One could argue that religious pluralism has de-progressed, but ironically this isn't even something the progress narrative generally considers, because it begins with the hubristic assumption that religion itself is in the same camp as war, famine, etc; something to be cast off and left behind. — Noble Dust
So isn’t that the past itself is bad, but that conditions were worse than now. If his conditions were to reverse he would have to say the past is worse according to his own measure. — NOS4A2
But, even aside from how controversial his evidence is (which someone else might address), this is precisely the blindness of the narrative of Progress. Those conditions are not characteristic only of primitive or scientifically unenlightened societies. — Jamal
The truth is that nothing can absolve humanity of its crimes and nothing can make up for the suffering of the past, ever. Nothing and nobody will redeem humanity. Nothing will make it okay, and we will never be morally cleansed. We certainly ought to strive for a good, free society, but it will never have been worth it. — Jamal
Is he essentially just another nostalgic modernist liberal? — Tom Storm
I can't help but feel Pinker is an old fashioned figure, the kind of public educator with faith in progress I grew up with. My question for you is could his position be enhanced by more rigorous philosophical knowledge? Is he essentially just another nostalgic modernist liberal? — Tom Storm
I was struck by this — Tom Storm
Don't confuse pessimism with profundity: problems are inevitable, but problems are solvable, and diagnosing every setback as a symptom of a sick society is a cheap grab for gravitas — Tom Storm
Finally, drop the Nietzsche. His ideas may seem edgy, authentic, baad, while humanism seems sappy, unhip, uncool But what's so funny about peace, love, and understanding? — Tom Storm
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
:100:I’d recommend Graeber and Wengrow’s Dawn of Everything. It is a critique of Darwinist progressive accounts of anthropological change as seen in Pinker, Diamond and Harari. — Joshs
"Progress" towards what? and for whom (and not for whom)?In 2018 Steven Pinker published his book Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress. — Jamal
I think "useful" is the wrong way to think about it. — Noble Dust
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.
"Scarcity" seems the fundamental driver of dominance hierarchies and imperialism that no amount of "progress" has put an end to or significantly diminished, so the title of Pinker's book doesn't recommend itself to me — 180 Proof
That said, Jamal, why do you think I should read it? — 180 Proof
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
It's the wrong way for believers or followers to think about it, certainly, because if they do it will tend to be less useful. When people realize that they're being manipulated by a false narrative they tend to be less cooperative with those that try to use it. — praxis
In this post I'm just looking at a small excerpt, not really to criticize the book itself but to dig out the meaning of the narrative of progress which we find at work, not only in Pinker's thinking, but more widely in the culture. — Jamal
Technology advances, but just in my lifetime humanity has become able to destroy ourselves. — T Clark
I disagree. I don't accept the binary of religious belief and secular belief; they're different flavors of the same thing, and again, what they do is give the lives of believers a sense of purpose, meaning and value. If this sounds corny, just reflect and examine your own life, beliefs, and what you value. Even a nihilist or rigorous individualist does not function outside of this reality. 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
But certainly, technology seems to be the most obvious form of real progress, and therefore the form that we question the least. I don't think this is a good thing. — Noble Dust
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.