Whither Progress?: Is Progress an Insupportable Myth?

[FlashDangerpants]

I don't believe that quote is from Socrates or even Plato, it doesn't look convincing at all.

Maybe the quote isn't exact. I don't know. The point is that Socrates' willingness to die the good death is well known

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=6835

Even though that quote is quite obviously modern and nothing to do with Socrates whatsoever, I've decided to give you a pass because for once you were more or less relevant in your response, and you even managed to cite a Plato fact that wasn't the simile of the cave. You deserve 7 out of 10 for that.

[Nick_A]

I don't believe that quote is from Socrates or even Plato, it doesn't look convincing at all.

Maybe the quote isn't exact. I don't know. The point is that Socrates' willingness to die the good death is well known

http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=6835

Even though that quote is quite obviously modern and nothing to do with Socrates whatsoever, I've decided to give you a pass because for once you were more or less relevant in your response, and you even managed to cite a Plato fact that wasn't the simile of the cave. You deserve 7 out of 10 for that.

Well now that I'm on a roll, I'll hit you with another of these annoying, insulting, Platonic concepts. It occurs in book VI of the Republic in a passage where Socrates explains why the philosophers should rule the state. The masses which comprise the Beast lack knowledge but are captured by opinions so collectives are formed reflecting similar opinions. The sophist who understands psychological dependency and knows how to manipulate the Beast, controls the Beast.

From Book VI

I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a mighty strong beast who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, and what is the meaning of his several cries, and by what sounds, when another utters them, he is soothed or infuriated; and you may suppose further, that when, by continually attending upon him, he has become perfect in all this, he calls his knowledge wisdom, and makes of it a system or art, which he proceeds to teach, although he has no real notion of what he means by the principles or passions of which he is speaking, but calls this honourable and that dishonourable, or good or evil, or just or unjust, all in accordance with the tastes and tempers of the great brute. Good he pronounces to be that in which the beast delights and evil to be that which he dislikes...

My question for you in relation to this thread is if the beast can make objective progress other than by becoming less of a beast? Can technology serve that purpose or does it only serve to make the Beast more beastly?

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm afraid you are referring to an argument from analogy and are simply extending it beyond credibility there.

The thing that he is likening to a beast is only compared to that in a very rough sense related to the art of taming that which has the power to stomp you into the ground using soft whispers and tasty snacks. By loading this metaphor up with a bunch of unrelated other beast stuff you are abusing it.

Arguments form analogy require a lot of discipline or else you break them. And they aren't a strong form of argument to begin, with because the analogy is necessarily tenuous on a good day.

[Nick_A]

I'm afraid you are referring to an argument from analogy and are simply extending it beyond credibility there.

The thing that he is likening to a beast is only compared to that in a very rough sense related to the art of taming that which has the power to stomp you into the ground using soft whispers and tasty snacks. By loading this metaphor up with a bunch of unrelated other beast stuff you are abusing it.

Arguments form analogy require a lot of discipline or else you break them. And they aren't a strong form of argument to begin, with because the analogy is necessarily tenuous on a good day.

But if you consider the situation in America now, isn’t the Beast precisely analogous to how the progressives appreciate collectives they create. Where at one time individuality was a valued trait, now the individual no longer exists and the collective takes its place. Ruling progressives are like the sophists who believe they must tame and guide these beasts through PC. Women, men, Christians, blacks, whites, and countless others are collectives; opinionated beasts which must be controlled. The sophists believe they have knowledge and the collectives are all just advocates of opinions which must be created and controlled. They call this progress

Thomas Merton records being asked to review a biography of Weil (Simone Weil: A Fellowship in Love, Jacques Chabaud, 1964) and was challenged and inspired by her writing. “Her non-conformism and mysticism are essential elements in our time and without her contribution we remain not human.”

I believe we need these exceptional individuals and their dedication to truth at the expense of pleasure like Simone to provide the necessary awakening influence for those who feel themselves something more than just atoms of the Beast and parts of collectives openly being manipulated. They will seek to transcend their attachment to opinions in search of the impartial experience of truth which furthers our capacity to become human. As much as these individuals are scorned, we need their influence to ever progress beyond being manipulated as atoms of the Great Beast. Human progress for me is the gradual psychological awakening necessary to become worthy of the name “human.” Plato understood the human condition as well as many other great minds past and present. Without them, our situation would be hopeless.

[Greta]

Women, men, Christians, blacks, whites, and countless others are collectives; opinionated beasts which must be controlled. The sophists believe they have knowledge and the collectives are all just advocates of opinions which must be created and controlled. They call this progress.

Who is to control the collectives of "Women, men, Christians, blacks, whites, and countless others"? One would imagine the answer is "Women, men, Christians, blacks, whites, and countless others".

Basically, your claim doesn't make sense.

[Nick_A]

Women, men, Christians, blacks, whites, and countless others are collectives; opinionated beasts which must be controlled. The sophists believe they have knowledge and the collectives are all just advocates of opinions which must be created and controlled. They call this progress.

Who is to control the collectives of "Women, men, Christians, blacks, whites, and countless others"? One would imagine the answer is "Women, men, Christians, blacks, whites, and countless others".

Basically, your claim doesn't make sense.

Who is in control? It isn’t your fault Greta. You still have some of the ancient concepts of individuality programmed within you. But surely you know how far we have progressed from these ancient ideas into the glorious age of collectives. You have been officially declared to be a part of the collective called woman with a sub classification of feminist. Your collective has advanced way beyond individuality. You are now an atom of the collective so no longer have to think. Your opinions have been decided. You can choose within the appropriate extremes of your collective. Thoughts of control our now obsolete. Control has been established so thinking is unnecessary. You just speak acceptable opinions for your collective. You are now free from doubt. Would you rather be scorned and held in contempt like Simone Weil by your progressive superiors who have made life easier for you by freeing you from the need to think? Of course not. Your opinions have now been instilled in you. This isn’t control. It is an act of love. It is for your own good. Your progressive superiors love you so you no longer have to exist. You are part of your wonderful collective free from the burden of thinking and choosing. This is real progress. Just think of how far we’ve advanced from the days when people thought something admirable about being burdened in this way. You have made real progress towards peace and love just by forgetting about the value of independent impartial reason in pursuit of knowledge and just accepting being given your opinions and relish being part of your glorious collective. What else could you want from progress?

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm afraid you are referring to an argument from analogy and are simply extending it beyond credibility there.

The thing that he is likening to a beast is only compared to that in a very rough sense related to the art of taming that which has the power to stomp you into the ground using soft whispers and tasty snacks. By loading this metaphor up with a bunch of unrelated other beast stuff you are abusing it.

Arguments form analogy require a lot of discipline or else you break them. And they aren't a strong form of argument to begin, with because the analogy is necessarily tenuous on a good day.

But if you consider the situation in America now, isn’t the Beast precisely analogous to how the progressives appreciate collectives they create. Where at one time individuality was a valued trait, now the individual no longer exists and the collective takes its place. Ruling progressives are like the sophists who believe they must tame and guide these beasts through PC. Women, men, Christians, blacks, whites, and countless others are collectives; opinionated beasts which must be controlled. The sophists believe they have knowledge and the collectives are all just advocates of opinions which must be created and controlled. They call this progress

You aren't addressing the problem there. You are taking the problem I pointed out before, and just making it worse because you haven't bothered to stop and understand it. You aren't good at constructing arguments, I know you hate to be told this and you blame the information on secularism, but the problem is you. You aren't as good at this stuff as you wish you were. You are lazy.

There is no such thing as "precisely analogous", that is an obviously self contradictory phrase. An analogy is either roughly analogous or it is not an analogy at all. Plato certainly wouldn't have approved of such a slovenly concept and neither would anybody else who valued deductive logic at all.

[Nick_A]

I'm afraid you are referring to an argument from analogy and are simply extending it beyond credibility there.

The thing that he is likening to a beast is only compared to that in a very rough sense related to the art of taming that which has the power to stomp you into the ground using soft whispers and tasty snacks. By loading this metaphor up with a bunch of unrelated other beast stuff you are abusing it.

Arguments form analogy require a lot of discipline or else you break them. And they aren't a strong form of argument to begin, with because the analogy is necessarily tenuous on a good day.

But if you consider the situation in America now, isn’t the Beast precisely analogous to how the progressives appreciate collectives they create. Where at one time individuality was a valued trait, now the individual no longer exists and the collective takes its place. Ruling progressives are like the sophists who believe they must tame and guide these beasts through PC. Women, men, Christians, blacks, whites, and countless others are collectives; opinionated beasts which must be controlled. The sophists believe they have knowledge and the collectives are all just advocates of opinions which must be created and controlled. They call this progress

You aren't addressing the problem there. You are taking the problem I pointed out before, and just making it worse because you haven't bothered to stop and understand it. You aren't good at constructing arguments, I know you hate to be told this and you blame the information on secularism, but the problem is you. You aren't as good at this stuff as you wish you were. You are lazy.

There is no such thing as "precisely analogous", that is an obviously self contradictory phrase. An analogy is either roughly analogous or it is not an analogy at all. Plato certainly wouldn't have approved of such a slovenly concept and neither would anybody else who valued deductive logic at all.

A precise analogy is one in which a direct relationship exists between its parts. You wrote: FlashDangerpants wrote:
I'm afraid you are referring to an argument from analogy and are simply extending it beyond credibility there.

The thing that he is likening to a beast is only compared to that in a very rough sense related to the art of taming that which has the power to stomp you into the ground using soft whispers and tasty snacks. By loading this metaphor up with a bunch of unrelated other beast stuff you are abusing it.

What is a beast and how is a modern technological society not a beast?

[FlashDangerpants]

What is a beast and how is a modern technological society not a beast?

Stop trying to outsmart yourself. Even you aren't fool enough to claim that calling a society a beast is non-analogous.
Why are you asking what a beast is but presupposing what a "technological society" is, as if that is less a matter of interpretation?

One of your obvious weaknesses is that when you have dug yourself a hole you look for a new spade instead of a ladder Nick. If you were smarter you would have just acknowledged that your beast thing was overreach and walked it back.

[Nick_A]

What is a beast and how is a modern technological society not a beast?

Stop trying to outsmart yourself. Even you aren't fool enough to claim that calling a society a beast is non-analogous.
Why are you asking what a beast is but presupposing what a "technological society" is, as if that is less a matter of interpretation?

One of your obvious weaknesses is that when you have dug yourself a hole you look for a new spade instead of a ladder Nick. If you were smarter you would have just acknowledged that your beast thing was overreach and walked it back.

There is nothing to walk back. You are just unaware of the theory that society is a social organism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_organism

History
The model or concept of society as an organism is traced by Maclay from Aristotle via a number of thinkers including Comte.[1] It was then developed in the late 19th century by Émile Durkheim, a French sociologist. According to Durkheim, the more specialized the function of an organism or society the greater its development, and vice versa. Generally, culture, politics, and economics are the three core activities of society. Social health depends on the harmonious interworking of these three activities. This concept was further developed by Rudolf Steiner in his lectures, essays and books on "The Threefold Social Order" from 1904 for the next two decades. Hence, the “health" of the social organism can be thought of as a function of the interaction of culture, politics and rights, and economics, which in theory can be studied, modeled, and analyzed. The conception of an "organismic society" was elaborated further by Herbert Spencer in his essay on "The Social Organism".
Steiner's Fundamental Social Law" of economic systems emerged during his work on social order: "Most of all, however, our times are suffering from the lack of any basic social understanding of how work can be incorporated into the social organism correctly, so that everything we do is truly performed for the sake of our fellow human beings. We can acquire this understanding only by learning to really insert our “I” into the human community. New social forms will not be provided by nature but can emerge only from the human “I” through real, person-to-person understanding — that is, when the needs of others become a matter of direct experience for us."[2]
In the 2002 book, Darwin's Cathedral, David Sloan Wilson applies his multilevel selection theory to social groups and proposes to think of society as an organism. Human groups therefore function as single units rather than mere collections of individuals. He claims that organisms
"survive and reproduce in their environments" and that :"Human groups in general, and religious groups in particular, qualify as organismic in this sense"

The social organism doesn't require self awareness but only responds as a whole as a creature of reaction. How is this not a beast?

[FlashDangerpants]

The social organism is an analogy. You should have seen that response coming.

"Human groups in general, and religious groups in particular, qualify as organismic in this sense"

Being a thing "in a sense" means... it's not that thing, but is in some sense like that thing.... This is a functional definition of what analogies are.

Try rethinking Plato's beast analogy as some more specific animal, such as a cow or a horse. You will note his analogy is unchanged. But your extension of it stops working in a way that even you can recognise. That's because your extension was illegitimate in that it took an analogy made at one level and supposed it to be either non-analogous or else an analogy made at some other level.

[Nick_A]

The social organism is an analogy. You should have seen that response coming.

"Human groups in general, and religious groups in particular, qualify as organismic in this sense"

Being a thing "in a sense" means... it's not that thing, but is in some sense like that thing.... This is a functional definition of what analogies are.

Try rethinking Plato's beast analogy as some more specific animal, such as a cow or a horse. You will note his analogy is unchanged. But your extension of it stops working in a way that even you can recognise. That's because your extension was illegitimate in that it took an analogy made at one level and supposed it to be either non-analogous or else an analogy made at some other level.

This is an insult to a cow. I know this concept is unfamiliar to you but the more a person appreciates what the human organism is and how it has fallen victim to the human condition, it makes a lot of sense. Read this page. You will disagree but that is not to say your disagreement has merit.

https://books.google.com/books?id=qtSF8 ... st&f=false

[FlashDangerpants]

I know this concept is unfamiliar to you but the more a person appreciates what the human organism is and how it has fallen victim to the human condition, it makes a lot of sense

That doesn't work as a sentence. The human organism falling victim to the human condition is like a plate finding itself in the embarrassing situation of being a plate.

You seem to be taking yourself in ever decreasing circles again. The beast analogy remains nothing but an analogy and you should have stopped abusing it by now. Your latest link explicitly mentions the "analogy of the animal". It's there on the fucking page you linked to. This is why I keep having to point out that you are lazy and self defeating.

[Nick_A]

I know this concept is unfamiliar to you but the more a person appreciates what the human organism is and how it has fallen victim to the human condition, it makes a lot of sense

That doesn't work as a sentence. The human organism falling victim to the human condition is like a plate finding itself in the embarrassing situation of being a plate.

You seem to be taking yourself in ever decreasing circles again. The beast analogy remains nothing but an analogy and you should have stopped abusing it by now. Your latest link explicitly mentions the "analogy of the animal". It's there on the fucking page you linked to. This is why I keep having to point out that you are lazy and self defeating.

No. It isn't like a plate discovering it is a plate but rather like a sow's ear is believing it is a silk purse. A beast is a ferocious animal lacking consciousness. A society is a beast lacking conscious self awareness and can be trained as can any other beast. The sophist knows how as do today's politicians

[FlashDangerpants]

A beast is a ferocious animal lacking consciousness. A society is a beast lacking conscious self awareness and can be trained as can any other beast.

You are still abusing the analogy.

You need to understand that analogies state X is like Y in respect of Z. So if your analogy is that society is like a big scary dog called Derek, then
it would work something like this...

"I might compare them to a man who should study the tempers and desires of a big scary dog called Derek who is fed by him--he would learn how to approach and handle him, also at what times and from what causes he is dangerous or the reverse, ...."
There we have the X and the Y. The Z in respect of which the X and Y are alike is the bit about how to talk to the dog. That's the entire point of the analogy, Z is the purpose of it, not a portion of it.

You don't get to send other properties of the analogy back the other way. You can't say society reminds me of Derek the big scary dog because Z, so now I want society to stop shitting in my yard and licking its balls in front of my daughter. That is illegitimately extending the analogy.

Your original question about "Can technology serve that purpose or does it only serve to make the Beast more beastly?" was as I mentioned, an illegitimate extension of the analogy.
"A society is a beast lacking conscious self awareness and can be trained as can any other beast." Is another of those.

I'm getting bored of trying to explain the rudimentary basics of analogies to a grown man now. You need to improve under your own steam, this is getting sad.