>The notion of progress in the historical sense assumes the existence of a stable and consistent viewpoint. However, since our viewpoint is constantly shifting in time, it's impossible to completely evaluate the new state of affairs objectively and to compare it with the past. The only possible way we could morally evaluate our era in comparison with the past is if we find an actual living being from the past, transfer them to the present and ask them what they think; since this is impossible, the notion of progress should be discarded.
How do you respond to this?
"Progress" is a lie, this is nothing new.
I like Dinosaur Comics
>>1068871
It's a pretty good argument. Progress is a very dubious notion.
>>1068887
>'Progress" is a lie, this is nothing new,'
he said in his message, commenting on a picture of green dinosaurs posted 2 minutes by a person on the other side of the planet.
>>1068995
ago*
>>1068995
>if only I could post pictures of green dinosaurs on a world wide communication network, then it would mean humanity is advancing. t. someone in the past
>>1069018
>if only we could establish a 1000 year reich filled with racially pure babes, then it would mean humanity is advancing. t. someone in the past
>>1069018
Are you implying no one did think exactly this at some point?
>>1069038
I think what he meant is that no one actually thought that (at least no one that mattered). it wasn't a part of any society value system, and they might have even regarded it as a negative development considering all the other shit it generated, so it's impossible to judge historical changes from a unique and specifique viewpoint.
>>1069050
Some guy obviously thought posting a picture of a dinosaur is a good idea,which happened on 5/1/16 at 9:47 exactly, but he couldn't have thought of that without the internet and all that shit already existing. Did the dudes who invented the HTTP protocol in the 1980s think about what they're doing in terms of dissemination of green dino comics? I doubt it.
>>1069051
So the notion of "advance" boils down to your ethical (good/bad) evaluation of change in history (which undeniably occurs all the time). Then it follows that some people will see "advance", some people will see opposite, and some people will see neither, depending on a moral compass.
>>1069065
From my impression of the dudes of technical genius who implemented the WWW, it seems like they are exactly the kind of people who would think it will be fun to post stupid shit over the net, when not working on anything serious. Think of early gifs and such.
>>1069070
Of course, that goes without saying. The point of the statement in the OP was that it's not an objective thing.
>>1069051
I'd say anyone in the past could value communication at light speed.
The maximum speed of land travel all the way up to the time of automobiles was the speed of the horse. News traveled extremely slowly. The internet would not have been understood, nor would these comics of green dinos, but its value would be appreciated.
>>1069088
Well, to me personally "advancement" really just means the advancement of technology. It seems to me that it's quite objectively a thing and that it's been pretty uniform in our history.
>>1069091
Not a Luddite.
>>1069137
>"advancement" really just means the advancement of technology
>it's been pretty uniform in our history
Is this temporally not spatially though?
>>1069091
>what is iron horse
Are you retarded?
You can measure progress in terms of life expectancy and general well-being. Both of these are at least partially measured.
Then again the level of happiness of an average person probably hasn't changed much, as this is just hormones.
>>1069091
>I'd say anyone in the past could value communication at light speed.
I think you're underestimating how different the cultures of past generations were. I'm not even talking about the middle ages, even a lot of people in the late 1800s were feeling quite uneasy about 20kmph automobiles.
>>1069167
It's easy to understand that they simply thought it's dangerous. Even now thousands of people over the world die on the road every year. I don't think their issue was the ability to get somewhere faster. I'm sure they were all ecstatic about that.
>>1069166
Life expectancy is not always good. Imagine a premodern society where the average life expectancy is 40. Now introduce penicillin and see how people live to their 70s and 80s. I'm sure you can see the nefarious effects it could have of every area of their life.
>>1069177
Regardless, you can't know this for fact since you can't summon anyone from the 1800s and ask them how they feel about present day transportation and communication, and allow them to experience all the differences it brought about. Those people might have had entirely different sensitivities than what you attribute to them.
>>1068871
progress is a spook
Progress is growing complexity and adaptability of organism. It has nothing to do (at least indirectly) with technology and everything to do with values. A more pluralistic* society=a more adaptable society=a better society.
*"pluralism" is not "diversity".
>>1068871
>The notion of progress in the historical sense assumes the existence of a stable and consistent viewpoint
No it doesn't. It assumes whichever viewpoint the speaker is adopting, which may or may not be agreed upon by others.
>>1069411
Can you have progress without an objective standard?
>>1069321
>>1069417
Why not? We have plenty of other concepts without objective standards.
>>1069422
Yes, but this isn't one of them. Progress without objective standard which allows you to estimate two (or more) different periods is not really an idea of progress, just... movement, I guess. Even Hegel, who brought autistic subjectivism to a level of artform, insisted on progress as reconciliation of spirit with itself, i.e an objective standard (at least not an arbitrarily-chosen subjective one).
>>1068871
I tell the dweeby fuck who said it that it's banal sophistry before slapping his gay retarded ass for not getting my fries out to me on time.
then I make it rain on his ass just to show that I'm his superior and that it doesn't matter what he fuckin' says: I've got the money here, so I've got the authority, and he can take his Diogenes wanna be ass back to the burger board and make some more goddamn food because he's a plebian shit anyway.
what? you expected an argument from reason? people don't do that IRL.
>>1069431
>Progress without objective standard which allows you to estimate two (or more) different periods is not really an idea of progress, just... movement, I guess.
This distinction is a subjective one, which is valid.
>insisted on progress as reconciliation of spirit with itself, i.e an objective standard (at least not an arbitrarily-chosen subjective one).
It is absolutely as arbitrary as any other definition, as there is nothing that makes the assumptions inherent to this definition less subjective than others. Hell, we don't even have an objective definition for what an objective definition would be. Going down this rabbit hole leads nowhere and isn't useful.
>>1069437
Good thing we're not aye ar el
>>1068871
>since it is impossible
We have the writings of people from the past in which they tell us what was good or wrong about their societies and what they hope the future will be like. We can infer from these whether society has progressed or not.
Also I see nothing wrong with a relativist notion of progress. Progress means societies changing in a way we perceive as good, or improving in short. Improvement is relative, and saying "we can't evaluate if our well-being has improved unless we take someone living in the past and transfer him to the present" is just stupid.
>>1069679
No, it's the only way to look at it, since you don't have "control humanity" sitting a lab somewhere presented with different choices.
>>1068871
>you need to have an objective viewpoint for something to exist
What autism is this
Social progress is a meme.
