There is an interesting article in the December issue of The Economist that suggest the pessimistic modern view of progress is damaging, because the how a society views progresscan influence what (if any) improvements it may attempt to make on iteself. " Society must in principle be able to move towards it ideals, such as equality and freedom, or they are no more than cant and self-delusion. So it matters if people lose thier faith in progress. An it is worth thinking about how to restore it." The article ponders scientific, economic, and moral progress, and deems the latter the most important. Scientific progress can be a double edged sword, economic progress is empty. Moral progresss prevents the other two from wreaking the most damage and provide people with the most fulfillment. The author "asks peopel to reject the false choise between Utopia dn degeneracy. Moral progress...is neither guaranteed nor it is hopeless. Instead, it is up to us."
What do you think: Is the struggle to progress enough, or should we allow ourself to analyse the fruite (or lack of) our labors?
Erica
-And I thought thus:
Erica,
I agree almost wholeheartedly!
I say almost because moral progress is very hard to define. One man's moral progress is another man's moral nightmare, unlike science and economy morals are like God - a matter of belief, at least after a certain level of progression.
Naturally we can almost all agree on certain moral standards, but beyond that it gets fuzzy and can become like science and economy both a double edged sword and even empty.
I believe that the last couple of decades have been entirely too focused on the real - on puzzle solving and micro management of society. I feel like the far fetched dreams have gone away, those that could unite by enthusiasm and in that respect I think the article is spot on.
...Except my personal focus is on Science.
I envy those who lived through the sixties, even the fifties America.
There are other such creative periods in history, they are just less well described. The turn of the last century, from the 1800's to the 1900's seems like such a time of enthusiasm as well.
On the other hand all my rants of late, regarding morals and the show of strength vs. vulnerability are clear indications that I too feel a need for more visionary moral endeavors in society.
Perhaps that has to do with the very nature of morals as an indefinable thing coupled with my mentioning of society as being micro managed. I mean as soon as you move away from moral flights of fancy and begin to watch too closely, those elusive morals become hypocrisy and double standards.
Economy is a different breed altogether. Economy is no goal in itself, as such it is as the article proclaims - empty.
Economy is a means and a very important one for either scientific of moral progress.
Science is expensive and you can't debate morals with a hungry person, so economy is fundamental for either to progress but unimportant in and of itself.
So what do I think: Is the struggle to progress enough? -Yes most definitely or almost at least, ahem!
I have to get my argument from science again:
It seems that the struggle is fueled by periods of micro management. Periods where we as a society rationalize, count and evaluate until we are blue in the face and then all of a sudden we experience a "paradigm shift" into violent progression and again once the dust settles we go back to evaluation.
It seems cyclic is what I'm saying.
This phenomenon of revolution followed by normalization is described by scientist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn in his attempt to describe the evolution of science, not in steady trickling progression but in leaps and bounds in between period of normalcy and rationalization.
I think that description is equally valid of society as a whole.
Read about Kuhn here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn
-And I thought thus:
Erica,
I agree almost wholeheartedly!
I say almost because moral progress is very hard to define. One man's moral progress is another man's moral nightmare, unlike science and economy morals are like God - a matter of belief, at least after a certain level of progression.
Naturally we can almost all agree on certain moral standards, but beyond that it gets fuzzy and can become like science and economy both a double edged sword and even empty.
I believe that the last couple of decades have been entirely too focused on the real - on puzzle solving and micro management of society. I feel like the far fetched dreams have gone away, those that could unite by enthusiasm and in that respect I think the article is spot on.
...Except my personal focus is on Science.
I envy those who lived through the sixties, even the fifties America.
There are other such creative periods in history, they are just less well described. The turn of the last century, from the 1800's to the 1900's seems like such a time of enthusiasm as well.
On the other hand all my rants of late, regarding morals and the show of strength vs. vulnerability are clear indications that I too feel a need for more visionary moral endeavors in society.
Perhaps that has to do with the very nature of morals as an indefinable thing coupled with my mentioning of society as being micro managed. I mean as soon as you move away from moral flights of fancy and begin to watch too closely, those elusive morals become hypocrisy and double standards.
Economy is a different breed altogether. Economy is no goal in itself, as such it is as the article proclaims - empty.
Economy is a means and a very important one for either scientific of moral progress.
Science is expensive and you can't debate morals with a hungry person, so economy is fundamental for either to progress but unimportant in and of itself.
So what do I think: Is the struggle to progress enough? -Yes most definitely or almost at least, ahem!
I have to get my argument from science again:
It seems that the struggle is fueled by periods of micro management. Periods where we as a society rationalize, count and evaluate until we are blue in the face and then all of a sudden we experience a "paradigm shift" into violent progression and again once the dust settles we go back to evaluation.
It seems cyclic is what I'm saying.
This phenomenon of revolution followed by normalization is described by scientist and philosopher Thomas Kuhn in his attempt to describe the evolution of science, not in steady trickling progression but in leaps and bounds in between period of normalcy and rationalization.
I think that description is equally valid of society as a whole.
Read about Kuhn here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Samuel_Kuhn
