Habituation enables a creature to act in certain ways, and become more efficient at such actions - from balancing and walking to tennis shots and being virtuous. This seems like progress of a kind.

The bigger idea of 'progress' seems to me a myth. I'm glad to have been alive in a peaceful affluent society but I doubt the peace and affluence are sustainable. Knowledge accumulates in some historical periods, but eventually vandals turn up, or some ideologue burns down a library. Carpe diem. :)

If progress is "forward or onward movement toward a destination" and if we are not headed anywhere in particular, then "making progress" isn't happening, and can't happen.

Being a "successful species" isn't the same as "making progress". We're successful, no doubt about that. We've filled up every conceivable ecological niche to overflowing, and we are on track to wrecking the whole planetary ecosystem, such a successful species are we.

At this point, "progress" might mean becoming "less successful".

"Progress" is a very pleasant myth, certainly. Even though we have not even a vague idea of what the future holds, we can pretend that there is some teleological signal which we are homing in on. There's a transmitter in Tomorrow Land that beckons us. We'll all be equal, diverse, peaceable, happily degendered; free of sickness, crime, violence; well fed, healthy, and prosperous. Every one. [Pure BS]

We have achieved remarkable things. The Cassini mission to Saturn and the New Horizons mission to Pluto are sublime technological achievements. As glorious as these, and other achievements in many fields are, they do not reveal a future towards which we can progress. We still remain anchored here, not so much "here on earth" but "here in our existential situation".

In the everyday common sense term, progress just means to move forward. If we obtain a goal, we progress. If we acquire something better, we progress. If something changes, it progresses, thus progress is tied inherently to process (a process can progress through stages).

In the more philosophical, existential sense, progress, in my opinion, is an unsustainable process that can only happen in a "bubble", or in more scientific terms, a system with a consistent source of energy. The environment we call Earth can be harnessed to produce technology that better aids our societies. We can progress out of more archaic moral ideas. All of this progress exists and is entirely dependent upon the "bubble" we call Earth.

But eventually Earth will be destroyed as the Sun loses hydrogen and helium to fuse and begins to expand and contract in a fluctuating process before it slowly simmers out. If humans haven't moved on from Earth, all of our progress will have been destroyed. The "bubble" will have been popped.

If humans manage to escape the inevitable doom of the Earth, the bubble will be moved to a different location. This cannot continue forever either, though, and eventually the bubble will pop. It's inevitable.

In the everyday common sense term, progress just means to move forward. If we obtain a goal, we progress. If we acquire something better, we progress. If something changes, it progresses, thus progress is tied inherently to process (a process can progress through stages). — darthbarracuda

I think we should make a distinction here between progress: forward or onward movement toward a destination. versus progress: advance or develop toward a better, more complete, or more modern state. I'm using the second term.

In the more philosophical, existential sense, progress, in my opinion, is an unsustainable process that can only happen in a "bubble", or in more scientific terms, a system with a consistent source of energy. The environment we call Earth can be harnessed to produce technology that better aids our societies. We can progress out of more archaic moral ideas. All of this progress exists and is entirely dependent upon the "bubble" we call Earth. — darthbarracuda

But if we step back for a minute. What are the implications of the fact that the "value" of progress clearly seems to exist. Individually, we can progress at an activity or in quantity of knowledge. Collectively we can progress at institutions and technology. It is so basic we don't even really question it. But, what does it mean that progress is a part of our epistemological experience as humans? Is there something that is "shown" to us in this understanding that we can "progress"? Sure, much of it is habituation that gets stronger over time, or accumulation that gets more integrated, but it is a function of the human experience to experience this "getting better" "getting more refined" or just progressing. I'm not sure I have this fully fleshed out, but there is something I am trying to get at, and perhaps a dialogue will tease it out. Don't worry, I'm not trying to get all Nietzschean or rosy-eyed optimistic here, but I am just trying to work with this concept of progress in the individual and group sense.

I think we should make a distinction here between progress: forward or onward movement toward a destination. versus progress: advance or develop toward a better, more complete, or more modern state. I'm using the second term. — schopenhauer1

I don't see why we would need such a distinction. A better, more complete, more modern state just is a destination.

Is there something that is "shown" to us in this understanding that we can "progress"? Sure, much of it is habituation that gets stronger over time, or accumulation that gets more integrated, but it is a function of the human experience to experience this "getting better" "getting more refined" or just progressing. I'm not sure I have this fully fleshed out, but there is something I am trying to get at, and perhaps a dialogue will tease it out. Don't worry, I'm not trying to get all Nietzschean or rosy-eyed optimistic here, but I am just trying to work with this concept of progress in the individual and group sense. — schopenhauer1

Nietzsche's cool though. I'm not entirely sure what you are describing but in my view, knowledge is a very valuable commodity. Humans are one of the few species on Earth that use their intelligence as their primary survival tool. When faced with a dilemma, we feel anxiety and must resolve the issue. We don't want a silly answer, though - a silly answer doesn't help us survive. We want an accurate, correct answer.

So philosophy is a process (or progression) towards the systematization of our manifest image.

Ok, so I thought about it more and I realized what I might be getting at. It is the theme of instrumentality and progress. Let me explain:

First, I want to understand what this progress thing is. I would like to know it better as something which exist in the world. Obviously I know it as something that happens, something I experience daily, but I would like to know exactly "what" it is in some sort of epistemological sense (how do we go about knowing it") and and metaphysical sense ("how/why/what it is").

Next, I want to know if people have mixed "progress" with the goals of "progress". Perhaps someone way back in time thought that the only way to get things "done" was by following certain "virtues" (courage, good judgement, etc.). These virtues helped survival or at least they appeared to work (after all, it COULD have went another way where a different set of virtues might have led to some form of survival but this set of virtues or skill-sets worked). Then these virtues became reified through various schools of philosophy (Plato, Aristotle, etc.). They became the "point" of existence rather than habits of mind that were perhaps rules of thumb to survive better. Fast-forward two thousand years and Western society refined science and technology. Now, perhaps virtue + science and technology became the "point" of existence (or maybe drop virtue for just science and technological innovation). On an individual level, we master certain techniques and we think of this as the goal. Perhaps we make it into a reification as "meaning" even.

Anyways, I just wanted to see if progress is just another thing we look at and hold as a "see existence is showing us some meaning" when really things are more instrumental than that. Life itself is instrumental. We do, we do things better, but what of it? We are doing things, but we simply do because we are striving forward. We cannot help but do otherwise.

@Thorongil @darthbarracuda @Bitter Crank

But eventually Earth will be destroyed as the Sun loses hydrogen and helium to fuse and begins to expand and contract in a fluctuating process before it slowly simmers out. If humans haven't moved on from Earth, all of our progress will have been destroyed. The "bubble" will have been popped. — darthbarracuda

It won't be necessary to wait that long. By any stretch of the imagination, the 'bubble' will have burst long before then.

For instance, in another million years of evolution, we are likely to have changed considerably--whether for better or worse can't be known. In 10,000 years we might well be extinct. If we play our cards right, we could be extinct in 100 years. Hell, we could be out of here by this weekend if we fired off every A & H bomb we all have in reserve.

Technology will continue to "progress" that is, change become more effective, more efficient. But that doesn't result in any fundamental change in us. Progress for human beings would, at this point, be a change in existential circumstances. Our state of being would need to change. Can it? Well, probably, but not over-night. Will evolution deliver us to a state of 'higher consciousness of our being'? I don't know -- presumably it would have to improve our capacity to survive over the long run.

If we can't make "progress" the alternative is not despair. We can improve our individual existential states, our consciousness of our being. Individual progress isn't immediately progress for the species.

It won't be necessary to wait that long. By any stretch of the imagination, the 'bubble' will have burst long before then. — Bitter Crank

I agree that we'll probably die out before then. However if it is the case that we happen to exist for that long, then the eventual entropic heat death will kill us all.

The entropic heat death will also erase 99.999999% of the evidence that we ever existed. Somewhere a few contraptions launched from earth might still exist, and our last electromagnetic signals will continue radiating out into the universe, until they too cease.

Such ends have likely and will have occurred to other civilizations -- obliterated beyond recall or detection.

I'm not sure if you saw, but I made a comment above that might have clarified what I am talking about.

1) What is everyone's definition of "progress"? If you practice something real hard, you get "better" at it. Does progress have to do with getting better, for example? And if it does, what is the epistemological judgement for what is better? — schopenhauer1

The judgment depends on the degree to which one has accomplished a goal. If you shoot 50% on your free throws, and your goal is to reach 60%, then reaching 55% is progress. Politically speaking, progress is linked to freedom, which is negative. The degree to which one's natural rights are not restricted is the measure of progress in this sphere.

2) Is progress real in some metaphysical sense? — schopenhauer1

No. This is the delusion of the historicist. History is not a science.

3) Does progress occur at only the personal level, or can it describe humanity or the world as a whole? Some people claim that progress is the aim of existence. Here, I think of people like Hegel and his notion of historical dialectic. Some people claim that things are the same as they ever were. Here I think of Schopenhauer and his idea that all is really Will, and no matter how Will manifests itself, it is pretty much the same thing. — schopenhauer1

It can describe humanity as a whole, viewed as a collection of individuals.

It can describe humanity as a whole, viewed as a collection of individuals. — Thorongil

What do you think of what do you think of my last post because that more clearly stated what I was trying to get at than the OP.

I would like to know exactly "what" it is in some sort of epistemological sense (how do we go about knowing it") and and metaphysical sense ("how/why/what it is"). — schopenhauer1

It doesn't exist metaphysically. It's just an abstract concept used to describe the movement towards a particular goal. I would not link it to virtue, seeing as there is all around us the steady progress of injustice, ignorance, and evil just as much, if not greatly more so, than there is of justice, knowledge, and goodness.

It doesn't exist metaphysically. It's just an abstract concept used to describe the movement towards a particular goal. I would not link it to virtue, seeing as there is all around us the steady progress of injustice, ignorance, and evil just as much, if not greatly more so, than there is of justice, knowledge, and goodness. — Thorongil

I am not linking progress to virtue per se. What I'm saying is that perhaps at some point in ancient history, it was perceived that having certain "virtues" meant better survival. These "rules of thumb" became reified into some sort of thing unto itself to try to achieve.

What I'm saying is that perhaps at some point in ancient history, it was perceived that having certain "virtues" meant better survival. — schopenhauer1

You mean that people thought that living in a morally dignified manner was better for survival? I would say that that's up for debate in terms of the historical record. Lots of villains do quite well for themselves, and lots of virtuous people get the shaft. This is the theme of Job, for example, which is quite an ancient book.

I think the truly virtuous understand that the good is pursued for its own sake. To instrumentalize it is to take away all meaning and uniqueness from it. But pursuing the good is not to pursue progress. Progress can be made in the pursuit of it, but progress in and of itself is value-neutral. One can make progress towards anything. including evil.

I think the truly virtuous understand that the good is pursued for its own sake. To instrumentalize it is to take away all meaning and uniqueness from it. But pursuing the good is not to pursue progress. Progress can be made in the pursuit of it, but progress in and of itself is value-neutral. One can make progress towards anything. including evil. — Thorongil

I was giving a speculative history of virtue. That wasn't the crux of the argument. My argument actually agrees with you. Progress doesn't give a meaning to life though I find it interesting that it exists. Clearly it can be tied with evolution and our general learning capabilities. Learning allows us to accomplish things instinctual programming might do for other organisms. It just so happens an exaptation of this is progressing in non survival related activities. First you must know your goal, then you must know what it takes to achieve it or achieve it more quickly or with more ease.

My main point was that the fact that we progress can make people reify it to some sort of bigger meaning. Even just in our own lives, overall something might seem like it's getting better so people may think we are here in order to achieve some sort of improvement.

Anyways, I just wanted to see if progress is just another thing we look at and hold as a "see existence is showing us some meaning" when really things are more instrumental than that. Life itself is instrumental. We do, we do things better, but what of it? We are doing things, but we simply do because we are striving forward. We cannot help but do otherwise. — schopenhauer1

We can understand that concentrated and sophisticated patterns emerge with a telos-like structure. We don't do things randomly, we do things because that's what we do. It may sound inane but it's accurate. We have constraints on our actions. Actualization is the process of limitation.

Before the existentialists and the 19th-20th century nihilism and fatigue, there was the metaphysical idea that man had an essence, and by having an essence meant having a purpose. That purpose might have been eudaimonia (Aristotle), union with God (Augustine), and finally death (Heidegger).

But I think Zapffe and Schopenhauer's greatest contribution was recognizing that the mind is like a parasite - it's able to think ahead, reflect on the past, lift its sights to the stars. It's just what it does. Whereas the body is not like this - it's a machine of tissue, bone, sinew and ~75% water. What makes the mind unique, in my opinion, is that it doesn't seem to belong in the world. I've struggled with this idea for a while now. For the world will always be disappointing to the active mind. Levinas said it well when he proclaimed fatigue as being a fundamental aspect of a human.

Nagel also was correct in that anything, anywhere, can be seen as absurd.

Levinas said it well when he proclaimed fatigue as being a fundamental aspect of a human. — darthbarracuda

Yep

Nagel also was correct in that anything, anywhere, can be seen as absurd. — darthbarracuda

and Yep