In the Laws , Plato proposes that human society begins with the family, then moves through intermediate forms, and finally arrives at the city-state ad. In the Politics , Aristotle also presents this progression of forms a24—a4. Not only is man a political animal as a matter of fact Politics , a2 , it is also true that human excellence is only possible within a city-state with a good constitution. But unhappily there is no tendency for the city-state, once achieved, to realize or maintain such a constitution. For instance, while Aristotle cautiously admits that laws can and should improve a12—14 , Book V of the Politics shows that all constitutional forms—bad and good—are unstable.
Large-scale natural events also play an important role in Plato and Aristotle's presentation of human affairs. In the Statesman , Plato adopts the traditional Greek story of a golden age and a subsequent decline, written down by Hesiod in Works and Days. Hesiod tells the story of five races of men: The golden race is the best of all, and the present race, the iron race, is the worst.
According to Plato's story, the ages described by Hesiod correspond to parts of a cycle during which the earth rotates first in one direction and then in another. While the earth moves in the first direction, the gods oversee the affairs of mankind. As a herdsman looks after his flock, the gods tend to the needs of human beings.
Because they are under the perfect care of the gods, humans do not need to govern themselves Statesman , ea. Plato suggests that the golden age, the era of the golden race, occurred during such a period. When the earth changes course, a period of chaos ensues, which corresponds to the end of the golden age. Finally, when the earth moves in the second direction, people are left on their own, which explains the other ages described by Hesiod. Aristotle also entertains the possibility of periodic flooding Meteorology , a29—32 and suggests that myths may contain the remnants of the wisdom of destroyed civilizations Metaphysics , b9— After Plato and Aristotle, the most influential early philosopher is St.
Augustine of Hippo — C. Some humans, God's elect, are predestined for heaven. The rest of humanity is predestined for damnation. Augustine rejects cyclical accounts of human affairs for a linear one. He is especially concerned to repudiate the doctrine of eternal recurrence, which says that events identical in all respects repeat over and over again.
He emphasizes that the birth, death, and resurrection of Christ are unique occurrences , XII. Insofar as it is linear, Augustine's narrative of salvation resembles doctrines of progress. But his emphasis on the City of God contrasts with the worldly, inclusive vision of theorists of progress. As we will see, these theorists are concerned with humanity as a whole, rather than with a part of it. And their focus is on earth rather than on heaven.
The writings on progress of the 18th century drew inspiration from the intellectual achievements of the 16th and 17th centuries. During this time, Europe witnessed an explosion of scientific and mathematical activity. In the natural sciences, the main fields of investigation were physics and astronomy.
Major figures included Copernicus — , Galileo — , Kepler — , and Newton — Newton synthesized the work of the previous thinkers to bring the behavior of bodies on earth and bodies in space under a single scientific law, the law of universal gravitation. This law states that two bodies attract each other in proportion to their masses and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance between them Palmer , — The discoveries of these scientists had broad implications.
First of all, the success of the new physics in unifying distinct phenomena and predicting behavior vindicated an underlying paradigm of scientific investigation and explanation. Second, the rapid gains encouraged an optimistic view of humans' capability to understand and shape their world. Here was a clear example of a communal activity in which one human built on and improved the work of his predecessor.
The activity resulted in the discovery of a scientific law, the law of universal gravitation, of unprecedented power Palmer , — Condorcet was inspired by Turgot to write Outlines of an historical view of the Progress of the human mind , a piece that echoes many of Turgot's convictions.
Although Condorcet wrote his essay in prison during the Terror, he, like Turgot, evinces optimism about the future of France and of humanity as a whole. Both authors suggest that philosophical progress is the deepest condition of scientific progress. Influenced by British empiricism, Turgot and Condorcet assert that all human knowledge is grounded in experience. According to Turgot, the renaissance of science first required an empiricist turn, the abandoning of explanations appealing to faculties and essences. The scientific experiment then found its place as the centerpiece of the scientific method and the vehicle of further progress Turgot , 45; , — Condorcet reiterates these points and also provides a wealth of examples of recent scientific discoveries , — Turgot and Condorcet agree that scientific progress is dependent on mathematical and technological progress, and vice versa Turgot , 45; Condorcet , Although neither author rigorously defines human well-being, both believe that, over the long term, scientific discoveries and political freedom reinforce each other and together further it.
Turgot considers the role that political institutions play in advancing science. He thinks that individual genius moves science forward. Political institutions are important to scientific progress insofar as they allow geniuses to flourish. Variation in scientific achievement is to be explained not by the concentration of genius but by the institutions that either suppress or encourage it , Despotic government is bad for genius, while republics nurture it.
Condorcet also remarks that free institutions are the native environment of scientific discovery , In turn, the growth of scientific knowledge will advance political freedom Turgot , Turgot and Condorcet also hold that short-term decline can be part of a pattern of long-term improvement. In the intellectual realm, the path to truth is rocky, and errors are frequently the first result of reflection Turgot , 44; Condorcet , 37— For instance, the false scientific philosophy of faculties and essences is born of reflection on phenomena.
In the realm of action, devastating events like war and conquest can ultimately unite scattered groups of people and ameliorate political organization Turgot , 71—2; Condorcet , Moreover, Turgot argues that individuals and groups that contribute to progress are often motivated by emotion or personal interest , 69— The second observation is related to the first, since Turgot thinks that the agents of creative destruction are usually narrowly self-interested or emotion-driven.
Despite their many common convictions, Condorcet and Turgot part ways on the question of religion. Turgot is generally positive about Christianity, while a significant part of Condorcet's essay consists of polemics against religion and especially priests , — Condorcet states that as scientific knowledge spreads, an enlightened population will throw off the shackles of religion and its priests and demand greater freedom. The Scottish and French Enlightenment were roughly contemporaneous and grappled with the same social phenomena. It is difficult to draw hard and fast contrasts between the two bodies of thought, and better to consider individual authors.
So we turn to writings of David Hume — , which are characterized by both naturalism and skepticism. Hume's essays on political questions reflect his general philosophical orientation. Although he is less likely than Condorcet and Turgot to make sweeping comments about progress, he explores the topic of social development in various interesting ways.
He begins with the presumption that scientific and artistic progress requires a background of political security. From this claim, he argues that the arts and sciences cannot arise in a society without the rule of law. Hume also asserts that no monarchy can develop the rule of law on its own, while republics must develop the rule of law if they are to survive at all.
He concludes that the arts and sciences first emerge in republics, not monarchies , 59— Civilized monarchies are those that have learned the rule of law from neighboring republics. Hume even says that the arts progress more quickly in civilized monarchies than in republics, because they are useful for flattering monarchs.
Please Consider Donating
On the other hand, according to Hume, the general population is more impressed by scientific discoveries with obvious technological applications than by artistic creations. Therefore the sciences progress more quickly in republics, in which the general public holds power, than in monarchies 68— Hume thinks that countries can affect each other's progress. For instance, competition can spur greater progress, and isolation can cause a country to stall 64—5.
On the other hand, countries can intimidate each other into inactivity Hume also asserts that the arts and sciences cannot progress indefinitely in a single country. One they reach a certain height, members of the next generation are too intimidated by their predecessors to strike out on their own 75— A second Scottish Enlightenment figure, Adam Smith — , is often regarded as an economist, but in fact he began his career as a philosopher.
His first work, The Theory of the Moral Sentiments , addressed the philosophy of moral judgment and action. It is therefore not surprising that the Wealth of Nations , the work on economic growth for which he is best known, has a deeper philosophical resonance. Smith's central observation is that, in economic life, it often happens that individuals in pursuit of their self-interest nevertheless contribute to the common good , — Humans engage in this activity for self-interested reasons.
But growth in the productivity of labor in a society is largely due to a greater division of labor 3. It is because of a greater division of labor, Smith contends, that the poorest members of European countries are richer than the richest members of societies in other parts of the world Failure to see the work of the invisible hand will lead to unwise policies. Smith says that, in the absence of government intervention, self-interest leads each nation to produce only the goods in which it has a comparative advantage. Self-interested behavior in the presence of government attempts to support domestic industries actually results in a worse outcome.
One goal of the book is admittedly practical: Mercantilism holds that aggressive government intervention is the key to increasing national wealth. Accordingly, during this time, the governments of Europe attempted to steer and promote domestic industries, most notably by placing high tariffs on foreign imports Palmer , Smith argues against these policies. He writes that tariffs on imports harm the nation as a whole, by misdirecting its resources , — In general, he says, the government should play a circumscribed role in the economic life of a country, confining itself to the protection of property rights, the support of a national defense force, and the provision of a few other key public goods Smith's emphasis on spontaneous improvement in economic life warrants treating him as a theorist of progress.
But, given his worries about mercantilism, it is clear he thinks that this type of development is fragile. Nations will not maximize their wealth unless they have the wisdom to allow spontaneous growth to occur. Smith intends the Wealth of Nations to help policy makers recognize the phenomena that he believes to have correctly identified. The thinkers of the Scottish and French Enlightenment authors are empiricists. Unlike them, the German Enlightenment figure Immanuel Kant — reasons in an a priori manner to the conclusion that humanity is progressing.
Kant remarks that certain trends are compatible with progress, but cautions that no trajectory can be inferred with certainty from the facts , His a priori argument begins with the premise that all animals have natural faculties. If nature is not to be in vain, we must assume that the faculties of an animal can be developed. Unlike other animals, the human being cannot develop all of its faculties in a lifetime. If the faculties given to humans are not to be considered useless, then the only other possibility is that the human race as a whole, over time, will develop all the human faculties , 42— The progress from one era to another is measured by the development of human faculties during that time.
Kant thinks that human faculties can reach their fullest expression only in free and peaceful circumstances , 50 , which in turn require a particular set of institutions. A federation of republics will mark the final stage of human development. A republic is a state based on the rule of law whose members are free and equal citizens , A federation is a group of nations who have agreed to observe rules of peaceful conduct in their mutual relations , 98ff. Kant argues that the domestic and international features of this institutional constellation will reinforce each other. Republics will not go to war with each other because a declaration of war requires the consent of the public, who are reluctant to pay a war's price , In turn, domestic conditions will be improved in the absence of a state's constant involvement in wars , The details of the development toward the peaceful federation are given by Kant's universal history.
This narrative is presented as, at best, consistent with empirical evidence. Kant argues that, for the most part, human psychology and the natural environment, rather than human reason, could have driven the human race forward. Humans are social because they cannot develop their capabilities in isolation. Yet they are unsocial because they always want to get their own way.
These associations are the seeds of republics. But progressive human activity need not be lacking in awareness. Kant maintains that a philosophy of progress can accelerate progress , The 19th-century writers on progress took up and elaborated the notion that conflict is an essential part of a progressive narrative. Hegel — is an example of such a writer. Hegel does not give a straightforward account of human progress. But he puts a version of universal history at the center of his metaphysics, from which a narrative of progress can be derived.
According to Hegel, the world as a whole is in the process of development through conflict. Part of the world's development is the self-realization of its spiritual aspect, known simply as Geist , or Spirit. The freedom of Spirit is achieved through the achievement of free social institutions and free human beings. So, we look to human history to understand the realization of Spirit. Conversely we recognize that the self-realization of Spirit, an entity not reducible to humanity, is the true meaning of human history.
The state is crucial to Hegel's philosophy of history. At any point in time, a state or group of states represent the highest point achieved by humanity thus far. Hegel thinks that at the time of his writing, the states of Western Europe play this role. In the Philosophy of Right , he argues that these states, however imperfectly, combine individual freedom with social unity into one enduring whole.
Navigation menu
The political constitution of the society he describes is a constitutional monarchy. It approximates the never-adopted constitution that Prussian reformers drew up in Wood , History, according to Hegel's metaphysical account, is driven by ideological development. Ideological—and therefore historical—change occurs when a new idea is nurtured in the environment of the old one, and eventually overtakes it. Thus development necessarily involves periods of conflict when the old and new ideas clash.
A second account of change is contained in the master-slave dialectic of Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit , —; — Certain forms of social hierarchy are intrinsically unstable. The human desire for recognition drives social development, which consists of repeated struggles for recognition, until it reaches the liberal solution. In the liberal state, slave and masters are abolished, and all recognize all as free and equal.
This arrangement lacks the contradictions inherent in previous social forms. According to Hegel, conflict occurs within and between states. These great men are often motivated by narrow, personal goals. Hegel's justification of war and destruction in the name of progress reflects his overall philosophy. He holds that we can be reconciled to negative elements by seeing their place within a larger pattern. In the Phenomenology of Spirit , he summarizes his thesis in the following slogan: Finally, in contrast to Kant, Hegel thinks that war is more than an engine of progress.
Hegel argues that, without war, individuals in liberal societies become self-absorbed and weak, unwilling to work for the common good. There is moreover no outlet for human aggression. For these reasons, war is ineliminable. It will be a feature even of the rational system of states that marks the end of historical development.
Over the long run, the productive forces determine other aspects of the society, starting with the relations of production, the informal and formal rules that define and regulate property , Marx builds on these assumptions to define capitalism and communism and to predict the former's eventual transformation into the latter. Like Hegel, Marx asserts that conflict drives historical development.
But in Marx's account, conflict occurs when the productive forces outgrow the relations of production , A different class of society represents each side of the conflict. The class that benefits from the outmoded relations of production seeks to maintain them, while the losing class seeks to destroy them and replace them.
For instance, capitalism emerged from feudal aristocracy when the merchants, through revolution, rewrote the laws in their favor , —8, Capitalism is a system in which land and labor are commodities able to be bought and sold on the free market. Marx predicts that communism will emerge from capitalism because the productive forces developed within a capitalist society will eventually make capitalist property rights unworkable , At this point, the working class, or proletariat, will successfully overthrow the old order , —2.
Marx's philosophy of history can seem like a deterministic materialism that ignores ideas and passes no judgment on the change it describes. However, this picture is incomplete. First of all, Marx thinks that consciousness of historical trends will guide at least some of the future revolutionaries , Second, Marx clearly thinks that communism is superior to capitalism because it eliminates barriers to freedom such as alienation and exploitation and replaces them with a community of free producers , Marx's early writings—published after his death—show that the value of freedom was as central a concern for him as it was for Kant or Hegel.
Among 19th-century thinkers, the French sociologist Auguste Comte — puts relatively little emphasis on violence and struggle as a source of change. Comte saw himself as giving sociology its content in addition to its name. But many of his arguments are not particularly original, including his most fundamental claim, that intellectual improvement drives progress v. His real contribution is to claim that intellectual development should be understood as change in the form of explanation employed by individuals seeking to understand the world.
The form of explanation effects social life insofar as it corresponds to a way of predicting and manipulating events. It is true that this argument is implicit in the writings of earlier thinkers such as Turgot and Condorcet. But, unlike his predecessors, Comte works it out systematically. Comte's main sociological law is that every science goes through three stages, which he terms the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive , v. In the theological stage, scientific explanation is governed by the assumption that natural events are caused by divinities.
In turn, humans attempt to affect natural outcomes by appealing directly to the gods or God to take action. The metaphysical stage follows, in which phenomena are explained by referring to the abstract essences that entities are supposed to possess. The third phase, the positive phase, explains phenomena by formulating scientific laws and then subsuming individual phenomena under them 2. Humans cannot change these laws, but they can use their knowledge of them to predict and shape events.
The positive stage is the most modest in its epistemological aspirations. Unlike the other two, it organizes appearances rather than looking beyond them v. However, it is the most successful of the three stages in guiding human intervention into nature. This is no accident, since the same practical concerns that motivate scientific activity drive scientific development. For Comte, the ultimate motivation for scientific activity is practical: While Comte holds that the driving force of human progress is intellectual development, he asserts that progress itself consists in moral improvement.
Comte refrains from claiming that humans are becoming subjectively happier , v. Instead, despite his rejection of Aristotelian metaphysics, Comte invokes a form of human flourishing akin to Aristotle's in the Nicomachean Ethics b22—a Comte claims that human excellence is exercising the uniquely human capacity for reason.
The human race is progressing because humans are becoming more rational and less emotional v. In the final part of his career, Comte turned his attention to political theory. In System of Positive Polity , he envisions a socialist society governed by a few unelected officials, who are in turn educated and advised by an elite priesthood of social scientists 51 , Guided by the principle that the temporal and spiritual powers of society should be separate, Comte emphasizes that the priests of positivism should not exercise political leadership themselves Comte appeals to the same principle to justify the exclusion of women from public life He explains that women wield spiritual power as mothers and wives —1 , and their spiritual authority would be jeopardized if they were to pursue a vocation outside the family.
John Stuart Mill — , Comte's contemporary, admired his progressive philosophy of history Mill , and shared his respect for scientific expertise But Mill was disappointed by Comte's basic distaste for democratic freedom and individuality Mill , Unlike Comte, Mill thought that a strong, scientifically oriented society could be a liberal democracy. Such a society would best maintain the gains already achieved and nurture further improvement.
Mill articulates his twin commitment to progress and liberal democracy in his major writings, including A System of Logic , Utilitarianism , On Liberty , and On Representative Government Mill's writings establish connections among utility, liberty, and political institutions. Utility, or aggregate pleasure b, , provides the ultimate standard for comparing two historical eras or two contemporaneous societies.
The claim that humanity is progressing means that utility is increasing over time. Then, in A System of Logic , Mill, following Comte , argues that the development of ideas drives the development of society as a whole Finally, in On Liberty and On Representative Government , Mill considers how a society's institutions can retard or accelerate ideological development. Mill thinks that it is impossible to find a single set of institutions that is progressive for all times and places. The most that we can do is to specify what institutions are best for societies at a given level of civilization.
But Mill argues that in more advanced societies, free institutions promote further progress. They do so by allowing ideological conflict, which is a powerful engine of ideological development. Mill worries about the transition from one set of institutions to another.
- Wie realistisch ist der Realismus wirklich? Teil II (German Edition).
- .
- John Gray and the idea of progress.
- Funny Fairy-tales.
Civilizations can reach a certain level of development and then stagnate because they do not undergo institutional change a, —5. Despite his reputation as a classic Victorian progressive, Mill is more cautious and less deterministic than the other 19th-century writers treated by this essay. He believes that continued improvement is possible, but not by any means inevitable.
Progress in Europe will come to a halt if institutions silence society's creative members , 80— Mill's works derive their urgency from the fact that he clearly thinks they can make a real difference. On Liberty focuses on the argument for government non-interference. On Representative Government discusses some of the ways that democratic institutions could be reformed to promote different points of view actively. A fellow Victorian philosopher, Herbert Spencer — is much more deterministic than Mill.
Spencer views human progress as one aspect of a universe in perpetual development. Spencer constructs his explanatory framework from materials from the biological sciences. He is keenly interested in theories of biological evolution, both Lamarckian and then Darwinian. Understanding Spencer's theoretical orientation requires some background in 19th-century biology.
Darwin's theory of evolution was not the first modern attempt to account for diversity of life on the planet without invoking an act of divine creation Levins and Lewontin, , 27— Jean-Baptiste Lamarck — explained the apparent match between each animal species and its environment by positing that individual animals could acquire and pass on adaptive characteristics. This explanation requires, first of all, that animals strive to adapt to their environment. Second, it requires that the animals change physically as a result of their efforts, and third, that they pass on their acquired characteristics to their offspring Levins and Lewontin, In contrast, Darwin hypothesized that randomly occurring variation among individual organisms could be preserved or destroyed in the population of organisms through differential reproductive success.
That is, he conjectured that some characteristics are correlated with the ability to produce a greater number of offspring. These characteristics will tend to increase in a population over time. Darwin called this mechanism natural selection. Natural selection bypasses the problematic assumption that individual organisms could alter themselves through deliberate effort. Yet it can still explain why organisms seem to fit into their natural environment so well Levins and Lewontin, , 31— In Social Statics , Spencer asserts that evil is never permanent He reasons to this conclusion from two premises.
Second, he claims that all living beings gradually change to fit into their environment 59— He lists a great number of natural phenomena that supposedly illustrate this law At the point of writing, Spencer was a Lamarckian, but he later maintained essentially this argument as a proponent of Darwinism. Evil in the human sense exists because human beings, by virtue of their selfishness, are unsuited to social living. But this variety of evil, like all evil, will pass away as humans adapt to their circumstances.
Progress - Wikipedia
He defines progress as the evolution of humans from selfishness to selflessness , Spencer claims that all phenomena exhibit the same development from the simple to the complex for this same reason. He finds evidence for progress in astronomy 10—11 , geology 12—13 , and linguistics 23—4. The modern literature on progress generally argues that European science, culture, and institutions are the best in the world at the time the author is writing. But claims or insinuations that Europeans are biologically superior are rarer. Turgot, as we have seen, states that individual genius occurs as frequently among non-Europeans as among Europeans.
Nor do Mill's claims for European superiority rest on biological arguments , In other words, the paradigmatic progress narrative shows Europeans setting the standards and then the rest of the world catching up until everyone is a full participant in an enlightened order. The introduction of biological evolution into writings on progress enabled a new form of Eurocentrism, one founded on biological racism. Spencer enlists evolutionary theory to claim that different races of human beings exist and form a clear hierarchy: This includes mental characteristics: Spencer's racism is central to his view of humans as a group and of human potential.
Ultimately it calls into question whether he can be said truly to propose an account of progress. If the 19th century is the high water mark of progress narratives, the following period is the era of critics. In general, criticisms of the doctrine of progress fall into two categories. Unlike science, ethics and politics are not activities in which what is learnt in one generation can be passed on to an indefinite number of future generations.
In a recent collection of essays, for example, entitled The Political Theory of John Gray , claims to this effect feature throughout. Morgan is of course correct to question whether modern liberal societies are solely animated by the opposite belief — that solving the conflicts between competing value-systems is seen as a matter of scientific advance or of establishing a universal moral code or infallible system of justice.
However, doing so does not address the question of how Gray came to this conclusion. On what grounds does he make such a distinction? So writes Gray in Straw Dogs , and in this claim we can see at least two key aspects to his understanding of humanity. By extension, in denying the very existence of this body, Gray simultaneously rejects that it can have either a single past or a single future. Therefore, it would seem that denying the idea that history is a narrative of human progress begins with rejecting the existence of humanity. According to Gray, to do otherwise is to commit the same mistakes of the earliest Christian preachers, whose faith not only led them to elevate the human species to an unparalleled position of dignity, but to believe that there was a story of mankind, a narrative of progression, of tale of redemption from the sins of the past.
Yet for Gray this faith not only continued, but was perhaps even amplified in the Enlightenment theories of progress, such as those of the French Positivists, who in their rejection of God elevated mankind even further, to master of its own destiny, as the creator of a new world based on reason and science — truths upon which a better world might converge See Gray, With their emphasis on the unique ability of the human species to shape its own destiny, they attempted to create a new religion which recognised man, and not God, as the Supreme Being.
In his text Mill on Liberty: Such advance, Gray surmised, is not necessary on the count that the principles of liberalism demand justification by reference to scientific laws, but that the adoption of liberal moral precepts occurs as human knowledge grows Gray, []: We might recall that this philosophy of history stands greatly at odds with that expressed by Gray, and indeed, it is within his later works , , , [] that we find its explicit rejection.
In contemporary thought, for example, Gray takes particular aim at the liberalism of John Rawls , whose work sought to formulate principles of justice which could be universally applied Gray, Indeed, this not only figured as part of his critique of Christianity, but also of Enlightenment theories of progress, and most notably those expressed by the French Positivists. On the one hand, Gray makes a clear effort not to overstate the relationship between these Enlightenment theories of progress and the content of liberal values , not least because there we many intellectual traditions which, whilst believing in progress, were by no means liberal.
On the other hand, however, Gray is equally clear that the Enlightenment and Positivist ideas of progress have been central to informing those which can be found in liberalism. Certainly, despite the internal contradictions of liberalism Gray, b: For Gray, however, the falsehoods to which these liberal theories are committed are twofold. In the first instance, they embody a fallacious and Eurocentric idea of modernisation, which assumes that as non-Occidental nations adopt knowledge produced by the West — whether in science, technology, economics, literacy or numeracy — they will automatically assent to Western values and institutions, such as those of liberal democracy Gray, []: Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, they assume that there can be a rational agreement on the best form of life.
Indeed, whereas liberal theorists of all creeds believe there to be an ideal form of life, for Gray the opposite is true. Rather than embodying the best form of life, then, the life idealised within liberal thought is only one amongst many, each arising from a diversity of historical inheritances. Moreover, in drawing upon the value-pluralism of those such as Isaiah Berlin See Gray, With conflicting needs and values, there are no means through which the demands of every human can be reconciled within one system, and no grounds upon which one system can claim authority over others: In an important addition, however, Gray distinguishes this position from one of moral relativism.
These are what might be referred to generic evils, and it is only in their presence that one way of life can be judged in respect to others. Among them, Gray includes the subjection of individuals or groups to enduring poverty, preventable disease, persecution, torture and genocide Gray, b: For Gray, history is a cycle between civilisation and barbarism, and whilst some evils may be held back for a time, these gains are never cumulative, guaranteed or absolute.
Let us briefly retrace our steps. For Gray, however, claims to this effect are grounded on a number of flawed assumptions. Thirdly, they sustain the Eurocentric ideology of modernisation, which not only assumes that the advance of human knowledge enforces the authority of Western liberal values, but that there can be rational agreement on a single way of life. In short, Gray argues that these assumptions ignore the enduring realities of the human species.
Humanity cannot progress because humanity does not exist; there are only humans, driven by conflicting needs and incommensurable definitions of the best way of life. The advance of human knowledge will not bring about convergence on an ideal form of life, and will not precipitate gains in ethics and politics, as history is an unending cycle. For Gray, this is the world as history has shown it to exist, not the utopian illusion which history has failed to deliver.
Both the force and intent with which Gray distinguishes between progress in human knowledge and progress in human affairs is clear. However, to what extent have we grasped the very concepts under examination? Indeed, Gray refers to the idea that the human animal has a unique destiny, in which it can make permanent and incremental improvements to its general condition, ridding itself of the conflicts and generic evils which have hitherto defined its existence.
Thus, it seems pertinent to question whether such diffuse bodies of knowledge can be spoken of in the same terms, as a coherent entity which either does or does not bring about progress in human affairs. To illustrate this point, he has observed how the adoption of capitalism by non-Occidental countries has not, contrary to speculation, initiated a convergence on the values of the Western liberal nations from which the capitalist doctrines emerged.
Again, those that suggest otherwise not only perpetuate the Eurocentric ideology of modernisation, but they also assume that a rational consensus is possible on the best way of life.
- PCOS Diet Book - A Collection Of Recipes To Beat The Symptoms Of PCOS - A Cookbook For Women Suffering From PCOS.
- Progress (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy);
- Una calda estate inglese (Italian Edition).
- ?
- Narrative of the Voyages Round the World, Performed by Captain James Cook : with an Account of His Life During the Previous and Intervening Periods.
- ;
- .
Thus, in contradistinction to what he views as unfounded myths of human convergence, Gray has observed the opposite trends. Rather than the adoption capitalism transforming human values, human values have transformed the manner in which capitalism has been adopted. More concretely, Gray has argued that whilst Asian nations have successfully applied the economic models of capitalism, each has done so whilst retaining and expressing the values of their historical and cultural inheritances Gray, As another branch of human knowledge, it would not be erroneous to discuss scientific and technological advances in a similar fashion — as a story of evolving technologies interacting with the unalterable human animal Gray, Indeed, whilst denying the possibility of cumulative gains in ethics and politics, Gray has consistently emphasised that such gains in science are not only possible, but they are demonstrably real.
For Gray, the falsehood is to assume that such advance can precipitate gains in humans affairs:. The accelerating advance of scientific knowledge fuels technical innovation, producing an incessant stream of new inventions; it lies behind the enormous increase in human numbers over the past few hundred years. Post-modern thinkers may call into question scientific progress, but it is undoubtedly real. And of course, at the heart of ethical and political life is the human species, intractably divided on questions of value and definitions of the best regime.
As we have seen, Gray tells us that there are at least two key features in this regard. Firstly, he argues that the human species does not constitute a collective body, and to this extent, does not have a collective future or destiny. However, might we not begin to see a tension existing between these two positions? Instead, Gray has consistently supported the view that history is an unending cycle, wherein that which is gained in ethics and politics is neither cumulative or permanent.
For Gray, as for the ancient Greeks and Romans to whom he referred, the future is a return to the past.