The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Nick_A »

It seems to me that the ideal of a free country where a government serves the people rather than the people serving the government is rapidly becoming a memory. Freedom requires a collective attitude among its citizens willing to accept the voluntary obligations necessary to sustain freedom. It seems to be vanishing in favor of the demand for rights.
“One of the great weaknesses of the progressive, as distinct from the religious, mind, is that it has no awareness of truth as such; only of truth in terms of enlightened expediency.” ~ Malcolm Muggeridge Through the Microphone (1969)
Where the religious mind feels the importance of honoring eternal values, the progressive mind is only concerned with “enlightened expediency” Get what you want and worry about the consequences later. The progressive mind seeks to destroy a free society from within for the sake of self serving expediency.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague." ~ Cicero
"So the final conclusion would surely be that whereas other civilizations have been brought down by attacks of barbarians from without, ours had the unique distinction of training its own destroyers at its own educational institutions, and then providing them with facilities for propagating their destructive ideology far and wide, all at the public expense. Thus did Western Man decide to abolish himself, creating his own boredom out of his own affluence, his own vulnerability out of his own strength, his own impotence out of his own erotomania, himself blowing the trumpet that brought the walls of his own city tumbling down, and having convinced himself that he was too numerous, labored with pill and scalpel and syringe to make himself fewer. Until at last, having educated himself into imbecility, and polluted and drugged himself into stupefaction, he keeled over--a weary, battered old brontosaurus--and became extinct." ― Malcolm Muggeridge, Vintage Muggeridge: Religion and Society.
I agree with Simone Weil that even though a free society will be crushed from within as described above, we can at least learn why it is inevitable.
"Our weakness may indeed prevent us from winning but not from comprehending the force by which we are crushed." Simone Weil.


Perhaps Malcolm Muggeridge is right to refer to the depravity of Man as one reason we will be crushed.
"The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact." Malcolm Muggeridge
It seems to me that the denial of human depravity is the main reason for the attraction to progressive philosophy. It speaks glowingly of what is impossible for us due to the human condition. Left to our own devices a free society is impossible. Human nature will never allow it leading to at best secular statist slavery and at worst a tyrant. But since the concept is too insulting to consider, society prefers a feel good approach which is doomed to failure.

Do you think a free society is possible through enlightened expediency as opposed to honoring eternal values and inviting the experience of grace necessary to do so as its goal?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Now Malcolm Muggeridge is the new 'golden child' :lol: There is certainly no acccounting for taste.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Nick_A »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:37 pm Now Malcolm Muggeridge is the new 'golden child' :lol: There is certainly no acccounting for taste.
If you are a lurking philosophy student who cannot be made into a snowflake, you can see the danger of the steady decline of American culture into the progressive mind. It is the natural result of being unable to remain open to the big picture and just automatically begin slipping into short thoughts based on "enlightened expediency.” Blind attack takes the place of impartial reason.
Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
This is what we are up against. It does seem that the modern progressive attitude indicates that America deserves neither liberty or safety.

I know it is dangerous for a student in many universities to defend freedom but ifyou are fortunate to have a prof who has not yet been indoctrinated into the progressive agenda, consider writing a paper on these ideas when the opportunity presents itself. Keep freedom alive in the universities.

For example you will rarely if ever learn of the relationship between obligations and rights in class. You will be encouraged to demand rights. But if you include Simone Weil's classic explanation of the relationship between obligations and rights, an understanding prof will give you an A and a smile of encouragement. Your prof will know that you have not yet lost your mind to progressive indoctrination and its demand for rights. You will be part of a very meaningful and necessary minority.
"The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. Other men, seen from his point of view, only have rights. He, in his turn, has rights, when seen from the point of view of other men, who recognize that they have obligations towards him. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations….” - Simone Weil, “The Need for Roots”
The rights freedom makes possible for humanity can only be maintained by the voluntary acceptance of obligations. It is easy to say but we don't know what they are or how to practice them as culture. We have forgotten our way. Help us remember. Yes you will catch hell for having such offensive thoughts but it will be worth it.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

At least you don't call it 'liberal'. Full marks for that.
commonsense
Posts: 5181
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by commonsense »

Nick_A wrote: Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:24 am Do you think a free society is possible through enlightened expediency as opposed to honoring eternal values and inviting the experience of grace necessary to do so as its goal?
We need both attitudes. Personal safety is one of the building blocks of any society. Let's take a look at crime, then.

To the progressive mind, government programs reduce crime. Free thinking, job training and social programs are thought to create confidence, success and employment, which is thought, in turn, to reduce crime. Noble thoughts, but to depend on training to reduce crime is to be soft on crime, which is no deterrent at all.

To the religious mind, an eye for an eye, minimum sentencing and stronger policing are posited to reduce crime. This approach is thought to salve shortcomings in serving justice and support personal safety for all. Good intentions, however relying on strict enforcement and tough penalties is expensive and cannot be maintained due to its cost.

It is obvious, then, that we need both sides to provide some protection from crime. But there’s the rub—how to achieve an effective balance of these attitudes. How practical each is, how affordable each is and how effective each is; these are the chief factors involved in the decisions to be made.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Nick_A »

Hi Commonsense
It is obvious, then, that we need both sides to provide some protection from crime. But there’s the rub—how to achieve an effective balance of these attitudes. How practical each is, how affordable each is and how effective each is; these are the chief factors involved in the decisions to be made.
What is your idea of the ideal society? Does its government serve its citizen’s need to become themselves as individuals or does the ideal society consist of citizens trained to serve the dictates of the government as a dependent collective? Once we decide this question, it is easier to decide if the progressive mind is a weakness or a strength.
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Science Fan »

I'm fairly certain that history shows that freedom of speech was suppressed by religious thinkers who just "knew" that they were in possession of the absolute truth. So, trying to frame the issue of freedom by setting up the competing sides as progressives on one end and religious dogmatists on the other, seems to me to be entirely inconsistent with actual empirical history, which tells us a much different story. The claim that a religious dogmatist must support freedom of speech because he believes in actual truth is not consistent with logic. One can just as easily point out that a religious dogmatist knows that there is no need for freedom of speech, because the truth is already known and one does not need to engage in a debate to arrive at the truth.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Nick_A »

Science Fan wrote: Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:51 pm I'm fairly certain that history shows that freedom of speech was suppressed by religious thinkers who just "knew" that they were in possession of the absolute truth. So, trying to frame the issue of freedom by setting up the competing sides as progressives on one end and religious dogmatists on the other, seems to me to be entirely inconsistent with actual empirical history, which tells us a much different story. The claim that a religious dogmatist must support freedom of speech because he believes in actual truth is not consistent with logic. One can just as easily point out that a religious dogmatist knows that there is no need for freedom of speech, because the truth is already known and one does not need to engage in a debate to arrive at the truth.
It is easy to document the many ways either the progressive goals or the goals of selective religious dogmatists have been prostituted. But this thread is about ideals and the weakness of the progressive mind that loses its awareness of higher consciousness. As quoted in the OP:
“One of the great weaknesses of the progressive, as distinct from the religious, mind, is that it has no awareness of truth as such; only of truth in terms of enlightened expediency.” ~ Malcolm Muggeridge Through the Microphone (1969)
The idea is that without the awareness of a quality of consciousness far greater than our own, human nature left to its own devices prevents the balanced relationship of voluntary obligations and rights necessary for a free society to sustain itself. We lose recognition of the eternal values and sink into the downward cycle of enlightened expediency inviting the lopsided struggle for rights. We proceed to kill the goose which lays the golden eggs as we fight for possession of the diminishing eggs
Science Fan
Posts: 843
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Science Fan »

I'm not sure who that Malcolm guy is but I can definitely state he has no understanding of history or what the progressive movement even is. Progressivism came from Germany, before WWI. It is in essence the foundation for the administrative state. Progressives are right-wingers and left-wingers; contrary to common understanding. Take the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA? If anyone believes that a CDC is needed to help prevent the outbreaks of pandemics, then that person believes in progressive ideals. Progressives merely believed that it was best to assign people with expertise in an area to deal with certain issues, which is why we have agencies like the CDC. Imagine the average Joe and Jill off the street trying to figure out where a potential outbreak of a disease is occurring, and what to do about it? They would be clueless and millions would be dead as a result. So, Malcolm overlooks the basic reality of progressives ----- they believe in an objective reality, which is precisely why they want experts to be involved in areas requiring expert knowledge.
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Nick_A »

Science Fan wrote: Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:32 am I'm not sure who that Malcolm guy is but I can definitely state he has no understanding of history or what the progressive movement even is. Progressivism came from Germany, before WWI. It is in essence the foundation for the administrative state. Progressives are right-wingers and left-wingers; contrary to common understanding. Take the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in the USA? If anyone believes that a CDC is needed to help prevent the outbreaks of pandemics, then that person believes in progressive ideals. Progressives merely believed that it was best to assign people with expertise in an area to deal with certain issues, which is why we have agencies like the CDC. Imagine the average Joe and Jill off the street trying to figure out where a potential outbreak of a disease is occurring, and what to do about it? They would be clueless and millions would be dead as a result. So, Malcolm overlooks the basic reality of progressives ----- they believe in an objective reality, which is precisely why they want experts to be involved in areas requiring expert knowledge.

Why be against science and medical research. Why would anyone be against it? My concern is for the human perspective being sacrificed to the belief that science is the answer to the human condition. The results of specialization should be put into a higher perspective rather than deny it.

I think you will agree that social justice is a progressive goal as is advocating spreading the wealth around. These beliefs have the struggle for equality as their goal.

Malcolm Muggeridge observed that the pursuit of enlightened expediency denies recognition of the human condition making the progressive goal of social justice wishful thinking. Those like Cicero describe how a society rots from within as a normal reaction of the human condition left to its own devices. Is it possible that a healthy free society can survive the destructive influences of the human condition?
"Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace." ~ Simone Weil
The idea here is that the only way a society can continue to value the higher truths which spawn eternal values is with the nourishment of grace as a societal value. Of course the question is what is necessary to awaken a society to the problem of the human condition and the necessity for grace nourishing our higher parts allowing the balance between objective obligations and rights.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Greta »

Nick_A wrote: Wed Mar 28, 2018 4:35 amMy concern is for the human perspective being sacrificed to the belief that science is the answer to the human condition.
My concern is for an outbreak of fire, given the large amount of dry, flammable straw you are laying down.

Whatever, we already know the answer is 42. This comment is as serious a comment as yours have been.

If you had even a modicum of objectivity in your reactionary soul you would appreciate that conservatives and progressives provide a balance in societies, with the former providing more stability and security (until the neocons, of course) and the latter driving progress and reducing stagnation.

However, we are all aware that you entirely lack objectivity, and that is why your attempts at philosophy consistently fail. You are always trying to "will" reality to fit your conception rather than observing with curiosity. Thus, your philosophical stagnation - your tendency to repeat yourself and failure to absorb new information - is directly the result of your overvigilant conservatism.

Never mind replying, I'll think I know your script now:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Greta, as always, lacks the understanding that I have of these things, so she just attacks the person and says nothing of value. She said absolutely nothing about the topic, aside from "conservatives and progressives provide a balance in societies, with the former providing more stability and security (until the neocons, of course) and the latter driving progress and reducing stagnation" (which I won't respond to for reasons unknown).

This is typical of a secularist progressive. They all do it, every last one, while conservatives have never, ever engaged in ad hominem attacks. If any conservative did conduct an ad hominem attack, they would not have been real conservatives but secular progressives pretending to be conservative.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Dontaskme »

Science Fan wrote: Tue Mar 27, 2018 7:51 pm I'm fairly certain that history shows that freedom of speech was suppressed by religious thinkers who just "knew" that they were in possession of the absolute truth. So, trying to frame the issue of freedom by setting up the competing sides as progressives on one end and religious dogmatists on the other, seems to me to be entirely inconsistent with actual empirical history, which tells us a much different story. The claim that a religious dogmatist must support freedom of speech because he believes in actual truth is not consistent with logic. One can just as easily point out that a religious dogmatist knows that there is no need for freedom of speech, because the truth is already known and one does not need to engage in a debate to arrive at the truth.
“There is nothing absolute and final. If everything were ironclad, all the rules absolute and everything structured so no paradox or irony existed, you couldn’t move. One could say that man sneaks through the crack where paradox exists.”
— Itzhak Bentov
Nick_A
Posts: 6208
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Nick_A »

Science Fan wrote:
Progressives merely believed that it was best to assign people with expertise in an area to deal with certain issues, which is why we have agencies like the CDC.

Greta wrote:
However, we are all aware that you entirely lack objectivity, and that is why your attempts at philosophy consistently fail. You are always trying to "will" reality to fit your conception rather than observing with curiosity. Thus, your philosophical stagnation - your tendency to repeat yourself and failure to absorb new information - is directly the result of your overvigilant conservatism.
Here we have a glimpse of why freedom must be lost. How should we value new information and the experts who represent them? Consider George Orwell’s observations. Is there any reason why we must deny that 2+2=4 just because the experts in the “new reality” insist it is 5?

“In philosophy, or religion, or ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one was designing a gun or an aeroplane they had to make four.”
― George Orwell, 1984

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.”
― George Orwell, 1984

This is the problem as I see it. People can come to an agreement on scientific facts. Yet as Orwell points out we cannot agree on matters of philosophy, religion, ethics, or politics. There is no accepted emotional equivalent to the scientific method. In short, the Great Beast creates “experts” in these fields and fight for superiority. We can have eternal scientific facts but the progressive mind closes to emotionally opening to objective conscience so as to experience objective values and their Source. Without “feeling” objective values, the acceptance of voluntary obligations necessary to sustain societal freedom must be sacrificed to “enlightened expediency.”

Returning to the essential questions as described in Plato’s cave allegory is repulsive to those like Greta enchanted with progressive new ideas with the unintended emotional consequences of making 2+2=5

So dear reader let me ask you: do you believe there must be a conflict between objective facts and objective values or is the reason there appears to be a conflict proof of our collective ignorance? Is a gun good or bad or just a tool that can be used for either good or bad purposes? A gun is a machine, fact. How it is used is an expression of our values. Currently America is attacking guns while remaining oblivious to the collective loss of the calling to reclaim opening to experience objective values. How do we turn from worshiping facts to opening to the experience of objective conscience which reveals objective values currently being sacrificed to enlightened expediency?
RustyBert
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2017 7:25 pm

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by RustyBert »

Which eternal values are you talking about? The ones that were used to oppress minorities, women, non-Christians, throughout history? Those eternal values? Or are you referring to the eternal values posited by Buddhists? Hindus? They have all kinds of eternal values that Christians have never even heard about. Those eternal values?

As for objective facts and objective values... You seem to believe in objective facts. So I'm assuming you're pro-choice, against abstinence only sex ed, and also not a climate denier. That's great. Facts will make a good progressive out of you yet.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: The Weakness of the Progressive Mind

Post by Londoner »

Nick_A wrote: Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:24 am Where the religious mind feels the importance of honoring eternal values, the progressive mind is only concerned with “enlightened expediency”
Religious values are only 'eternal' is as far as they are so vaguely formulated as to be meaningless.

When it comes to any practical application of these supposedly eternal values, it seems to be as much a matter of "enlightened expediency" for the religious as it is for everyone else.
Post Reply