels like we are slipping back into the dark ages.

Perhaps given enough time, the show will change and become something else, worth watching. But right now, I'm done defending it or giving it the benefit of the doubt. I don't think we should accept this standard of quality from such a popular franchise, when there are shows as thoughtful as Westworld on TV, or Blade Runner 2049 in the cinema, and when other old science fiction franchises are being handled so reverently.

It's depressing to watch Star Trek become a mystical soap opera. On the positive side, recent attempts at Star Trek have, as many people have noted, brought the 'colorfulness' back into Trek - more things can happen than in the latter days of Voyager, when the colorfulness had been washed away - but the problem is that every bad juvenile trend in storytelling from the last ten years has been present to some degree too.

29882046-AE52-4255-8A17-AE36DA9DF604.jpeg
 
Science FICTION people, FICTION; trek fans sometimes have a remarkable ability to pretend the word fiction is not there and they pretend they are reading a scientific thesis when they watch trek. I know it's odd to see it on the screen but I think the after show (After Trek) does a good job at not taking the franchise too seriously because it's after all fiction (e.g. it calls the science "technobubble", which always was).

If you want to see science, read a scientific paper instead of watching trek. Sure trek often gave the delusion of hard science, but the moment there is fiction it's by definition not true science, a portion of bollocks will always be there and your belief has to be suspended because you know it's for fun, not necessary because you truly can't see it's fiction.

I personally have a background in science and engineering in a couple of different fields and I know Zero works of science fiction that I can't find at least partly bollocks, but that's not why I like them.
 
What ? No. If he believed the Wormhole Aliens were actual Gods, he would have simply accepted his role as the Emissary right away and would immediately start calling them "the Prophets" all the time. His reaction was not that different from Picard's reaction in relation to Q. His reluctance in accepting the fact that he was considered a Religious figure was a big part of his character progression throughout the Series... They even contrasted him with Kira sometimes, since she was supposed to represent the average religious person and he was the skeptical one.
It started like that. But he eventually accepted his role and pretty much treated the prophets as gods. He took orders from them over his own government (at that point he really should have been relieved from command.) And like in one of the most disgusting biblical tales, he was even willing to sacrifice his own son for them (again, he should have been relieved and Jake should have been traumatised, but instead he instantly forgave him.) And with the Pah Wraiths the whole thing became pure fantasy tale. And apparently Sisko's whole big god ordained destiny was to throw an evil spellbook in the Mount Doom. It was ridiculous.
 
Science FICTION people, FICTION; trek fans sometimes have a remarkable ability to pretend the word fiction is not there and they pretend they are reading a scientific thesis when they watch trek. I know it's odd to see it on the screen but I think the after show (After Trek) does a good job at not taking the franchise too seriously because it's after all fiction (e.g. it calls the science "technobubble", which always was).

If you want to see science, read a scientific paper instead of watching trek. Sure trek often gave the delusion of hard science, but the moment there is fiction it's by definition not true science, a portion of bollocks will always be there and your belief has to be suspended because you know it's for fun, not necessary because you truly can't see it's fiction.

I personally have a background in science and engineering in a couple of different fields and I know Zero works of science fiction that I can't find at least partly bollocks, but that's not why I like them.
It is not about the science making sense (though that would be good), it is about whether the characters treat it as science or as magic.
 
@Sci-fi fan

Well, as I've said before, I've also got a background in the natural sciences.

But I read Trek differently. In the words of one of the writers who visit these forums, Star Trek was always meant to have the veneer of a work of realism. I.E. the original showrunners wanted to make a show that would be as acceptable to an audience as the police procedurals and law/medical shows of their day - to present even the deeply speculative phenomena as being justified as a part of the natural world - and the response of the astronauts of the show as being naturalistic/professional, even if not quite a work of social realism.

I think that is one component of it's appeal. A big one too.
 
I know that science fiction often has the ability to suspect disbelief even if you want to see hard science, but very rarely - and definitely never in star trek - does it suspend it necessarily if you look too closely onto the science it portrays. At the very least it shows human made vessels travelling faster than light when a) we have absolutely no evidence we can even build vessels that can withstand such a travel b) we have no evidence we can even eventually achieve that travel even if humans aren't in the vessel and c) we have no evidence the laws of nature would behave that way even if we manage to achieve a) and b).

At the end of the day even the hardest science fiction is fiction and if you look too closely onto it, it's often not that much less ridiculous that a cartoon show for kids doing fiction in terms of what can truly be achieved necessarily or in terms of what we know for certain. That is true even for shows that don't go as far as trek into the extraordinary.

It's not so much about the hard science that makes science fiction fun in terms of science, but the opening of the mind of could have been possible if we find a way to take that FICTION out of science fiction and make it true reality. In that sense it's important and good to know that we watch fiction if we want to improve humanity.
 
I've only skimmed this thread, but this is basically bitching because Stamets communed with Culber's spirit, right?

If so, then oh my fucking raging cock. So fucking what? I am an atheist with no belief in an afterlife, but I don't see anything to complain about here. It's just a way for the two characters to say good-bye, that's all. It's not trying to suggest anything philosophically or metaphysically. If it really offends against your sensibilities that much, just pretend "Culber" was a spore-generated hallucination or something.

Sweet shit, the things people will complain about.
 
I get that everyone has their own tastes but I do find it curious that so many people who are fans of science fiction in general and Star Trek in particular seem so invested in the Philosophical Naturalist view of the world as championed by science popularizers like Neill DeGrasse-Tyson, Michio Kaku and others.

Star Trek used to be a show which was grounded in a naturalistic view of the world.

I completely disagree. It has most certainly not been so throughout any of it's incarnations - especially not in the sense that the terms is commonly used. Other members have pointed out the fact that there have been any number of episodes with themes that explore various aspects of human experience that can be classified as 'mystical' or 'supernatural'. ESP has been featured frequently such as in "where no man has gone before" or "Is There in Truth No Beauty?" and let's not forget the Betazoid empathic / telepathic abilities as well as those of Vulcans.

I think your initial post is really more a statement against mysticism, the supernatural and by extension religion in general rather than anything else. That is fine, but the problem I see with this Dawkins-esque point of view is that, by definition it tends to give big "S" Science far more credit for understanding the universe than it's actual accomplishments deserve. Further it implicitly defines the boundaries of knowledge and binds what we consider possible to what is currently known about the universe. This is essentially the same constricting force that has been getting in the way of discovery and knowledge throughout the history of science.
 
Personally, I think people underestimate the fragility of naturalism. The world can, has, and will face people who want to draw it back into bigotry, witch hunts, guilt without trial, quack medicine, and the burning of heretics. So, having a fairly naturalistic show on TV that talks casually and admiringly about Data giving proof to Fermat's theorems or whatever, is a very valuable thing. The simple acceptance and value shown to learning is a powerful thing to see, that only becomes apparent in it's absence, but seems natural when it is there.

biAc7V3.jpg


Going into full-on "meta" solipsism about how fantasy and sci-fi are actually one and the same (ignoring the 'sci' part as an inconvenient rebuttal to this idea), and witches and magic are no conceptually different to quantum physics from a fictional writer's perspective is dangerous. It's not nice to see one of the few works that was naturalistic in spirit go down that route, because people can and will drag Trek further down that road, until it lacks anything that made it a unique artistic take. DSC's spore stuff is probably meant to be natural, but they are treating these things, spores and red matter, more and more openly as just magical devices, less and less as an attempt to fit into things contextually. We have the whole head-world melodrama padding so far, let's hope it does not go further down that road to Lazarus type figures rising from the grave every few episodes. I'm beginning to regret Seth MacFarelane not being given Star Trek - perhaps Neil DeGrasse Tyson could have written a script or two for him.
 
The problem with Discovery is that it's abandoned humanism and exploration of humanist philosophical themes.
There is no politics here, no philosophy, no exploration of social issues, at all. They will throw hamfisted attempts at the wokesphere crowd to virtue signal they care about these ideas (constantly mentioning how the mirror universe are racist xenophobes and equality of the federation is good) but there are absolutely zero exploration of these themes, at all. None. It's exactly what it is, shallow pandering to the Social justice crowd on Twitter. It's a trend that is rife through modern pop culture, from Ghost Busters 2016 to Nu-Star Wars, the tedious pretending to be progressive to get brownie points from the liberal media while not actually being progressive, at all.

There is nothing about Gene Roddenberry in Discovery, there is nothing about Star Trek in Discovery.
We have a Star Trek show, being made in 2018, dealing with a WAR and not once have we dealt with a storyline around, Refugees and tensions that arise from mass movement and cultural clash and how a better society would deal with that (European Refugee Crisis), we have not had a storyline deal with, what happens if a enemy gets a super weapon but you can't do anything because acting puts a ally's civilisation at extreme material risk, is it better to attack or try keep a balance or even start reaching out and trying real diplomacy (North Korea), what happens when you have a section of the population reject humanist values and becomes extremely reactionary and violent. Do they have the right to free speech when in fact, their speech is dangerous and directly harms the safety and lives of the people they spout vile vitriol against? (The Alt-Right and "Political Correctness") How about some way exploring the issues of police brutality and violence against a minority?

These are all themes are real Star Trek show would be exploring (From the humanist socialist view point of Roddenberry and not even a liberal centrist viewpoint), but we're not exploring these themes, because Discovery is not Star Trek, nor do the writers care about Star Trek, nor do the audience they are aiming for cares about Star Trek.
Discovery is after the Game of Thrones and Star Wars crowd, it could not give a crap about Trekkies and it's a business sure. But it annoys me that they pretend to care and get all their little shillbots in the media to pretend the reason people don't like this show is because they're just lame reactionary nerds who hate women and minorities and gays, when Discovery is the least progressive Trek show ever made and people are actually crying for a progressive, contemplative show that deals with social issues.

It's 2018, TV NEEDS Star Trek, but sadly what is called Star Trek on TV right now is not it.
 
But he eventually accepted his role and pretty much treated the prophets as gods. He took orders from them over his own government (at that point he really should have been relieved from command.) And like in one of the most disgusting biblical tales, he was even willing to sacrifice his own son for them (again, he should have been relieved and Jake should have been traumatised, but instead he instantly forgave him.) And with the Pah Wraiths the whole thing became pure fantasy tale. And apparently Sisko's whole big god ordained destiny was to throw an evil spellbook in the Mount Doom. It was ridiculous.

He didn't accept them as Gods, necessarily. He accepted them for what they were: Powerful energy creatures that had the power of saving lives, like when they got rid of the Dominion's fleet. He doesn't become a pious religious believer, he becomes something more in the lines of an agnostic. He doesn't believe the Prophets are all powerful supernatural gods but he doesn't pretend he understands them entirely either, like he did before.

You're omitting the fact that for Sisko, everything became personal when he discovered his own origins were linked to the Prophets. If someday you discovered something that puts in question who one of your parents really were, if that person existed at all, wouldn't you feel a little bit emotional and go on a quest to understand from where you came from ? That's what he did. Sure, he was unhinged. That can be blamed for the War too. Another aspect that DS9 played very well were the psychological consequences of it. He didn't become a Religious fundamentalist all of sudden, though.

And it's not like Jake had no saying in the whole ordeal too. He and Kira took part in the whole thing willingly, DS9 did a very good job in establishing that Jake already was a "big boy" and quite independent from his father. This is not like that Bible tale at all.

It would be "pure fantasy" if they never offered any explanation to what the Prophets and the Pah-Wraiths really were. They did. They were life forms who messed psychologically with people's heads. Just because some of your characters don't believe that scientific explanation it doesn't make it Fantasy all of sudden. Actually, that's the way Star Trek should always do things. It's really boring when all characters react the same way in relation to something.
 
But it annoys me that they pretend to care and get all their little shillbots in the media to pretend the reason people don't like this show is because they're just lame reactionary nerds who hate women and minorities and gays, when Discovery is the least progressive Trek show ever made and people are actually crying for a progressive, contemplative show that deals with social issues.

I couldn't have said this any better - and the irony is the Orville, despite being a comedy (in name at least), actually does attempt to be this - and is genuinely progressive, genuinely addressing issues of minorities.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top