The elephant in the room: Progress

WISDOMfromPO-MO

I seems really unreasonable of me to say this, but I doubt very much that you have no belief in progress. Why so?... — Bitter Crank

If I recall correctly, in Think: A Compelling Introduction to Philosophy Simon Blackburn says that philosophers are "structural engineers" and that if one thing is found to be wrong in a body of thinking the whole body collapses.

It seems obvious to me that almost all systematic thought in the Western world today is built on the Enlightenment idea of progress. If the idea of progress is erroneous then nearly everything that has been built on the Western intellectual landscape since the Enlightenment implodes into a heap of rubble like a football stadium after a demolition crew has done its work. It seems reasonable to say that a lot of the institutions, laws, traditions, customs, etc. that have been built over the past several centuries would also be in that heap of rubble.

The predictable objection is, "We abolished slavery. We enfranchised women. We eradicated polio. We ended Apartheid. We have reduced violence to historically low rates. We increased the amount of leisure time people have. How can you not believe in progress?"

Well, according to John Gray, "History is not an ascending spiral of human advance, or even an inch by inch crawl to a better world. It is an unending cycle in which changing knowledge interacts with unchanging human needs. Freedom is recurrently won and lost in an alternation that includes long periods of anarchy and tyranny, and there is no reason to suppose that this cycle will ever end…The core of the idea of progress is the belief that human life becomes better with the growth of knowledge. The error is not in thinking that human life can improve. Rather, it is imagining that improvement can ever be cumulative. Unlike science, ethics and politics are not activities in which what is learnt in one generation can be passed on to an indefinite number of future generations. Like the arts, they are practical skills and they are easily lost” (Heresies: Against Progress and Other Illusions, 3-4) (emphasis mine).

Nobody ever seems to acknowledge it or own up to it, but a lot of thinkers, it seems obvious to me, filter everything through a faith in a perpetual improvement in the human condition with our tool that can make or fix anything, our trump card in our game against the entire universe: reason. Scientists. Feminists. Objectivists. Progressives. Transhumanists. Neoliberals. Republicans. Democrats. Libertarians. Almost all of academia in the West, dissenting postmodern theorists notwithstanding.

I don't think that the evidence against progress ends with the fact that history is cyclical. I think that the believers in progress see change as addition with no subtraction. The Enlightenment/modernist project to engineer our way to utopia is not a zero-sum game, we are supposed to believe. But in A Short History of Progress Ronald Wright shows that for every problem that new technology solves it creates other problems. Everybody gains and nobody loses, we are supposed to believe. Probably the only way such math works is to ignore some or all of the negative things of the past several centuries or to attribute them to causes other than science, technology, free markets, etc.--and plenty of influential thinkers seem to do exactly those things. Popular scapegoats are "religion", "fundamentalists", etc., it seems.

When one can't remember ever having much faith in progress in the first place, and when all of the evidence seems to go against it, it is not difficult to not believe in progress.

The only thing that I have not figured out is what other foundations are available to build on before or after the present edifice implodes.

Would your worldview, philosophy, etc. implode if progress is an erroneous idea?

BC

The predictable objection is, "We abolished slavery. We enfranchised women. We eradicated polio. We ended Apartheid. We have reduced violence to historically low rates. We increased the amount of leisure time people have. How can you not believe in progress?" — WISDOMfromPO-MO

And more besides.

Perhaps the problem is that "progress" implies cumulative and continual change in the direction that is thought to be advantageous. We see in our past that at times we have made progress and then the progress we made receded. We can see this in the longer term (the period of Roman ascendency, then a period of Roman recession and disintegration) and in the shorter term. In 1973 the right to have a safe abortion seemed secured. Forty-odd years later, it no longer seems assured at all.

I don't think history is cyclical, nor is history following a course -- like, toward ever more progress. One event follows another, and this event leads to that event, and if sometimes the result is pleasant, at other times it is not.

Still for now, life is better than it was in 1067 or 1867. If progress happens over the short run, it also plateaus at times, where things don't keep getting better. They just putter along.

One thing about your collapsing foundation metaphor:

Building can be (and sometimes are) built so that the stability of the structure depends on a few members at ground level--City Bank Bldg. in NYC. Other buildings (thinking of a very, very big low-rise building like the Pentagon) aren't going to collapse all at once -- indeed, can't collapse all at once. Philosophical systems can be more like the pentagon. or they can be like a City Bank Bldg. One won't fall all at once, the other one could (theoretically--given the right stresses).

WISDOMfromPO-MO

Still for now, life is better than it was in 1067 or 1867. — Bitter Crank

Better for who?

Building can be (and sometimes are) built so that the stability of the structure depends on a few members at ground level--City Bank Bldg. in NYC. Other buildings (thinking of a very, very big low-rise building like the Pentagon) aren't going to collapse all at once -- indeed, can't collapse all at once. Philosophical systems can be more like the pentagon. or they can be like a City Bank Bldg. One won't fall all at once, the other one could (theoretically--given the right stresses). — Bitter Crank

That made me think of this: I believe that Niall Ferguson has written that civilizations do not gradually decline--they suddenly collapse.

Galuchat

I don't think history is cyclical, nor is history following a course -- like, toward ever more progress. One event follows another, and this event leads to that event, and if sometimes the result is pleasant, at other times it is not. — Bitter Crank

While time proceeds in a linear fashion, human nature has remained essentially the same across recorded history. So, given similar circumstances at particular points in history, human behaviour will be found to be similar. As such, history may not be cyclical, but it is definitely repetitive (at least in a general sense).

And it's because of this repetitive property of human behaviour, that I think future human events are predictable to a certain extent given present circumstances.

Banno

Building can be (and sometimes are) built so that the stability of the structure depends on a few members at ground level--City Bank Bldg. in NYC. Other buildings (thinking of a very, very big low-rise building like the Pentagon) aren't going to collapse all at once -- indeed, can't collapse all at once. Philosophical systems can be more like the pentagon. or they can be like a City Bank Bldg. One won't fall all at once, the other one could (theoretically--given the right stresses). — Bitter Crank

Excellent metaphor.

Banno

human nature has remained essentially the same across recorded history. — Galuchat

Debatable.

andrewk

Would your worldview, philosophy, etc. implode if progress is an erroneous idea? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Progress is relative. We aim to make things better in the foreseeable future than they are now, and to maintain the improvements we have over the past.

Sometimes we fail. That's life. It's not a reason not to try, else nobody would ever try to do anything.

From time to time civilisations may collapse, and periods of bloody anarchy ensue. That's life too. But again not a reason not to do anything. And from the desperate low point of that anarchy, perhaps civilisation will one day again start to emerge - relative progress.

And in the end the universe will die a long slow heat death.

But if we do our best to be kind to one another in the meantime, perhaps there will be more happiness and less misery across the broad sweep of spacetime then there would otherwise have been.

Galuchat

human nature has remained essentially the same across recorded history. — Galuchat

Debatable. — Banno

Whether or not it's debatable depends on how you define human nature (unless you had some other basis for debate in mind). I define it as genetic predisposition to natural human development (physical, mental and social). How do you define it? Or, what would you rather debate about that statement?

Wayfarer

Better for who? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

EVERY SINGLE PERSON. On the whole, you and every one you know, is much less likely to die of a preventable disease, be imprisoned by an autocrat, or suffer malnourishment.

My dear departed father was deeply involved in population control initiatives in the developing world. IN the 1960's he was convinced that India was heading for economic collapse and mass starvation. But he didn't foresee the 'green revolution' or the technological boom that lifted hundreds of millions of Indians out of rural poverty into middle-class incomes.

That said - I too believe that the prospect of the collapse of the current economic and political order is possible, even likely. I don't believe there will be a nuclear apocalypse, resulting in the extinction of life on earth, but a collapse of the world's economic systems, brought about by a catastrophic war, is a definite possibility.

Gray is notoriously pessimistic, by the way.

mcdoodle

If only our teeth were as good as in bygone days :)

Cavacava

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO

Would your worldview, philosophy, etc. implode if progress is an erroneous idea?

Progress is a teleological filter that can be used to understand how we got to where we are currently. The Enlightenment concept of Progress supplanted (but did not eliminate) the prior Theological view of history. Any such pattern filter suggests a teleology based on Human Nature as its end. I think the larger question is whether or not History is striving towards an end, or if it is a series of small events seeking their own realization which create the illusion of a large scale pattern. Could the Civil Rights movement of the last century have occurred without a series of smaller events, and isn't this process ongoing.

History does not have to be linear, it can be cyclic or stepped. Chinese history seems to follow a social cycle theory

According to this theory, each dynasty rises to a political, cultural, and economic peak and then, because of moral corruption, declines, loses the Mandate of Heaven, and falls, only to be replaced by a new dynasty.

. Some suggest that all historical civilizations can be interpreted in the analogy of birth, childhood, maturity, old age, and death.

I think the Ideals of the Enlightenment failed if history if viewed as progress. That failure culminated in the World Wars that occurred in the first half of the last century. The trends since the the last century have accelerated and progress is now as measured by technology, but I think technology is just one step in our history.

Rich

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO

I agree with your proposition. The universe doesn't progress, it evolves and we, with memory, remember and learn as we evolve with it. One can make a very nice case for to the healthy and unhealthy physical, social, psychological, and spiritual effects of technology. The final contribution of nuclear weapons is still quite unknown. As for me, I just look for simple things in life like a good friend.

Galuchat

History also reveals a certain degree of sociological reflexivity in the actions of societies. For example:

Ancient Egyptian Kingdoms
The rule of the Egyptian Pharaohs was inherently unstable because of the initial, and repeated subsequent, conquest of Lower Egypt by Upper Egypt. In addition, the military conquests of the New Kingdom were followed by the Libyan, Nubian, Assyrian and Persian conquests of Egypt.

Imperial China
The Song Dynasty's breach of an alliance with the Mongols led to its conquest by the Mongols 40 years later. Also, the tribute system imposed on other Nations during the Ming Dynasty was followed by the Opium Wars, Unequal Treaties and Eight-Nation Alliance during the Qing Dynasty.

Aztec Empire
The Aztecs conquered their neighbours and imposed a feudal system upon them. Then they were conquered and colonised by the Spanish, who imposed an economy modelled after the feudal system of the Aztecs.

Some suggest that all historical civilizations can be interpreted in the analogy of birth, childhood, maturity, old age, and death. — Cavacava

Or interpreted in the parlance of Sociocultural Anthropology: Rise (i.e., success), Dominance (i.e., expansion), Stagnation, Decline, and Fall (i.e., failure).

OglopTo

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO

Maybe it would help if you could give illustrative examples of philosophies or concepts based on the idea of progress. Below are two case studies that come to mind:

Case 1 on Compounding Interest:

The money lent by financiers supposedly 'grows' when goods or services are traded with some value added by the borrowers. But what happens when there is no more novelty in the goods and services traded, i.e. you can only add X number of blades to a razor until customers realize they don't need much? Prices of the same goods must go up to keep up with the interest payments or costs must go down to keep margins up and then you'll start having problems. I was really confused back then why governments have a target 'inflation rate', I mean why would governments want prices to go up? It was only after connecting this with unending debt payment that I understood why and something must give when businesses run out of ideas.

Case 2 on Unchanging Human Psyche:

Krishnamurti wrote along the following lines: there is technological progress but there is no 'psychological' progress. While we can't deny the technological progress throughout history, there are aspects of human nature that probably remain the same. Sure, it has become easier to satisfy one's basic needs because of modern conveniences but I don't think it has become easier to understand other people to their core, be at peace with loss, death, aging, and boredom, and be mindful of one's desires. Human need and desire for connection, stability, and purpose, among other things, still remain largely unfulfilled and unchanged throughout human history. I'd like to make the claim that we're still as confused as to the purpose of life as humans did before.

Nils Loc

The error is not in thinking that human life can improve. Rather, it is imagining that improvement can ever be cumulative. Unlike science, ethics and politics are not activities in which what is learnt in one generation can be passed on to an indefinite number of future generations. Like the arts, they are practical skills and they are easily lost” (Heresies: Against Progress and Other Illusions, 3-4) (emphasis mine). — WisdomfromPOMO

How does John Gray think the the cultural transmission of science differs from ethics or politics? Isn't the domain of science just as full of performative skills easily lost?

Is it because science leaves behind artifacts which can be reverse engineered while ethics and politics do not? What about books on philosophy and law? It seems the transmission of science in any "progressive" degree would be limited by the stability (political and ethical workings) of a functioning state.

WISDOMfromPO-MO

Progress is relative. We aim to make things better in the foreseeable future than they are now, and to maintain the improvements we have over the past... — andrewk

I am not armed with evidence right now, but I bet if I had the time and other resources I could find a lot of evidence of horrible things done in the name of "progress".

The removal of Native Americans is probably one example.

Sometimes we fail... — andrewk

And a lot of times we succeed.

I am sure that the many people who have had their lives, cultures, land, etc. destroyed by the West's march of progress can attest to that.

That's life. It's not a reason not to try, else nobody would ever try to do anything... — andrewk

But if history is cyclical and not linear and cumulative then it is foolish to act under a progress myth.

Acting according to historical reality will yield the best outcomes.

And there seems to be an unspoken premise here: we can only do good if we have faith in progress, real or mythical. That premise is highly debatable.

From time to time civilisations may collapse, and periods of bloody anarchy ensue. That's life too. But again not a reason not to do anything. And from the desperate low point of that anarchy, perhaps civilisation will one day again start to emerge - relative progress... — andrewk

But that is characterizing history as cyclical.

Believing in progress means rejecting history as cyclical.

And in the end the universe will die a long slow heat death.

But if we do our best to be kind to one another in the meantime, perhaps there will be more happiness and less misery across the broad sweep of spacetime then there would otherwise have been. — andrewk

Again, it is probably safe to say that a lot of horrible--unkind to one another--things have been done in the name of progress.

WISDOMfromPO-MO

EVERY SINGLE PERSON... — Wayfarer

How do you know?

On the whole, you and every one you know, is much less likely to die of a preventable disease, be imprisoned by an autocrat, or suffer malnourishment... — Wayfarer

How was this utilitarian calculation made?

My dear departed father was deeply involved in population control initiatives in the developing world. IN the 1960's he was convinced that India was heading for economic collapse and mass starvation. But he didn't foresee the 'green revolution' or the technological boom that lifted hundreds of millions of Indians out of rural poverty into middle-class incomes... — Wayfarer

Would India have even had those conditions in the 1960's if they had never been subjugated by the British Empire?

The Green Revolution? Well, I have encountered probably more than a few sources in the past who say that the whole Green Revolution narrative is hogwash. But a simple, quick Google search just now yielded this:

"The Green Revolution did not save India from famine, as the proponents of Industrial Agriculture and GMO technology would argue, in fact the Green Revolution reduced India’s production..."

That said - I too believe that the prospect of the collapse of the current economic and political order is possible, even likely. I don't believe there will be a nuclear apocalypse, resulting in the extinction of life on earth, but a collapse of the world's economic systems, brought about by a catastrophic war, is a definite possibility... — Wayfarer

There are plenty of other threats to everybody's survival that "progress" is presenting. The U.S. government, without vetting for things like the affects it will have on public health, has, it is my understanding, given the green light for wireless communications companies to transition to a 5G network. What I hear about the unprecedented amounts of radiation we are all about to be exposed to is scary. And it is to a great extent so that people can play their video games and download pictures of their dogs to more devices in more locations at faster speeds. Progress!

Gray is notoriously pessimistic, by the way. — Wayfarer

The truth can have that affect on people.

andrewk

I am not armed with evidence right now, but I bet if I had the time and other resources I could find a lot of evidence of horrible things done in the name of "progress — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes. I could too, but I don't see that that amounts to a mound of beans.

Somebody doing something harmful 'in the name of X' is no reason at all for anybody else to remove X from their aspirations.

What matters most is what is done, not what people say it is done 'in the name of'.

What are you actually trying to argue? Are you just saying you don't like people using the word 'progress'? Or are you saying that people should not try to improve the lot of their fellow creatures?

WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes. I could too, but I don't see that that amounts to a mound of beans... — andrewk

It means that if it is true then the Enlightenment progress narrative is false, delusional, dangerous, etc.

Somebody doing something harmful 'in the name of X' is no reason at all for anybody else to remove X from their aspirations... — andrewk

It is not an aspiration. It is a belief, myth, faith, narrative, etc.

What matters most is what is done, not what people say it is done 'in the name of'... — andrewk

When evaluating a myth, faith, narrative, etc., the acts that it inspires must be considered.

What are you actually trying to argue?... — andrewk

1.) The Enlightenment faith in / narrative of progress, P, is the foundation of almost everything, B, that has been built on the Western intellectual landscape the last several centuries, but it is never acknowledged. It is the elephant in the room.

2.) If P is erroneous then B collapses into a heap of rubble.

3.) The evidence in support of P is weak; the evidence against it is staggering.

Or are you saying that people should not try to improve the lot of their fellow creatures? — andrewk

Again, where is it written that good can only be done through a faith in some kind of progress?

Again, acting according to reality will yield the best results, and the reality of "progress" is highly questionable.

andrewk

the Enlightenment progress narrative is false, delusional, dangerous — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I am a big fan of many enlightenment thinkers, and am tremendously glad that the Enlightenment happened.

But I have no idea what 'The Enlightenment progress narrative' is. It's certainly not a phrase that I ever use. So I don't mind what nasty things people say about it. For all I know it could be a new super-virus.

Wayfarer

EVERY SINGLE PERSON (is better off than they were in 1067 and 1867)..
— Wayfarer

How do you know? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

From various sources. It is a fact that life expectancy, overall health and even overall wealth have increased significantly since those times, even despite the massive ballooning of human population.

But a simple, quick Google search — WISDOMfromPO-MO

That's about par for the course with you, I suspect.

I have no idea what 'The Enlightenment progress narrative' is. It's certainly not a phrase that I ever use. — andrewk

It might be of relevance that Auguste Comte, who is recognised as the founder of the social sciences, coined the term 'positivism' to denote the progression of culture from primitive superstition, to religion, then to metaphysics, and finally to science, as the logical culmination of the human quest for knowledge. That is one of the sources of 'the enlightenment progress narrative', which indubitably exists.

WISDOMfromPO-MO

From various sources. It is a fact that life expectancy, overall health and even overall wealth have increased significantly since those times, even despite the massive ballooning of human population. — Wayfarer

Greater wealth does not necessarily mean better off.

Just because aggregate measurements such as life expectancy and health increase does not mean that life is better for every single individual.

And those are all quantitative. They do not tell us how life then and now compare qualitatively.

That's about par for the course with you, I suspect. — Wayfarer

Considering what I am often responding to, it should be no surprise that that is all it takes.

It might be of relevance that Auguste Comte, who is recognised as the founder of the social sciences, coined the term 'positivism' to denote the progression of culture from primitive superstition, to religion, then to metaphysics, and finally to science, as the logical culmination of the human quest for knowledge. That is one of the sources of 'the enlightenment progress narrative', which indubitably exists. — Wayfarer

No.

Every scholar I have encountered who is looking at the Enlightenment and modernity says that a central feature of theirs is belief in science, reason, free markets, democracy, etc. yielding ever-increasing freedom, material well-being, etc. It is better known as progress, the Idea of Progress, the doctrine of progress, etc.

It is often said to be something that is taken on faith. The failure of anybody to provide evidence here that progress is real seems to confirm the latter.

Wayfarer

Just because aggregate measurements such as life expectancy and health increase does not mean that life is better for every single individual. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

No, it doesn't - it means that it's better on average, which it is. There are many aspects of the 'belief in progress' that I think are worth criticizing, but at the same time, what is the alternative? The dynamics of the scientific revolution and liberal economics have generated massive increases in overall wealth, life expectancy, reduction of illness, and so on. Sure, it's not a panacea - people in developed economies are prone to depression, anomie, and many other problems.

The failure of anybody to provide evidence here that progress is real seems to confirm the latter. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

But whatever anyone produces, you will simply say that it's not evidence.

Wayfarer

Admit - for it is true, - that this age of which materialism was the portentous offspring and in which it had figured first as petulant rebel and aggressive thinker, then as a grave and strenuous preceptor of mankind, has been by no means a period of mere error, calamity and degeneration, but rather a most powerful creative epoch of humanity. Examine impartially its results. Not only has it immensely widened and filled in the knowledge of the race and accustomed it to a great patience of research, scrupulosity, accuracy - if it has done that only in one large sphere of enquiry, it has still prepared for the extension of the same curiosity, intellectual rectitude, power for knowledge, to other and higher fields - not only has it with an unexampled force and richness of invention brought and put into our hands, for much evil, but also for much good, discoveries, instruments, practical powers, conquests, conveniences which, however we may declare their insufficiency for our highest interests, yet few of us would care to relinquish, but it has also, paradoxical as that might at first seem, strengthened man's idealism. On the whole, it has given him a kindlier hope and humanised his nature. Tolerance is greater, liberty has increased, charity is more a matter of course; peace, if not yet practicable, is growing at least imaginable. Latterly the thought of the eighteenth century which promulgated secularism has been much scouted and belittled, that of the nineteenth which developed it, riddled with adverse criticism and overpassed. Still they worshipped no mean godheads. Reason, science, progress, freedom, humanity were their idols, and which of these idols, if idols they are, would we like or ought we, if we are wise, to cast down into the mire or leave as poor unworshipped relics on the wayside ? If there are other and yet greater godheads or if the visible forms adored were only clay or stone images or the rites void of the inmost knowledge, yet has their cult been for us a preliminary initiation and the long material sacrifice has prepared us for a greater religion. — Aurobindo

Materialism

BC

I am not armed with evidence right now, but I bet if I had the time and other resources I could find a lot of evidence of horrible things done in the name of "progress".

The removal of Native Americans is probably one example. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Yes, the aboriginal genocide wasn't done just in the name of progress, it was done as progress. The European conception of the New World was that it was a wasteland (because it was wild and uncultivated) and needed to be improved--tamed and brought under cultivation. They were wrong about that. The aboriginals had brought much of North America under human control. The forests were kept free of undergrowth to make hunting game easier. prairie fire was used to increase forage for buffalo. Most of the tribes -- coast-to-coast -- engaged in some kind of agriculture. Corn, tomatoes, potatoes,, chili peppers, avocados, cranberries, blueberries, huckleberries,, papayas,, passionfruit, pineapples, strawberries, squash, tobacco, and chocolate (plus a few others) were developed by native American people. Several of the foods (corn, tomatoes, potatoes in particular) required extensive plant breeding to become the major food crops they were when Europeans arrived.

Better for who? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

That would be "Better for whom"; who is the subject case, whom is the object case (object of the preposition 'for')

The beneficiaries (are better off now than they would have been in 1067 and 1867).

How do you know?
— WISDOMfromPO-MO — "Bitter

If there is no such thing as progress, then there is no way of measuring whether people are better off now than they were 100 or 1000, 10,000, or 1,000,000 years ago. I assume that progress's occurrence delivers changes which people consider beneficial.

Food production is far greater; deaths of children and women during childbirth are much lower now than they were 100, 1000, or 10,000 years ago Adult men and women die of fewer diseases now than in the past, and longevity has increased. What diseases? Polio, Tuberculosis, Small Pox, leprosy, and some others. They are healthier (more robust) now than in the past.

Progress is not without costs, of course. Progress has enabled humans to live more complex lives. We could measure 'progress' by energy consumption. We consume far more energy now, per person, than we did in 1867 or 1066. Global warming, resource depletion, and increasing species' extinction are all effects of our energy consumption and more complex lives.

So, by definition, progress exists. It's another question whether the value of progress to those who are its beneficiaries more than balances out the harm it does.

Wayfarer

Where I'm really critical of progress, is the idea that 'the next step is outer space'. It's total bollocks, in my view, and dangerous bollocks. We have a vessel, equipped to carry vast populations through space for millions of years - it's called Earth. And we have to look after the one we have, otherwise the human race won't live long enough to build any kind of 'starship'.

_db

Nobody ever seems to acknowledge it or own up to it, but a lot of thinkers, it seems obvious to me, filter everything through a faith in a perpetual improvement in the human condition with our tool that can make or fix anything, our trump card in our game against the entire universe: reason. Scientists. Feminists. Objectivists. Progressives. Transhumanists. Neoliberals. Republicans. Democrats. Libertarians. Almost all of academia in the West, dissenting postmodern theorists notwithstanding. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I agree. I'm increasingly vexed and nauseated by the large amount of different worldviews that all seem to be saying the same thing but which fail to actually fulfill their promises. Not only do each of these worldviews have to see all the other numerous competing worldviews as misguided, but they have to renounce all of history, or re-interpret history has culminating in their specific worldview. It's incredibly narcissistic and short-sighted. These movements and acolytes will never go away. If it's not x, then it'll be y that will finally save humanity. If it's not y, then it'll be z that will finally redeem our condition. After a while it just gets really annoying and pathetically delusional.

I think it likely that there is a limit to progress. I think we've made some undeniable progress in many places, medicine and hygiene being the most prominent, as well as communications and a general understanding of the world. To make progress in the way these progressives dream of is to fundamentally change the human condition - look at the transhumanists, they explicitly endorse this. If we are to escape the problems that have plagued us since the beginning of time then we might as well just accept that if it will ever happen, it'll only be through a radical change in our nature. So radical that we might not even be recognizingly human. So it won't be humans we save, but rather humans that we replace with something superior.

This is all hypothetical, of course.

andrewk

Every scholar I have encountered who is looking at the Enlightenment and modernity says that a central feature of theirs is belief in science, reason, free markets, democracy, etc. yielding ever-increasing freedom, material well-being, etc. It is better known as progress, the Idea of Progress, the doctrine of progress, etc. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

For those of us who are not scholars of the Enlightenment, but just celebrate it and enjoy reading Hume, Paine and Voltaire, where is this 'Doctrine of Progress' specified, in order that we may read it and decide whether to assent to it or not. I cannot recall encountering it in Candide.

If we withhold our assent, does that mean we are no longer allowed to agree with Hume (or whoever else our favourite Enlightenment thinker may be)?

_db

Where I'm really critical of progress, is the idea that 'the next step is outer space'. It's total bollocks, in my view, and dangerous bollocks. We have a vessel, equipped to carry vast populations through space for millions of years - it's called Earth. And we have to look after the one we have, otherwise the human race won't live long enough to build any kind of 'starship'. — Wayfarer

Don't get me started on my aversion to expansion into space. It's delusional to think that we'll fare any better on another planet when we can't even take care of the one we already have.

I can just imagine it now - a McDonald's every ten miles on Mars. They don't show that in the movies!

Wayfarer

↪darthbarracuda

Actually my thought was to have any success, you would have to send lots of Chinese first. Why? Because they're hardy, they can adapt to any environment, they take well to cramped living conditions - and when you finally arrived, there'd be decent restaurants ;-)

_db

I'm cool with space exploration, hell, if I had the opportunity I'd fucking go to the moon! Space colonization is what is nauseating. I'd like to be aboard a spaceship that simply watches.

The elephant in the room: Progress

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions