RE: Is history progress?

RE: Is history progress? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

NorthernGent -> RE: Is history progress? (5/3/2011 2:55:14 AM)
In tems of human progress, the following is quite obvious: In the early Chinese dynasties, only the ruler was free. The Greek and Roman states, some of the people were free. Plato started the trend towards philosophy and politics exploring individual liberty. During the reformation, nation states took power away from the catholic church and were masters of their own affairs. John Locke instigated the move away from absolutism towards Western democracy. Since then, we have had all manner of improvements: universal suffrage, laws around discrimination etc. For those who don't believe history is progress, are you saying that all of this is an illusion? or is it all worthless and actually we're better off living in a situation where only the ruler is free?

eihwaz -> RE: Is history progress? (5/3/2011 5:16:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: eihwaz quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania There is a phrase for people who think history is a giant progression forward towards better and better outcomes, the phrase is teleological thinking Human culture is evolving. Evolution optimizes. On the other hand, evolution has no teleology (as far as anybody has been able to prove). History and human cultural evolution are interrelated: history both reflects and affects the evolution of human culture. So historical 'progress' could be evolutionary optimization. Evolution is not progress, it is change over time. It does not insinuate that there is some grand design of progress marching forward. Evolution optimizes for a particular environment or, more precisely, a set of selection pressures; it is not merely change. Optimization via natural selection need not imply teleology. As the environment changes, so do the criteria for fitness. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Human culture is similar in that there are many extinct cultures, they have failed for different reasons [...] empires rise and fall, [...] We could be wiped off the planet tomorrow, and the cockroaches would take our place.... most people wouldn't see this as progress Indeed, as Keynes said in a different context, "In the long run we are all dead." At certain timescales, no progress is visible. Do you believe there's no progress on any timescale?

juliaoceania -> RE: Is history progress? (5/3/2011 11:36:18 AM)
quote: Evolution optimizes for a particular environment or, more precisely, a set of selection pressures; it is not merely change. Optimization via natural selection need not imply teleology. As the environment changes, so do the criteria for fitness. I am only reiterating what biologists and physical anthropologists have said on the subject.... If you look at Darwin's finches it becomes apparent that some adaptations might be good for one set of conditions, but not for another, and the size of the beak changes rather quickly to suit the environment... I suppose you could see this as "optimization", I would not call it "progress". One beak is not inherently superior to another. In fact, I am not one of these people who sees any life as inherently better than or more progressive than another. All life is dependent on other life, like a Jenga puzzle, when you remove too many pieces it all collapses. Some life is differentiated with more systems, more complexity, but it all depends on each other.... progress insinuates that something is better than another thing. I just do not agree with that.

juliaoceania -> RE: Is history progress? (5/3/2011 11:39:50 AM)
quote: Do you believe there's no progress on any timescale? I missed this. I see differentiation, not progress. Each sort of political system, technological adaptation, etc etc etc, allows for pros and cons. For example, hunters and gatherers had the optimal diet, varied and designed for optimal health... but we see that adaptation as primitive. So is eating adulterated food better? Some would argue that it is because we can feed more people, so having more people is optimal. Some would say over population decreases sustainability... it is all how you look at it.

philosophy -> RE: Is history progress? (5/3/2011 12:01:05 PM)
History is merely memory. The recalling of past events....and, just as reliable. Perhaps a better question would be, is history a record of progress? The answer to which relies on how you define progress. Do fewer people die of preventable disease? Yup, thats progress. Are more people literate? Yup, that's progress too. Are people less violent? Well, no. No progress there. In conclusion, it's easy to point to examples of material progress. Much harder to point to examples of philosophical progress.

NorthernGent -> RE: Is history progress? (5/3/2011 1:05:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Are people less violent? Well, no. No progress there. I'd disagree. Compare the religious and civil strife that tore Europe apart for centuries with today's relatively stable existence. quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy Much harder to point to examples of philosophical progress. Possibly. What about the humanists, such as Erasmus, suspended between faith and reason? An improvement? Separation of church and state? John Locke's right of appeal and rule through reason etc? Feminist philosopher - de beauvoir - her influence on woman's status in society. These are examples of improvements over time; many more are available; we haven't regressed. In fact, one improvement has led to another.

Wheldrake -> RE: Is history progress? (5/3/2011 1:18:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Wheldrake Sure, we're more free and rational, although the bar was set pretty low back in the Stone Age. People would have believed all kinds of crazy things and been subject to the will of tribal leaders, and technological limitations would have constrained the options available to the average person in any case. If you can take a jet from Nairobi to Naples, or Newcastle, you have more freedom (in one important sense) than someone who can only walk across several miles of savannah in the same amount of time. And I would say that freedom and rationality have probably increased, at least in the West, even in the past 50 years. But freedom and rationality aren't everything. I wouldn't necessarily agree that increased choice and opportunities is akin to increased freedom, although 'freedom' is subjective, granted. Well, that's why I qualified my statement by making it clear that I was talking about freedom "in one important sense". If you have more options, you have more of one particular kind of freedom. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent And people continue to act in ways that are viewed as 'crazy' by many people - such as dropping atom bombs. Only two atom bombs have ever been dropped for purposes other than testing, and I wouldn't say that the use of those bombs was a "crazy" decision (though I'll grant that it was pretty fucking ruthless). However, I was talking more about crazy beliefs, rather than actions, and "crazy" was a slightly flippant word. What I meant was that our remote ancestors had no concept of scientific thinking. Their interpretations of the natural world around them were almost certainly ludicrous by modern standards - they may well have thought that storms reflected the anger of gods or spirits, for example. quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote: ORIGINAL: Wheldrake That's kind of my point - that sooner or later you hit the damn cul-de-sac, because there's a limit to what's knowable in principle. Philosophy may already have discovered all of the major logical possibilities in both ethics and metaphysics, in which case there's not much left for philosophers to do apart from filling in some details. I'd imagine that philosophers will tell you they really don't know, when being honest. I'm not saying that philosophers know everything, but I am saying that they're probably getting close to the limit of what they can discover. Someone (Bertrand Russell? I'm not sure) wrote that all of Western philosophy was just footnotes to Plato. Even if that's an exaggeration, I think we're probably getting close to the point where philosophers have laid out all the logically consistent options when it comes to such traditional questions as, say, the existence or non-existence of objective morality. Clarifying or narrowing down the options any further, except in matters of detail, may be almost impossible. But perhaps the next few decades of philosophy will prove me wrong.

juliaoceania -> RE: Is history progress? (5/3/2011 4:44:23 PM)
quote: I'd disagree. Compare the religious and civil strife that tore Europe apart for centuries with today's relatively stable existence. Unfortunately it has only been in the last 100 years that millions of human beings were killed in two world wars. Also, it maybe peaceful in your world, but vast swaths of the planet suffer from war, pestilence, and famine... quote: What about the humanists, such as Erasmus, suspended between faith and reason? An improvement? Separation of church and state? John Locke's right of appeal and rule through reason etc? Feminist philosopher - de beauvoir - her influence on woman's status in society. These are examples of improvements over time; many more are available; we haven't regressed. In fact, one improvement has led to another. You quote exceptional Western thinkers to exemplify "progress", but again, this progress is uneven. Western governments have hegemony over most of the planet. Capitalism is not always the benevolent force of progress you seem to be convinced that it is. One could argue that small scale societies are much more humane than the "progress" you laud...

philosophy -> RE: Is history progress? (5/3/2011 8:49:06 PM)
Knowledge is clearly something that has grown throughout history, the various technologies this has led to have also had sociological effects. However, the fundamental nature of the human aninmal hasn't changed much. It is now simply a much better informed human animal. This may lead to civilised behaviour as part of a philosophy of enlightened self interest, but that basic human nature? That's always going to be the same. All that history can teach us about that is that we're as capable of aspiring to the angels as we are of running with the devils.

juliaoceania -> RE: Is history progress? (5/3/2011 9:49:54 PM)
There have been many stops and starts on accumulating knowledge. We have had more than one dark age, and it is completely possible we could have another. If we were to have another dark age, would you still think that history was a story of progress?

MrRodgers -> RE: Is history progress? (5/3/2011 9:54:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChatteParfaitt Er um...say what? History is the branch of knowledge dealing with past events. Are you asking, can history (our knowledge of the past) reflect on or inform our future in terms of human progress? Yes, I think it can. Yet history refutes man's...inevitable ascendancy.

Musicmystery -> RE: Is history progress? (5/3/2011 9:58:15 PM)
Is progress history?

Edwynn -> RE: Is history progress? (5/3/2011 10:07:39 PM)
Cute. Not anymore meaningless nor meaningful than the 20 previous posts, but cute response nonetheless.

philosophy -> RE: Is history progress? (5/4/2011 9:44:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania There have been many stops and starts on accumulating knowledge. We have had more than one dark age, and it is completely possible we could have another. If we were to have another dark age, would you still think that history was a story of progress? .....yes. Because history is the act of remembering times past and so does not exist unless people are actively remembering it. No-one said it had to be continuous progress though.......

Musicmystery -> RE: Is history progress? (5/4/2011 11:51:48 AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov4HkjQCyMI

juliaoceania -> RE: Is history progress? (5/4/2011 2:38:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania There have been many stops and starts on accumulating knowledge. We have had more than one dark age, and it is completely possible we could have another. If we were to have another dark age, would you still think that history was a story of progress? .....yes. Because history is the act of remembering times past and so does not exist unless people are actively remembering it. No-one said it had to be continuous progress though....... Hmmm, so if tomorrow we all go extinct, where is the progress in that?

NorthernGent -> RE: Is history progress? (5/4/2011 4:03:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania Unfortunately it has only been in the last 100 years that millions of human beings were killed in two world wars. The reason why so many people were killed? Technology. As it happens, two wars in a hundred years is good going when you consider there was such a thing as the hundred years war. It could prove useful to look at the incidence of war, as opposed to the number of deaths due to technological progress. quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania You quote exceptional Western thinkers to exemplify "progress", but again, this progress is uneven. Western governments have hegemony over most of the planet. Capitalism is not always the benevolent force of progress you seem to be convinced that it is. Julia, you really should take a look at Western thought.

Real0ne -> RE: Is history progress? (5/4/2011 4:28:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania There have been many stops and starts on accumulating knowledge. We have had more than one dark age, and it is completely possible we could have another. If we were to have another dark age, would you still think that history was a story of progress? .....yes. Because history is the act of remembering times past and so does not exist unless people are actively remembering it. No-one said it had to be continuous progress though....... Hmmm, so if tomorrow we all go extinct, where is the progress in that? it gets rid of all the useless eaters. where is that HUGE underground complex with years of food for a small city if they decide to play with mister neutron.

Real0ne -> RE: Is history progress? (5/4/2011 4:40:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent In tems of human progress, the following is quite obvious: In the early Chinese dynasties, only the ruler was free. In modern UK dynasties only the king and or queen is free by recofnition of their dual status. The Greek and Roman states, some of the people were free. Free by which definition? None were free as in released except what would be th eequivalent of an expatriot today. Plato started the trend towards philosophy and politics exploring individual liberty. Semantic with freedom both the same as enfranchiselment which IS the definition of freedom and an oxymoron in the least. During the reformation, nation states took power away from the catholic church and were masters of their own affairs. Which nation? The US? The God in the formation of the US and bible was the Geneva bible not the catholic, catholic was the UK and then the king gave all of england to the pope. John Locke instigated the move away from absolutism towards Western democracy. MOB rule! 51% can take away everything owned by 49% and with legislatures well the legislatures can extort any level of taxation and maintain it just below the point people riot. see the articles of confederation authorizing plenary power to tax! Since then, we have had all manner of improvements: universal suffrage, laws around discrimination etc. Give me a fucking break already! The southern states were denied suffrage completely! For those who don't believe history is progress, are you saying that all of this is an illusion? or is it all worthless and actually we're better off living in a situation where only the ruler is free? yeh its an illusion and not a very convincing one at that! and we are living in a situation where only the ruler"S" plural are free as in the way we were bred to "think" the word free means.

juliaoceania -> RE: Is history progress? (5/4/2011 4:52:29 PM)
I do not think the trouble is that I haven't taken a look at "Western thought". I think the trouble is you do not look past your own borders when measuring progress. The world has more than Westerners in it, and progress isn't progress for everyone. In fact I could argue the very fact that intelligent deep thinking people like you not counting the rest of the world when it comes to lives lost during war is a measure of how little progress we have made. People die all over the world from a lack of money. Structural violence is a fact in many societies (including our own). Capitalistic hegemony forces some people to die for lack of medical care while others piss away wealth. It really isn't pretty, and it isn't the way I define progress, personally.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875