The kids who took it as a given that things would get worse had little motivation to try to make things better. It will be the kids who think things can improve who make a positive difference to what happens. So the myth of progress is methodological. — Banno
The kids who took it as a given that things would get worse had little motivation to try to make things better. It will be the kids who think things can improve who make a positive difference to what happens. So the myth of progress is methodological.
There is an obvious parallel here to virtue ethics, in that it's folk who think they can improve on their actions as are the ones who work to improve themselves. Those who think they cannot improve their standing will not make an effort. — Banno
The lesson of existentialism is that you don't get not to attach value to the stuff around you. But you do, at least to some extent, get to choose which values you attach to what."If you wish to draw pleasure out of life, You must attach value to the world." — Tom Storm
Then progress must include all. Perhaps we can do better. That this has been undoubtedly the case in the past leads conservative thinkers to conclude that it must always be so. But must it?...the prosperity of some nations is bought at the expense of others... — Isaac
Not sure what your point is here. My purpose was to point out that "progress" is an attitude rather than a fact, that Pinker's error is to treat it as a fact, an error that ↪Jamal
to some extent shares in his criticism of Pinker. — Banno
Then progress must include all. Perhaps we can do better. That this has been undoubtedly the case in the past leads conservative thinkers to conclude that it must always be so. But must it? — Banno
If you haven’t read it already, 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. Graeber shares your moralist individualism, asserting that each culture in each era of history makes valuative choices ( equality-inequality, hierarchy- nonhierarchy, statist- non statist) above and beyond geographical, technological and other material determinants. — Joshs
I was merely pointing out that there is a distinction between the defeatist attitude that it is impossible, the optimistic attitude that it is possible, and the complacent attitude that it is inevitable. — Janus
I think where people sit on this has a lot to do with their aesthetics and politics more than anything. For instance, it seems that there are many people who have an understandable critical antipathy towards capitalism and though this lens it is almost impossible to see a version of the world that is not one of ceaseless exploitation, degradation and suffering. — Tom Storm
I asked him if he believed in progress. "Fuck yeah!" he responded. 'But we're only part of the way there.' Progress is situational and specific and never completed and can't be understood as some kind of Hegelian process. — Tom Storm
Would many people deny that progress in the sense of social betterment, fairness and justice and greater prosperity for all is desirable? — Janus
From some ethical and aesthetical perspectives, there is certainly something ugly, something degraded, about capitalism — Janus
The question is whether he meant to say that he believed in the ideal of progress — Janus
I think the problem is that progress is hard to define and aligned with worldviews. Hence the internecine battles between 'progressives' and conservatives. — Tom Storm
I think the notion of the ideal of progress was not overtly a part of his worldview. But he did feel there was some, shall we say 'transcendent' aspect of improvement built into human spirituality. — Tom Storm
I'm curious to know what a " 'transcendent' aspect of improvement built into human spirituality' would look like to your friend — Janus
wouldn't social justice and universal prosperity (and the other benefits that go with those) be in common, with the differences being more in the way of how to get there? — Janus
It's likely to be Aboriginal culture/spirituality, which I don't pretend to understand but it is hinting at human nature having an openness to goodness as a dimension of how we were created. This is put together from longer conversations. — Tom Storm
Yep. I think many human problems come down to how we get there. Just as morality is not a theory, it is what we do. — Tom Storm
I think this is the harm of 'the myth of progress'. It takes progress as the primary objective and sustainability as a kind of 'nice to have' icing on the cake. But sustainability, and equality, should be the constraints on any progress bar none, meaning no 'progress' which doesn't meet these criteria should take place. — Isaac
Taking sustainability and equality seriously means remaining in our apocryphal 'mud huts' for ten thousand years if necessary until we innovate the centrally heated, air conditioned bungalow in a form which is available to everyone, regardless of their status, and does not take more from its environment than it can sustain in its lifetime. — Isaac
an openness to goodness as a dimension of how we were created. — Tom Storm
Would many people deny that progress in the sense of social betterment, fairness and justice and greater prosperity for all is desirable? — Janus
There is a tendency to polarize ideas of human nature; either it is a Good Thing (Rouseau) or a Bad Thing (Hobbes). But either view is mistaken. — Ludwig V
Very few would deny that. But there would be different and competing interpretations of what they mean. People will always defend what they have and usually look for improvement from where they are. — Ludwig V
What you describe is classic Western dualistic thinking and this bifurcated view of reality is, I agree, unproductive. — Tom Storm
It is easy to advocate for social justice and fairness and prosperity for all as an ideal; the actuality may be far less appealing to the side that currently enjoys the prosperity. — Janus
I think it's more a case of disagreement over how to get there than disagreement over what they mean. — Janus
In a way, sustainability enforces itself. Unsustainable activity can't last forever. When the crash comes, there is turmoil and after a while, we start again. Maybe we avoid some of the mistakes that caused the crash. We will certainly make some new ones. — Ludwig V
Equality is a different matter. It may well be ideal, but I suspect that the best we can expect is tolerable inequality. "Tolerable" requires the power elite in a political system to recognize when they need to bend with the wind of popular discontent. — Ludwig V
So a technology for which we can see we'll run out of the main fuel, or run out of capacity to hold the waste product, is a technology that doesn't work. Back to the drawing board.
Un-foreseeable lack of sustainability is obviously going to be part of any technological innovation in a complex world, but we're dealing, in the most part, with completely foreseeable issues. — Isaac
It's solidarity that's the problem. Hence the main focus of any institution of power is to divide. — Isaac
Wise words. — Tom Storm
you don't mention a third category, issues that are foreseeable but not foreseen. For whatever reason. — Ludwig V
people may prefer kicking the can down the road to the inevitably disruptive process of re-design. — Ludwig V
Power structures can fall apart because of internal disunity. They need their own support to remain united. — Ludwig V
The 'disruption' is a bogeyman. — Isaac
It's pathetic that the left can't even muster enough solidarity to make a dent. — Isaac
I had in mind people losing their jobs and even careers. The new jobs are often lower paid, lower status, somewhere else and so on. It is serious. It may still be worth it, but it needs good, sympathetic management, which doesn't usually seem to be provided - not even by those who profit from the change. — Ludwig V
Tell me about it. It seems to be part of the left-wing personality that compromise in the name of solidarity is regarded as betrayal. — Ludwig V
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.