I enjoyed reading your overview of the status and history of progress, not least the way it ends triumphantly with some powerful poetry.

@T Clark

I'll just add that I was motivated by the both of you to re-read the Yeats poem, and the hair stood up on my neck. Hasn't happened in awhile.

I remember us recently discussing Adorno and Horkheimer's critique of the 'instrumentalisation of reason'. Pinker's notion of reason falls squarely into that definition. I've never bought Pinker's obvious scientism, but on the other hand, I don't think it's bad to have enthusiasts for the idea of progress. I actually believe in the ideal of progress, of trying to improve economic and social life through technology and planning. But then, Pinker isn't really representing all the Enlightenment values he claims as his own - only the aspects of it that are adopted by MBA courses and hawkish economic rationalists, as per this review. (Conflict of interest disclosure: Steve Pinker's The Blank Slate was the last Christmas gift I received from my dear departed mother, many years ago.)

But then, Pinker isn't really representing all the Enlightenment values he claims as his own - only the aspects of it that are adopted by MBA courses and hawkish economic rationalists — Wayfarer

Yes, that’s exactly the problem I have with him. His Enlightenment doesn’t have much of the spirit of the Enlightenment.

Edit: or maybe it’s better to say he’s missing some crucial aspects of it.

I'll just add that I was motivated by the both of you to re-read the Yeats poem, and the hair stood up on my neck. Hasn't happened in awhile. — Noble Dust

Same here, even though I’d read it before.

namely, an intellect :lol:

moral improvement almost always coincides with increased mastery over the conditions of life — Judaka

I don’t want to argue now against increased mastery, but can you explain why you think it coincides with moral improvement?

Why does humanity need redemption? Humanity is just better at killing and dominating than other animals. Life is about killing and domination, competition and conflict, eating and being eaten, and suffering and causing suffering. Shouldn't humans be praised for trying to rise above that, and having any kind of success? — Judaka

Sure, I think of humans like that sometimes. I was really just referring to the suffering of human beings, usually caused by other human beings. War, oppression, and poverty, that kind of thing. That last paragraph in the OP was a rather grand and emotive way of making the point that we shouldn’t reduce those past evils (not that they are consigned to the past) to steps on a ladder to present or future happiness.

It seems OP is just a question about what measuring stick we should use... And you've decided it should be extraordinarily high. Isn't that the source of your relative pessimism? — Judaka

I don’t think that’s what I’m doing. It’s more an examination of ideology, of the myth of inevitable betterment, which I think is implied in the unthinking description of unhappy conditions as primitive.

Religion is, in a sense, simply an organized narrative around which groups of people orient their lives, beliefs and values. You are no different than a muslim in this way. That's why I think the concept of "usefulness" in regards to "religion" (you're actually using it in regards to a set of beliefs) is misleading. Religion is not the opiate of the masses; rather, belief is what keeps people going, religious or secular. — Noble Dust

A Muslim has faith in their religious authorities.

I suppose that you could say that I have tentative faith in people and things but nothing like religious faith. You said it yourself that religious faith isn’t needed to orient life, beliefs and values.

Like many people today I’m not bound by faith in religious authority and can think for myself and not be constrained in moral development. I would not willingly go on jihad or crusade, speaking of the Middle Ages and progress, merely because a religious leader constructed some narrative that rationalized it.

I think the way you describe social and cultural institutions and practices is shallow. — T Clark

I don’t think much depth is needed to point out progress, at least where religion is concerned.

The separation of church and state for instance. Good progress, yes?

A Muslim has faith in their religious authorities — praxis

This is probably kind of close to blasphemy from a Muslim point of view. Which authorities? Some Muslims might follow religious leaders, but for the vast majority I think Islam is a way of life that doesn’t recognize hierarchy—famously, there is no institutional hierarchy in Islam. Respecting and listening to the Imam is not faith, but just an everyday deference to, ideally, expertise, knowledge, wisdom, etc.

But ND can take up the challenge from here.

A Muslim has faith in their religious authorities. — praxis

I don't think that's right either. A faithful muslim obeys and honors their religious authorities. The word "islam" means "submission". What they have faith in is the entire narrative of their belief system, with all it's wrinkles and curiosities, in the same way you have faith in whatever belief system you hold. Again, the way you're talking about it I think is misleading, although I don't mean that I think you're doing that intensionally.

Like many people today I’m not bound by faith in religious authority and can think for myself and not be constrained in moral development. — praxis

But you are bound by faith in whatever you believe in. Whether that constitutes "thinking for yourself" is open to debate at best, and whether "thinking for yourself" liberates you from being "constrained in moral development" (what does that mean?) is also up for debate. What exactly do you mean by thinking for yourself?

What they have faith in is the entire narrative of their belief system, with all it's wrinkles and curiosities, in the same way you have faith in whatever belief system you hold. — Noble Dust

I think this unfairly equivocates on what "thinking for oneself" could possibly mean. An act of rational decision-making is a series of heuristic steps we recognise as delivering more accurate results than, say, guessing, or deciding beforehand what the answer should be.

It's not particularity controversial, as it can be quite easily shown that these steps produce more accurate answers in simple cases (though less so in complex ones).

So when you say that the rational atheist is no less beholden to his belief system than the Muslim, you're ignoring what it means to make a rational decision. An atheist may well have a belief system which constrains the type of evidence they're willing to accept, or which limits the types of answer they're willing to consider, but that doesn't take away from the fact that some heuristic process is taking place in a rational decision. Evidence is being weighed (albeit a limited set) and some proven mental habits are being applied.

With submission to authority, no such steps are being taken. It's not that the evidence is similarly constrained (just be a different set of belief), it's not about evidence, it's about the process of thought being applied to that set. With submission to authority, no critical thought is taking place. One is therefore not "thinking for oneself". One has given over that task to the relevant authority.

I agree we are all beholden to the beliefs which inform our decisions and that those beliefs are just that. I wouldn't argue that a religious person's beliefs are somehow more belief-like than an atheist's, but I don't believe it can be argued that the same processes of thought are taking place. The mental process of going through arguments pro and con for, say, homosexual marriage, are not similar to the mental process of checking in a book or asking an authority figure, even if both processes are reliant on faith in a system of beliefs.

I do agree with you in the sense that I'm not a religious believer in the sense I've been describing. I do relate to the heuristic approach; it's an approach I use and it informs how I think about all of this. But I still think there's a misunderstanding about religion here. Within any given religion, there are classic forms of thinking (philosophies?) that allow for a heuristic approach. Within the context of any given religion, there are pluralities that mirror the pluralism of Enlightenment thought, at least in their diversity. I'm not making any argument in favor of any religion (I hope that's obvious), but I am trying to highlight that there are similarities in approach to religious and non-religious thinking. In Islam, for instance, the variance of jurisprudence should at least cause us to stop and consider it. Don't the discrepancies about law in the western world mirror this?

So, coming to here:

So when you say that the rational atheist is no less beholden to his belief system than the Muslim, you're ignoring what it means to make a rational decision. — Isaac

I don't think (but I don't know for sure) that a muslim would agree. Rationality exists in Islam. It's just not the same rationality that we know. To a muslim, rationality is arguably based on jurisprudence. To us, it's based on "thinking for oneself". I still don't know what that means, by the way. But to a muslim, rationality is based upon Shariah. What is it based on for us? We can't agree. I'm not making an argument in favor of Islam as a religion, but I'm making an argument in favor of gaining a better understanding about how people who are different from us think. A real attempt at understanding this, not just something half-assed.

The mental process of going through arguments pro and con for, say, homosexual marriage, are not similar to the mental process of checking in a book or asking an authority figure, even if both processes are reliant on faith in a system of beliefs. — Isaac

Again, I find sentiments like this highly hubristic and suspicious. I'm no expert on Islam, and I would cherish insights from anyone who is, but I guarantee you any member of an ulema would roll their eyes at best at this characature.

This discussion is not about the book. — Jamal

From the posts I've skimmed I'm not sure what this discussion is about now.

You gotta roll with it, like I'm doing. :grin:

Within any given religion, there are classic forms of thinking (philosophies?) that allow for a heuristic approach. Within the context of any given religion, there are pluralities that mirror the pluralism of Enlightenment thought... In Islam, for instance, the variance of jurisprudence should at least cause us to stop and consider it. — Noble Dust

Again, I think the mere existence of pluralities isn't quite sufficient to justify an extension of "rational thought". One can arrive at pluralities simply by having a range of prophets who all claim slightly different things. They themselves might make those claims on the basis of divine revelation and believers might follow one, rather than the other, on the basis of tradition. There'd be no rational thought going on there at all. Again, I'm not making a judgment here about the strategy, 'tradition' has a lot going for it as a decision-making heuristic, but it's not the same as rationality, that's the point I'm making.

I don't think (but I don't know for sure) that a muslim would agree. Rationality exists in Islam. It's just not the same rationality that we know. To a muslim, rationality is arguably based on jurisprudence. — Noble Dust

I'm not sure I can make sense of this, but it kind of speaks to the concern I have about these kinds of inclusive arguments. It smacks a little of wanting to have one's cake and eat it. Rationality may be rather loosely defined, but defined it is, and deference to jurisprudence isn't it. If Muslims think that deference to jurisprudence is a good way to live life, then I've no argument with that. It might be. But others take a different approach, and I dislike attempts to subsume our approach always with that if the theist.

Something is different. I think there's a strong argument that 'rationality' is the right word for that, but if it's not, then some other word is, because bthe non-religious undeniably use different decision-making heuristics to the religious. We could call it whatever, but that difference exists, and it's to do with the treatment of authority.

It comes down, I think to the scientific method vs revelation as means of gaining knowledge.

The scientific method is such that it ought be replicable by anyone and so its results open to critique by anyone. Revelation is not replicable by anyone, no-one is claiming we can all access Allah's will in the way Mohammad did, he was special in some way that isn't open to critical analysis.

That means that 'rational thought' heuristics can be applied throughout the evidence selection procedure. Something that cannot be replicated in religious approaches. I could not, as a Muslim, raise a jurisprudent disagreement on the ground that I'd received contrary revelation to that received by Mohammad. I could, however, do exactly that with experimental results.

Again, I don't mean to imply any judgment here as to which is best, only to point out that they are different, and that the difference is about the scale at which particular methods of thinking (which I'm calling 'rationality') are employed, relative to methods such as faith in the abilities of others (in, for example, divine revelation).

I guarantee you any member of an ulema would roll their eyes at best at this characature. — Noble Dust

Well they might, likewise many a caricature of the atheist. The point, which I think is undeniable, is that knowledge, in religious traditions, is arrived at by methods which cannot be tested by its initiates. They must simply defer to that authority. It is not 'worked out' by egalitarian and open discussion. That is a fundamental difference in the degree of 'faith' one is required to demonstrate for each approach.

Great discussion points which I'll address tomorrow. :party:

Edit: hopefully. :zip:

I think the archeology associated with early humans shows pretty clearly that what marks us as different from other hominins is that we have the ability to hold on to skills and therefore progress. Whether it's something that should be happening or not, we do, and one assumes we will continue to until circumstances make that impossible.

There is a strain of counter sentiment in us. It's the part of us that looks fondly at the past, as if the past was the golden age, and everything has now gone to shit. I think this is a manifestation of essential conservatism in the face of rapid change. It's the tug of an anchor, and so a good thing.

My water heater recently stopped working and I've been too busy to replace it, so I've been experimenting with living without running hot water. I've actually been amazed that I don't really need it. I can heat up water to wash the dishes and bathe. Why on earth does anyone need the hot water to come out of the faucet? Cold showers are actually really refreshing, btw. Plus they're associated with an extended dopamine release. Just imagine you're in the woods at a waterfall.

I don’t think much depth is needed to point out progress, at least where religion is concerned.

The separation of church and state for instance. Good progress, yes? — praxis

You weren't talking about the separation of church and state. You were responding to this this quote from Noble Dust:

I think "useful" is the wrong way to think about it. People are brought together by communally held beliefs (communism, for instance) because they give life meaning, from which value is derived. This isn't unique to religion. — Noble Dust

You're pulling a bit of philosophical bait and switch.

I'll just add that I was motivated by the both of you to re-read the Yeats poem, and the hair stood up on my neck. Hasn't happened in awhile. — Noble Dust

It is my understanding Keats modelled the rough beast on a dream he had about Donald Trump.

What they have faith in is the entire narrative of their belief system, with all it's wrinkles and curiosities, in the same way you have faith in whatever belief system you hold. — Noble Dust

All the wrinkles and curiosities of the Muslim narrative are centered around an authority figure, an ultimate authority, no less. If there's an ultimate authority in my worldview who or what is it? I suppose you might say something like science.

But you are bound by faith in whatever you believe in. Whether that constitutes "thinking for yourself" is open to debate at best, and whether "thinking for yourself" liberates you from being "constrained in moral development" (what does that mean?) is also up for debate. What exactly do you mean by thinking for yourself? — Noble Dust

I think that everyone is bound, at least to some extent, by their conditioning and ideologies and that this is inescapable. Maybe that's all that you're trying to say?

As for religion, it's as though you're only willing to acknowledge the positive aspects, to have your cake and eat it too, as the saying goes. You say that it gives the lives of believers a sense of purpose, meaning, and value. You forgot to mention that the purpose, meaning, and value within it are shared. Indeed, being part of something greater than yourself is part of why it can be so meaningful. The downside is obviously a loss of autonomy. For an example I will go back to the dark ages, back when religious pluralism was in full bloom. :snicker:

Proclamation of the First Crusade (1095)

The Turks, a race of Persians, who have penetrated within the boundaries of Romania even to the Mediterranean to that point which they call the Arm of the Saint George, in occupying more and more of the lands of the Christians, have overcome them, have overthrown churches, and have laid waste God's kingdom. If you permit this supinely for very long, God's faithful ones will be still further subjected....

I speak to those present, I send word to those not here; moreover, Christ commands it. Remission of sins will be granted for those going thither, if they end a shackled life either on land or in crossing the sea, or in struggling against the heathen. I, being vested with that gift from God, grant to those who go.

O what a shame, if a people, so despised, degenerate, and enslaved by demons would thus overcome a people endowed with the trust of almighty God, and shining in the name of Christ! O how many evils will be imputed to you by the Lord Himself, if you do no help those who, like you, profess Christianity!

Let those who are accustomed to wage private wars wastefully even against Believers, go forth against the Infidels in a battle worthy to be undertaken now and to be finished in victory. Now, let those, who until recently existed as plunderers, be soldiers in Christ; now, let those, who formerly contended against brothers and relations, rightly fight barbarians; now, let those, who recently were hired for a few pieces of silver, win their eternal reward. — Pope Urban II

Christ commands it, he informs. Many evils will be imputed to those who don't help by the Lord Himself, he warns. Eternal rewards will be given to those who participate, he promises.

That's a bit much, isn't it? Far fewer people living today would be persuaded by such authority because we see things differently.

If my ultimate authority is science or whatever, what happens if I were to defy its decrees? Would I be declared a heretic and ostracized by the scientific community and lose the sense of purpose, meaning, and value that I share with them? :fear:

A Muslim has faith in their religious authorities
— praxis

This is probably kind of close to blasphemy from a Muslim point of view. — Jamal

I'd be surprised if it weren't.

I'm perfectly willing to go into more depth but I can't tell exactly where you want to go.

I'm perfectly willing to go into more depth but I can't tell exactly where you want to go. — praxis

[snide]I only want you to respond to the comment I made rather than the one you imagine I made. [/snide]

I'm not going to go back and try to figure out what depth you're disappointed with. If you have anything specific in mind let me know, or not.

If you have anything specific in mind let me know, or not. — praxis

We're not getting anywhere. Let's leave it here.

Enlightenment cannot stop questioning the way things are, or it’s not Enlightenment any more — Jamal

Can this process eventually transcend Enlightenment? Is post-modern thinking an inevitable outcome of such an Enlightenment process? Isn't the eventual trajectory of questioning and more questioning anti-foundationalism? — Tom Storm

Philosophy, which once seemed obsolete, lives on because the moment to realize it was missed. The summary judgment that it had merely interpreted the world, that resignation in the face of reality had crippled it in itself, becomes a defeatism of reason after the attempt to change the world miscarried…philosophy is obliged ruthlessly to criticize itself…The introverted thought architect dwells behind the moon that is taken over by extroverted technicians. — Adorno, Negative Dialectics

Right now I can’t escape from this viewpoint, even though it has a lot of the Progress narrative about it that I’ve been criticizing. Adorno is saying that because the Enlightenment did not lead to humanity’s emancipation as Marx and the Marxists assumed it would—they really were surprised and stunned that instead of multiple social revolutions to put societies on the course to peace and freedom, we got world wars and unprecedented barbarism—philosophy has to struggle on somehow and face up to its failure. Adorno’s reference of course is to Marx’s famous eleventh thesis on Feuerbach:

The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.

By which Marx meant that the point of philosophy is to change the world.

It didn’t happen and then we got postmodernism. To repurpose a Frank Zappa quote: Philosophy is not dead, it just smells funny.

Postmodernism wasn’t inevitable tout court, but in retrospect, given the actual historical circumstances, it doesn’t seem surprising that philosophy went that way: the failure of socialist movements and the horrors of war twisted things up, and they’re still twisted. Marxism was the last grand narrative/metanarrative (except for those that justified existing conditions), and it fell to pieces. Maybe it’s natural that thinkers began to question the very idea of grand narratives.

Now it feels like postmodernism, with its scepticism towards both Enlightenment universalism and the individual subject of experience, is precisely the kind of philosophy that suits modern society, with its fragmented public sphere and atomized populace. That is, it doesn’t seem like much of a challenge to the status quo, not significantly critical at all, despite sometimes seeming to be.

But I’m being too general and impressionistic, and I don’t know the answers to your questions. I haven’t read much of what is called postmodernism aside from Foucault (whose philosophy I like quite a lot), and I know I’m seeing things too much through a historical and political lens, rather than a strictly philosophical one, but that’s the way my mind goes.

It occurs to me to re-read Foucault’s What is Enlightenment? to see what he says about the whole thing, and maybe get a clearer picture.

EDIT: I just realized: in fact, self-critical Enlightenment has not only led to postmodernist anti-humanism and anti-universalism; it has also led to philosophers like Zizek, who (I think) has made it his mission to rehabilitate both universalism and the subject. So all is not lost!

By which Marx meant that the point of philosophy is to change the world. — Jamal

Theses on Feuerbach is still my favorite bit of Marx to reference in understanding him as a philosopher because of how direct the 11th thesis is: can't get a shorter and more direct answer from him about the point of philosophy.

Also, I happen to agree with it. So there's that. (haven't had anything really substantive to say, but it's been interesting reading along)

I’ve been wondering…

Do you think it’s common for serious thinkers to misinterpret Marx as advocating the rejection of philosophy—as if he’s saying “those guys just sat around thinking and now we have to do something”—instead of seeing that he’s trying to redirect philosophy itself, or do you think that’s just a popular, unphilosophical reading?

I want to say its a popular unphilosophical reading :D -- but to be honest, I really don't know.