The last refuge of the skeptic? - Is there such a thing as true progress?

Palomar · 2002-07-22 22:02:23

I posted this to my own mailing list; I thought I'd share it here:

I was reading in _The Age of Voltaire_ by Will & Ariel Durant the
final pessmistic days of Lord Bolingbroke. As the name probably
implies, he was an Englishman; had been a member of Parliament who
later lost political favor; he lived for years in France with his 2nd
wife, a Frenchwoman; and had struck up a life-long friendship with
Voltaire when, as a young man, Voltaire had been voluntarily exiled
to England -- Lord Bolingbroke took the young Voltaire in for a
time. Anyway, in his final years, Lord Bolingbroke became
pessimistic. He was a Deistic freethinker who later came to believe
that there is no such thing as TRUE PROGRESS; he rejected this "last
refuge of the skeptic." My understanding is that he believed in only
temporary progress, perhaps synonymous with partial progress, but
that decline was sure to follow. Voltaire, in some respects, echoed
this sentiment with his statement that all civilizations are followed
with eras of barbarity, whence cometh civilization once more; a cycle
of civilization and barbarity, in other words.

To an extent, I agree. However, I think there is such thing as true
and lasting progress -- or rather, there has been for a century or
more, and will continue to be, thanks to our technology, mass media
and communications outlets, etc. Of course, I could still be too
young to know any better, and maybe these old men were right after
all.

Lord Bolingbroke returned to England before his death. He was
stricken with facial cancer, and lived in agony for 6 months before
finally dying. How sad. Cancer patients today suffer enough, let
alone back then.

Well then, folks: What say you? Is the belief in progress the last
refuge of the skeptic? Or is there no such thing as "real progress"?

--Cindy

martin · 2002-07-23 02:02:46

seems this lord bolingbroke lived in really really depressive times.
it may seem to be like that,civilisation and progress as mere short pleasant times in between greater times of darkness and barbarity.
oh yeah,the great civilisations came and disappeared.(did they really?)
they didnt, they left great impressions,ideas of glory , splendour and a longing for them.they taught us lessons that we use today.
britain was a world power once but it isnt really in ages of darkness either now.
tomorrow united states may not remain as powerfull as now but MARS might as well become the new power centre!

Shaun Barrett · 2002-07-23 05:26:35

Maybe it depends how far you can get in an age of civilization and progress that determines whether you can maintain that progress or lose it to the forces of chaos and/or barbarity.
Militarily, if you educate your potential enemy and include that group in your progress, you defuse the situation. However many regions the Romans "civilised" (or subjugated to their own interests! ), their influence was limited and there were always barbarians outside the borders awaiting their chance. Today, the toppling of our world civilization is becoming less and less likely as more and more people come to benefit from economic advancement. Why destabilise a system that benefits you?
If a civilization grows quickly enough, so that everyone becomes a beneficiary, you might eliminate hostile military action as an instrument of decline.
Similarly, if our ability to combat disease improves fast enough, we may avert disaster in the form of a lethal worldwide pandemic.
You might even develop sufficiently to save yourself and the whole planet from the kind of cosmic event that helped usher out the dinosaurs, an asteroid impact. We haven't reached that point yet and it's just a case of which comes first: The technology or the asteroid!
But it seems unlikely we will ever have the ability to stop one of those massive volcanic events which occur at intervals in Earth's history. Millions of cubic kilometres of lava spew forth and inundate vast areas with liquid rock. One such event occurred at the time of the Permian extinction 250 million years ago in what is now Siberia. 90% or more of all the species on Earth died. Another event occurred at the same time as the K/T extinction 65 million years ago in India (and at the same time as that famous impact on the Yucatan Peninsula). 75% of all life forms disappeared at that time.
To avoid succumbing to that kind of "barbarity", civilization has no choice but to establish itself off-Earth. .... Hey! Mars might be a good place!! (I wonder if anyone else has thought of that?! )
So I think Lord Bolingbroke was right and wrong! In his day, what he said was essentially correct. Civilization was very vulnerable to decline because it wasn't advanced enough. But I believe he was wrong to say that true and lasting progress can never be achieved. It's just a case of progressing quickly enough to work out the solutions before encountering the problems.
We in the 21st century are getting close to achieving this goal of unassailable progress, but we mustn't take our eye off the ball for even a second. Time is probably not on our side!
???

Bill White · 2002-07-23 09:35:17

Well then, folks: What say you? Is the belief in progress the last refuge of the skeptic? Or is there no such thing as "real progress"?

I had though late 20th century skeptics had rejected Progress as just another myth - like intelligence directed evolution.

If I were to "be like clark" I would ask who gets to define "Progress" and where do the standards come from to judge what is "Progress" and what is not "Progress"

But then I am not a total skeptic nor am I an unquestioning devotee of "Reason"

- - - -

"The heart has reasons reason can never know" said Pascal

True or False?

Palomar · 2002-07-23 10:00:28

Bill: But then I am not a total skeptic nor am I an unquestioning devotee of "Reason"

*Neither am I. Besides, IMO, it's not possible to be an unquestioning devotee of reason, because questioning things is part and parcel of the reasoning process. To be an unquestioning devotee of anything is UNreasonable, IMO.

Bill: "The heart has reasons reason can never know" said Pascal

True or False?

*I'd say that's true. We are all subjective creatures to a certain extent, some folks more so than others, and perhaps the "line" between subjectivity and objectivity isn't always so clearly distinct.

--Cindy

Phobos · 2002-07-23 18:52:17

*I'd say that's true. We are all subjective creatures to a certain extent, some folks more so than others, and perhaps the "line" between subjectivity and objectivity isn't always so clearly distinct.

Blurry lines definately separate subjective and objective thought in some purviews such as politics and the arts. After all, being one who developed a strange passion for art history, I often wonder if it's indeed possible to objectively and reasonably decide what is art and what is not. Sure there are those who will argue strongly and with merit that you can indeed tell what is high art and what is not, but I also think art derives its value from a subjective quality, of what it brings to an individual that it may not bring to another individual.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-07-22 22:02:23

Re: The last refuge of the skeptic? - Is there such a thing as true progress?

#2 2002-07-23 02:02:46

Re: The last refuge of the skeptic? - Is there such a thing as true progress?

#3 2002-07-23 05:26:35

Re: The last refuge of the skeptic? - Is there such a thing as true progress?

#4 2002-07-23 09:35:17

Re: The last refuge of the skeptic? - Is there such a thing as true progress?

#5 2002-07-23 10:00:28

Re: The last refuge of the skeptic? - Is there such a thing as true progress?

#6 2002-07-23 18:52:17

Re: The last refuge of the skeptic? - Is there such a thing as true progress?

Board footer