“Has something gone terribly wrong”, or are we just continuing the cycle: dark, light, dark, … that we began when we came together in the first cities? The difference between then and now is just one of scale and power. If we continue this cycle the resulting darkness will be global. Worse, in the darkness mushrooms will grow, and these civilization cycles will end where they began, except now we will savage on a desecrated planet.
What the human mind has created, the human mind can destroy.
Frank,I was rereading your comment. Your comment also raises the question as to why humans, part of the class of great Apes, behave the way they do and what progress might be made in changing the destructive cycles you cite. I found illuminating Jared Diamond's book, "The World Until Yesterday" reviewed here https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/books/review/the-world-until-yesterday-by-jared-diamond.html. Not a well written book, but analogies are all there.
Barbara King's lectures "Roots of Human Behavior" ,which I believe I got from my local library in 2013, is also informative also cites behaviors you will view as familiar.
An example of the cycles you cite is the Russian invasion of Ukraine which is at its roots is a desperate attempt to seize human and physical resources to prop up a failing society whose demographics point to extinction. I spent a month there in 1987 as a guest of the Soviet Academy of sciences and had numerous opportunities to visit eastern European countries that were then under Soviet control.
At their basis, these conflicts are over resources and their control and which genetic sub-groups get to inhabit the future. Perhaps humans will progress out of these cycles. Certainly some aspects of technology might provide pathways for changing the cycles.
The perception of progress requires experimenting with change and some times the changes along a path don't work out. In human affairs, even if a change is good for some, there will always be groups who would rather go back to what was before. And some political system can't admit any failure.
While I partly agree, the scale and power is what takes this beyond the ancient cycle. As you've noted before, Frank, we are no longer gambling a city-state, a nation, we are gambling with the planet. But I remain, perhaps without good reason, optimistic. If this is irrational of me, I will accept that judgement as a trade for the hope required to work against the tragic flow of events.
Not irrational. It appears that the situation is still in a fluid state. If past patterns persist it will eventually solidify. Even if it gets darker, “rage, rage, against the dying of the light.”
Thank you for honouring me with the judgement of 'not irrational', Frank, which in these strange benighted times is quite the complement! 😁 And the Dylan Thomas poem is well-known to me, and its mention greatly appreciated.
Mathematically, Progress implies finding an optimization of some problem.
Unfortunately in human affairs, one person or group's optimization can takes something from others.
Perceived progress implies choosing a path and sometimes they lead nowhere...
Since politics is the "Art of the Possible" , a famous concept. attributed to Otto von Bismarck, a powerful Prussian statesman in the 19th century.
There are two main ways to interpret this saying according to Gemini:
Pragmatic approach: Politics is about achieving what can actually be done, given the current circumstances, limitations, and opposing forces. This can be seen as a realistic approach, focusing on incremental progress rather than idealistic goals.
Compromise and negotiation: Politics requires politicians to find common ground, make concessions, and build coalitions. It's about negotiation and compromise, finding solutions that different groups can accept.
However, there are also some criticisms of this view:
Can discourage ambition: Focusing only on the possible can stifle creativity and discourage efforts to push for bigger changes. It might lead to settling for mediocre solutions.
Ignores the power of movements: Social movements and activism can sometimes push the boundaries of what's considered "possible" and lead to major reforms.
So, whether politics is entirely the "Art of the Possible" is debatable. It's a balance between pragmatism, compromise, and striving for bigger goals.
Yes, political discourse often gets lost.
noun progress
forward or onward movement toward a destination.
advance or development toward a better, more complete, or more modern condition.
I'm unconvinced that the philosophy of 'progress' necessitates the philosophy of 'happiness' - although they certainly intersect. To some extent, Bentham's silly 'hedonic calculus' has usurped any wider discussion of 'happiness', and older philosophers did not really engage with 'happy' as a concept (which implies a psychological context and therefore comes 'after the divorce' between philosophy and psychology).
As for von Bismarck's "art of the possible"... this might indeed be the name of the very problem that may have doomed contemporary politics. For today's politicians would really rather not commit to all those awkward checks and balances that comes with democratic institutions. The possibilities are so much greater when you don't have to be transparent with your electorate. Indeed, so many career politicians now (including the UK's next terrible Prime Minister) are expressing their satisfaction with moving decision as far from the citizens as possible. I myself cannot approve of this approach, as I'm sure you appreciate.
I am more aligned with the original Greek conceptions of Happiness and as elaborated by Lucretius in De Rerum Natura and written about by Steven Greenblatt in Swerve.
You reinforce the point that language is pliable and meanings evolve often to create philosophical confusion.
In Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness the goal was not experiential Pleasure.
Psychologically Pleasure is a physical state while Happiness is an emotional state.
The antithesis of Pleasure is Discomfort or Pain while for Happiness…
Jeremy Bentham's hedonic calculus is a framework for making moral decisions based on the principle of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. It's a central idea in his version of utilitarianism, which emphasizes the well-being of the greatest number of people.
The calculus considers seven factors to assess the pleasure or pain an action will likely cause:
* Intensity: How strong is the pleasure or pain?
* Duration: How long will it last?
* Certainty: How likely is it to happen?
* Remoteness: How soon will it occur?
* Fecundity: Will it lead to more pleasure or pain in the future?
* Purity: Will it be mixed with pain or suffering?
* Extent: How many people will be affected?
By weighing these factors, the calculus aims to identify the action that brings the greatest overall happiness.
Critics argue that the hedonic calculus is impractical and subjective. It's difficult to quantify pleasure and pain, and people may value different experiences differently.
Meanwhile if you are antagonistic to “Progressivism”, what term do you prefer to characterize seeking political change for the improvement of community or society.
I haven't read Greenblatt's Swerve, and I confess that it's unusual to talk about 'happiness' in connection with Epicurean ethics (which Lucretius' poem discusses), which I would more associate with freeing onself from discomfort, to 'face all things with a calm mind', for all that 'Epicurean' came to mean 'seeking pleasure'. I think it is in De Rerum Natura where the 'fourfold remedy' for contentedness is expressed: 'God holds no fear, death no worries; the good is easy to get; evil easily endured'. But I would have to suggest that Epicurean ethics, quite unlike the ludicrous 'hedonic calculus', is not applicable to politics as such, being a philosophy for life, that is, a way of life, although one could certainly have one's own political views shaped by it.
Thanks for clarifying this point, however - greatly appreciated. Personally, I would still hesitate to talk about the ancient Greek (or Chinese) philosophers as talking about 'happiness', since this term originates in Europe in the early 16th century, and even this originally meant 'favoured by fortune'. Really, the contemporary meaning of 'happiness' is just that: contemporary. I appreciate attempts to integrate older philosophy into contemporary thought, but I shall stand by my claim that 'happiness' (unlike 'the good') was not a focal theme of philosophy prior to the Enlightenment. I suppose this is really just a small historical point, however.
"Meanwhile if you are antagonistic to 'Progressivism', what term do you prefer to characterize seeking political change for the improvement of community or society."
Am I antagonistic to 'progressivism'...? This is an interesting question. I am certainly not opposed to change in the abstract, although I am sceptical of our capacity to know which changes consitute 'improvements'. I do think, as all of this month's pieces explore, that the concept of 'progressive' as currently practiced has become incoherent (and indeed deceptive), but I am in full support of a balance of power between the progressive and the reactionary in a political discourse. Trouble is, politics is no longer this conversation in any of the post-European nations, nor indeed is it any kind of conversation (in this regard, opponents to progressivism have been just as culpable, of course).
My complaint with the US 'progressives' and their European distributaries (as this piece touches upon) is that they have become regressive, and have set to work unravelling the grounds of Enlightenment political philosophy, which for a scant two centuries gave us the foundation of contemporary democracy. Progressivism shorn of the commitment to free speech cannot succeed in producing changes that improve communities or societies, because whatever commitments it happens to adopt can no longer be challenged. No doubt this desire to silence opposition is pursued in the spirit you outline as 'political change for the improvement of community or society' - but in whose image of 'improvement'...? Such a policy cannot be 'progressive' in the sense of moving towards anything desirable (it could, I suppose, be progressing towards tyranny, of course - but who would admit to such a 'progressive' tendency...?).
Just as troublingly, such pseudo-progressivism is inimicable to scientific practice, which absolutely requires the free discussion of evidence and its implications. Once again, this is a regressive approach to the sciences, canonising dogma over process. The obvious poster child of this is the pseudo-progressive support of censorship under the logic of 'misinformation', which lies at the heart of the Supreme Court case of Missouri vs Biden (now Murthy vs Missouri), which may indeed be the most important scientific legal case since the trial of Gallileo.
I know you remain sceptical whenever I mention such issues... But you surely cannot doubt my rigour, and if I have made a mistake I am always open to correction. But to be honest, in terms of contemporary censorship, few are as well-read as I am (I will actually be speaking at a panel in London about this at the end of June). This does not make me incapable of error, of course... but I certainly do not write on this topic from a position of ignorance.
Bob, you are of a generation whose progressive values I admire. But these ideals are not shared by the newer generations of partisans, whose political philosophy you might even repudiate if this could be brought into clear focus. The hardest task for anyone is to recognise when their political allies have gone astray, because the logic of political opposition tends to situate all evil in 'the other side'. But as Solzhenitsyn learned in the Gulag: "The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts."
Some of the concerns you site about the current state of retrogressive politics is the subject of a current book by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt: "Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point" A major theme is the anti-democratic actions by minorities when they fear loss of status or power.
One of the interesting aspects of US political parties is how their foundational objectives keep switching. As you know, the Republicans originally created progressive politics. https://www.studentsofhistory.com/ideologies-flip-Democratic-Republican-parties. So I agree, political progressives have morphed into something else.
“Has something gone terribly wrong”, or are we just continuing the cycle: dark, light, dark, … that we began when we came together in the first cities? The difference between then and now is just one of scale and power. If we continue this cycle the resulting darkness will be global. Worse, in the darkness mushrooms will grow, and these civilization cycles will end where they began, except now we will savage on a desecrated planet.
What the human mind has created, the human mind can destroy.
Frank,I was rereading your comment. Your comment also raises the question as to why humans, part of the class of great Apes, behave the way they do and what progress might be made in changing the destructive cycles you cite. I found illuminating Jared Diamond's book, "The World Until Yesterday" reviewed here https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/books/review/the-world-until-yesterday-by-jared-diamond.html. Not a well written book, but analogies are all there.
Barbara King's lectures "Roots of Human Behavior" ,which I believe I got from my local library in 2013, is also informative also cites behaviors you will view as familiar.
An example of the cycles you cite is the Russian invasion of Ukraine which is at its roots is a desperate attempt to seize human and physical resources to prop up a failing society whose demographics point to extinction. I spent a month there in 1987 as a guest of the Soviet Academy of sciences and had numerous opportunities to visit eastern European countries that were then under Soviet control.
At their basis, these conflicts are over resources and their control and which genetic sub-groups get to inhabit the future. Perhaps humans will progress out of these cycles. Certainly some aspects of technology might provide pathways for changing the cycles.
The perception of progress requires experimenting with change and some times the changes along a path don't work out. In human affairs, even if a change is good for some, there will always be groups who would rather go back to what was before. And some political system can't admit any failure.
________________________________________
See for example:
https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/humans-are-apes-great-apes/
While I partly agree, the scale and power is what takes this beyond the ancient cycle. As you've noted before, Frank, we are no longer gambling a city-state, a nation, we are gambling with the planet. But I remain, perhaps without good reason, optimistic. If this is irrational of me, I will accept that judgement as a trade for the hope required to work against the tragic flow of events.
With unlimited love,
Chris.
Not irrational. It appears that the situation is still in a fluid state. If past patterns persist it will eventually solidify. Even if it gets darker, “rage, rage, against the dying of the light.”
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/46569/do-not-go-gentle-into-that-good-night#:~:text=By%20Dylan%20Thomas%20Do%20not%20go%20gentle%20into,Do%20not%20go%20gentle%20into%20that%20good%20night.
Thank you for honouring me with the judgement of 'not irrational', Frank, which in these strange benighted times is quite the complement! 😁 And the Dylan Thomas poem is well-known to me, and its mention greatly appreciated.
To understand the philosophy of "Progress" one should also explore the philosophy of "Happiness"
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/happiness/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/progress/
Mathematically, Progress implies finding an optimization of some problem.
Unfortunately in human affairs, one person or group's optimization can takes something from others.
Perceived progress implies choosing a path and sometimes they lead nowhere...
Since politics is the "Art of the Possible" , a famous concept. attributed to Otto von Bismarck, a powerful Prussian statesman in the 19th century.
There are two main ways to interpret this saying according to Gemini:
Pragmatic approach: Politics is about achieving what can actually be done, given the current circumstances, limitations, and opposing forces. This can be seen as a realistic approach, focusing on incremental progress rather than idealistic goals.
Compromise and negotiation: Politics requires politicians to find common ground, make concessions, and build coalitions. It's about negotiation and compromise, finding solutions that different groups can accept.
However, there are also some criticisms of this view:
Can discourage ambition: Focusing only on the possible can stifle creativity and discourage efforts to push for bigger changes. It might lead to settling for mediocre solutions.
Ignores the power of movements: Social movements and activism can sometimes push the boundaries of what's considered "possible" and lead to major reforms.
So, whether politics is entirely the "Art of the Possible" is debatable. It's a balance between pragmatism, compromise, and striving for bigger goals.
Yes, political discourse often gets lost.
noun progress
forward or onward movement toward a destination.
advance or development toward a better, more complete, or more modern condition.
development advance advancement headway step(s) forward progression improvement betterment growth breakthrough
a state journey or official tour, especially by royalty.
forward movement onward movement progression advance advancement headway passage going
Thanks for sharing these eclectic thoughts, Bob.
I'm unconvinced that the philosophy of 'progress' necessitates the philosophy of 'happiness' - although they certainly intersect. To some extent, Bentham's silly 'hedonic calculus' has usurped any wider discussion of 'happiness', and older philosophers did not really engage with 'happy' as a concept (which implies a psychological context and therefore comes 'after the divorce' between philosophy and psychology).
As for von Bismarck's "art of the possible"... this might indeed be the name of the very problem that may have doomed contemporary politics. For today's politicians would really rather not commit to all those awkward checks and balances that comes with democratic institutions. The possibilities are so much greater when you don't have to be transparent with your electorate. Indeed, so many career politicians now (including the UK's next terrible Prime Minister) are expressing their satisfaction with moving decision as far from the citizens as possible. I myself cannot approve of this approach, as I'm sure you appreciate.
All the very best,
Chris.
I am more aligned with the original Greek conceptions of Happiness and as elaborated by Lucretius in De Rerum Natura and written about by Steven Greenblatt in Swerve.
You reinforce the point that language is pliable and meanings evolve often to create philosophical confusion.
In Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness the goal was not experiential Pleasure.
Psychologically Pleasure is a physical state while Happiness is an emotional state.
The antithesis of Pleasure is Discomfort or Pain while for Happiness…
Jeremy Bentham's hedonic calculus is a framework for making moral decisions based on the principle of maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. It's a central idea in his version of utilitarianism, which emphasizes the well-being of the greatest number of people.
The calculus considers seven factors to assess the pleasure or pain an action will likely cause:
* Intensity: How strong is the pleasure or pain?
* Duration: How long will it last?
* Certainty: How likely is it to happen?
* Remoteness: How soon will it occur?
* Fecundity: Will it lead to more pleasure or pain in the future?
* Purity: Will it be mixed with pain or suffering?
* Extent: How many people will be affected?
By weighing these factors, the calculus aims to identify the action that brings the greatest overall happiness.
Critics argue that the hedonic calculus is impractical and subjective. It's difficult to quantify pleasure and pain, and people may value different experiences differently.
Meanwhile if you are antagonistic to “Progressivism”, what term do you prefer to characterize seeking political change for the improvement of community or society.
Hi Bob,
Thanks for continuing our discussion!
I haven't read Greenblatt's Swerve, and I confess that it's unusual to talk about 'happiness' in connection with Epicurean ethics (which Lucretius' poem discusses), which I would more associate with freeing onself from discomfort, to 'face all things with a calm mind', for all that 'Epicurean' came to mean 'seeking pleasure'. I think it is in De Rerum Natura where the 'fourfold remedy' for contentedness is expressed: 'God holds no fear, death no worries; the good is easy to get; evil easily endured'. But I would have to suggest that Epicurean ethics, quite unlike the ludicrous 'hedonic calculus', is not applicable to politics as such, being a philosophy for life, that is, a way of life, although one could certainly have one's own political views shaped by it.
Thanks for clarifying this point, however - greatly appreciated. Personally, I would still hesitate to talk about the ancient Greek (or Chinese) philosophers as talking about 'happiness', since this term originates in Europe in the early 16th century, and even this originally meant 'favoured by fortune'. Really, the contemporary meaning of 'happiness' is just that: contemporary. I appreciate attempts to integrate older philosophy into contemporary thought, but I shall stand by my claim that 'happiness' (unlike 'the good') was not a focal theme of philosophy prior to the Enlightenment. I suppose this is really just a small historical point, however.
"Meanwhile if you are antagonistic to 'Progressivism', what term do you prefer to characterize seeking political change for the improvement of community or society."
Am I antagonistic to 'progressivism'...? This is an interesting question. I am certainly not opposed to change in the abstract, although I am sceptical of our capacity to know which changes consitute 'improvements'. I do think, as all of this month's pieces explore, that the concept of 'progressive' as currently practiced has become incoherent (and indeed deceptive), but I am in full support of a balance of power between the progressive and the reactionary in a political discourse. Trouble is, politics is no longer this conversation in any of the post-European nations, nor indeed is it any kind of conversation (in this regard, opponents to progressivism have been just as culpable, of course).
My complaint with the US 'progressives' and their European distributaries (as this piece touches upon) is that they have become regressive, and have set to work unravelling the grounds of Enlightenment political philosophy, which for a scant two centuries gave us the foundation of contemporary democracy. Progressivism shorn of the commitment to free speech cannot succeed in producing changes that improve communities or societies, because whatever commitments it happens to adopt can no longer be challenged. No doubt this desire to silence opposition is pursued in the spirit you outline as 'political change for the improvement of community or society' - but in whose image of 'improvement'...? Such a policy cannot be 'progressive' in the sense of moving towards anything desirable (it could, I suppose, be progressing towards tyranny, of course - but who would admit to such a 'progressive' tendency...?).
Just as troublingly, such pseudo-progressivism is inimicable to scientific practice, which absolutely requires the free discussion of evidence and its implications. Once again, this is a regressive approach to the sciences, canonising dogma over process. The obvious poster child of this is the pseudo-progressive support of censorship under the logic of 'misinformation', which lies at the heart of the Supreme Court case of Missouri vs Biden (now Murthy vs Missouri), which may indeed be the most important scientific legal case since the trial of Gallileo.
I know you remain sceptical whenever I mention such issues... But you surely cannot doubt my rigour, and if I have made a mistake I am always open to correction. But to be honest, in terms of contemporary censorship, few are as well-read as I am (I will actually be speaking at a panel in London about this at the end of June). This does not make me incapable of error, of course... but I certainly do not write on this topic from a position of ignorance.
Bob, you are of a generation whose progressive values I admire. But these ideals are not shared by the newer generations of partisans, whose political philosophy you might even repudiate if this could be brought into clear focus. The hardest task for anyone is to recognise when their political allies have gone astray, because the logic of political opposition tends to situate all evil in 'the other side'. But as Solzhenitsyn learned in the Gulag: "The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts."
With unlimited love,
Chris.
Some of the concerns you site about the current state of retrogressive politics is the subject of a current book by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt: "Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point" A major theme is the anti-democratic actions by minorities when they fear loss of status or power.
One of the interesting aspects of US political parties is how their foundational objectives keep switching. As you know, the Republicans originally created progressive politics. https://www.studentsofhistory.com/ideologies-flip-Democratic-Republican-parties. So I agree, political progressives have morphed into something else.
Thanks Bob, I think we are not so far apart on this issue as on some!