Society is way bigger now, and we've got fundamentally bigger problems, but the average individual still tends to fare better as the result of our societal progress. — VagabondSpectre

So, there's no way around it. Progress is intrinsically meaningful both to the individual and society at large. "Therefore", we must focus squarely on progress at all "costs".

We're rolling a hell of a lot of dice in modernity, and that's not without risk, but the rewards so far would be indescribably amazing in the eyes of our ancestors. — VagabondSpectre

What do you mean by "risk" here?

Thanks.

So, there's no way around it. Progress is intrinsically meaningful both to the individual and society at large. "Therefore", we must focus squarely on progress at all "costs". — Wallows

We shouldn't draw an absolute from a generalization (not all generalizations are inaccurate, but they're by definition not absolutely precise; there may be exceptions).

Progress has tended to be good, and in so far as we want more of it, we're impelled to chase after it. There's no rule saying that we we need to keep improving ourselves and our societies, it just happens to be what we want to do (and the doing is a cathartic challenge).

What do you mean by "risk" here? — Wallows

Well,doing things on fundamentally bigger scales (as opposed to more traditional balance with nature style of living) comes with unknown risks. Global warming is one notable example, and whether or not we can overcome it might decide whether all the trappings of modernity will have been worth it. In short, we might destroy or do lasting harm to ourselves as individuals or a species by constantly chasing progress, so if we're going to chase after it, we need to do it with open eyes and be aware of the risks.

We shouldn't draw an absolute from a generalization (not all generalizations are inaccurate, but they're by definition not absolutely precise; there may be exceptions). — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, I agree; but, there's really no authority on the matter, so I might as well retort, "Says who?"

In short, we might destroy or do lasting harm to ourselves as individuals or a species by constantly chasing progress, so if we're going to chase after it, we need to do it with open eyes and be aware of the risks. — VagabondSpectre

But, according to a famous economist, we're all dead in the long run. And, there's no incentive to internalizing externalities like carbon emissions, resulting in scenarios like global warming.

But, according to a famous economist, we're all dead in the long run. And, there's no incentive to internalizing externalities like carbon emissions, resulting in scenarios like global warming. — Wallows

Depends on if you care about future humans (possibly your descendants).

Yeah, I agree; but, there's really no authority on the matter, so I might as well retort, "Says who?" — Wallows

History informs us. I say that we're better off. Who says different?

Depends on if you care about future humans (possibly your descendants). — VagabondSpectre

I don't plan on having children. 'So what', one might say? But, I don't think it's a matter about caring about the welfare of our children that really counts here. We're going to do what we want regardless if we want it bad enough, that is.

History informs us. I say that we're better off. Who says different? — VagabondSpectre

We might be getting off topic with these economic issues, as the OP was about philosophy squarely.

I don't plan on having children. 'So what', one might say? But, I don't think it's a matter about caring about the welfare of our children that really counts here. We're going to do what we want regardless. — Wallows

Different people will inevitably do different things. Even those who don't want children often want to leave the earth a better place than when they found it.

We might be getting off topic with these economic issues, as the OP was about philosophy squarely. — Wallows

Maybe philosophy changes with the times, on a kind of opportunistic basis. It either serves us or it doesn't. And those fields of study that don't continually advance are just waiting to be left behind, made irrelevant by something more desirable, more useful, and more persuasive.

Different people will inevitably do different things. Even those who don't want children often want to leave the earth a better place than when they found it. — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, I'm in agreement here.

Maybe philosophy changes with the times, on a kind of opportunistic basis. It either serves us or it doesn't. And those fields of study that don't continually advance are just waiting to be left behind, made irrelevant by something more desirable, more useful, and more persuasive. — VagabondSpectre

Well, philosophy isn't qualified in dealing with these issues, rather than say some discipline like economics or some such dismal science, say. So, does that make philosophy, impotent? I think so.

Strangely enough, it's often the case that through the appreciation of philosophy and ethics, that these issues, like global warming, derive their "valence". So, philosophy does serve some purpose here.

Philosophical thought often helps form the foundation of more specific fields. Things like economics and medical science are the more visible fruit-bearing branches, but philosophy accounts for so much of the root system that nourished them to begin with. Developments in philosophy often have applications further down the line, ethics being one strong example.

Philosophical thought often helps form the foundation of more specific fields. Things like economics and medical science are the more visible fruit-bearing branches, but philosophy accounts for so much of the root system that nourished them to begin with. Developments in philosophy often have applications further down the line, ethics being one strong example. — VagabondSpectre

Pretty much. Nothing to disagree with here.

Though, if philosophy is viewed as useless, by many, what can be said about the field? Some kind of PR campaign on the merits of philosophy is needed or what?

Not a reading recommendation but in Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, Steven Pinker makes a good argument for progress.

Though, if philosophy is viewed as useless, by many, what can be said about the field? Some kind of PR campaign on the merits of philosophy is needed or what? — Wallows

I've been reading that some businesses are starting to provide standard philosophical training
to their employees (Apple or google, IIRC). They're trying to enhance the "knowledge economy" of their employees by helping them to understand things like ethical problems, ontological and epistemological questions, and the history of solved philosophical problems. They're hoping that they'll create more capable, creative, ethical, and self-organized employees that are better at problem solving (a more valuable asset, and a less severe liability). Whether or not the academic end of philosophy can be successfully deployed among the plebs is an interesting question... Time will tell!

Not a reading recommendation but in Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, Steven Pinker makes a good argument for progress. — praxis

Got no money; but, cool.

Whether or not the academic end of philosophy can be successfully deployed among the plebs is an interesting question... Time will tell! — VagabondSpectre

It sure isn't going to be. If progress can't be measured inside the field of philosophy, then I'm afraid we're stuck at square one.

It sure isn't going to be. If progress can't be measured inside the field of philosophy, then I'm afraid we're stuck at square one. — Wallows

Would you say that you yourself have managed to progress philosophically, since you began?

Would you say that you yourself have managed to progress philosophically, since you began? — VagabondSpectre

Yes, although I'm not quite sure what that has amounted to? Being more aware of logical fallacies or some such matter? Seems like a misguided claim to say,

"I have progressed philosophically",

Well, how so?

So, again the psychologism rears its head, and one has to say, that personal progress is in fact immeasurable.

Well, how so? — Wallows

If an individual cannot make philosophical progress, then nor can societies or groups. But how do we measure it? Inexorably: subejctively.

So, again the psychologism rears its head, and one has to say, that personal progress is in fact immeasurable. — Wallows

If philosophy does yield boons, then they must be able to flow to and through individuals, otherwise who cares? If philosophy can be deployed to make us more competent on the whole (by improving us as individuals) then I call that progress.

Getting back to you on your question...
So I think "value" and "progress" have been conflated with one another as of late in human history. I don't think there's any value in viewing things as only having value if progress is promoted. So, does that condemn us to some sort of dogmatism? I don't know. — Wallows

Interesting response.We could discuss the concepts of value and progress until our ears bleed or go deaf, but it is not the answer to the question(s) I put to you. And you know it. Why the avoidance ?
To track back:

Wallows, if we consider philosophical progress in personal terms e.g. as improvement in one's state of being or doing, then what did Wittgenstein do for you ?

How would this compare to the wisdom of the ancients in aiding self understanding and promoting a better way of living ?

How do you measure any progress - when do you realise it is happening/has happened ? — Amity

I have been following the conversation between yourself and VagabondSpectre and found it helpful.

The questions I put to you were in connection with your personal progress or development through your reading(s) or understanding of Wittgenstein. You place him high on your list of 'favourite' philosophers.
So, you find him of some value then ? Even if is just to talk about him, or discuss his work, in this forum.

If philosophy does yield boons, then they must be able to flow to and through individuals, otherwise who cares? If philosophy can be deployed to make us more competent on the whole (by improving us as individuals) then I call that progress. — VagabondSpectre

I agree with that.

Keeping to Wittgenstein as a focus. How do you see him ? Where does he fit in to to general philosophical enquiry or your own enquiries about life ?

Did you even read or acknowledge the quotes by Fooloso4 ?
Here is the end of one from Wittgenstein's Culture and Value

'...For me on the contrary clarity, perspicuity are valuable in themselves. I am not interested in constructing a building, so much as in having a perspicuous view of the foundations of typical buildings.’

What is your understanding of that ?
If you don't have one, then why don't you take the opportunity to ask. Slow down.

That is what personal progress or development involves. Not just asking but listening and reflecting.
It might change your or others minds, attitudes or behaviour - or not.
We might not have an absolute end goal or purpose to measure progress against but philosophy is a process. Valuable in itself. I think.

We could discuss the concepts of value and progress until our ears bleed or go deaf, but it is not the answer to the question(s) I put to you. — Amity

Is there really any answer that would count as an answer? I'm not sure. While I do think I have made some progress in my own philosophical development, it has been slow and not really quantifiable. Last year, I had a spiritual experience while pondering over the seventh proposition of the Tractatus. I was actually coming off most of my meds, to be honest; but, the feeling was profound in that I had a flash of insight as to what philosophy really means. As I understood it, progress in philosophy, as in any other subject is if something has been learned. But, philosophy is peculiar in that ideas and conclusions are organic and not trite or tautologous like mathematics or some other science. Meaning, that it's almost as if one has to live through something via experience to understand it in philosophy. Wittgenstein talks about forms of life in philosophy, which would be the closest comparison.

The questions I put to you were in connection with your personal progress or development through your reading(s) or understanding of Wittgenstein. You place him high on your list of 'favourite' philosophers.
So, you find him of some value then ? — Amity

Sure, why not? But, really there's no winning strategy in philosophy. It's kind of a stagnant pond that needs holes drilled in it during the winter to keep the fish alive. Sorry for the horrible analogy! Or to put this another way, my reading of Wittgenstein has led me to my own awareness of my limits. To surpass one's limits is to understand where they lay in the first place. Without that knowledge, then nothing new can be learned or lived through.

Philosophy is important in that one has to understand the limits of their own world to be able to reach out and assimilate new things into one's world-view.

The limits of my language stand for the limits of my world. — Wittgenstein, TLP 5.6