5 ms·

> Don't live in an imagined future. Congratulations, dear philosopher. "Living in imagined future" is called motivation. You just told people that they shouldn

by m0zg 6y ago

> Don't live in an imagined future. Congratulations, dear philosopher. "Living in imagined future" is called motivation. You just told people that they shouldn't have any motivation beyond primitive impulses (hunger, fear, lust) such as those found in a cat. I'm not sure this is good advice for humans, however.

llamaz 6y ago
You certainly seem to have a good understanding of how provocative his philosophy is. He doesn't believe that history is leading anywhere, that there's moral progress. He believes that in the future slavery might return because history is cyclical and a result of a corrupt human nature that has not changed for thousands of years. That means genocides, racism, etc are here to stay and whatever progress we've made is a coincidence.
- m0zg 6y ago
  I believe the Long Peace and technological progress put us at the dawn of the Golden Age, and we're living it right now, setbacks like COVID notwithstanding. Steven Pinker puts forward a powerful argument to that effect in "Enlightenment Now", and it's hard to disagree when you look at the data. Literally none of that would be even possible under this philosophical framework.
  - tomgp 6y ago
    Yeah John Gray and Steven Pinker exist at opposite ends of the spectrum on this one (eg https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-stev... ). I think both perspectives are valuable
    - m0zg 6y ago
      Except Pinker's perspective is supported by data.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
  - thinkingemote 6y ago
    Gray's view is not that there is no progress but that the idea of natural progression, unstoppable, inevitable progress is wrong and dangerous. In the article it gives the example (a minor setback, I'm sure) of the return of torture in western democracies. Data: In terms of lives ruined via proxy wars you can make the data show that more people are in misery now compared to less actual deaths. But we can discard this (personally I think its a weak argument and is a distraction). The main point is not "are we better than we were 50 years ago?" but rather "will we continue this short term trend and reach star trek society?". The warning from Gray is that if you believe that the world is going automatically on the right path then you don't need to fight for it. You dont see the return of torture as something to be fought against, but just a minor setback. You dont see the rise of proxy wars as something to be criticised, its just a setback to progress. The rise of fascism in Eastern europe and the removal of rights is just a setback in the inexorable rise of progress. We toppled Saddam after all. China will naturally move to democracy. Its neo liberal science fiction. The warning is that any progress we make is not a natural law. "Progression" is created by and can be destroyed by humans. Indeed when you see history through this lens one often stops calling change "progress". The warning by Gray is that "believe the Long Peace and technological progress put us at the dawn of the Golden Age" is dangerous hubris and is a belief that can destroy the very things that have been achieved. Gray does not try to prove that no change has been made, he tries to point out that the good changes need to be continually fought for and defended. Cats are humble.
    - llamaz 6y ago
      You misunderstand Gray and somehow believe him to hold the exact specific position that he's arguing against, namely, the humanism of Dawkins/Pinker/Chomsky. You can't get this from the article above, but read other books he's written, or listen to any of his talks on youtube. He's not a humanist and he's anti-enlightenment. His entire claim to fame is that he rejects the humanist idea of progress despite "minor setbacks".
      - thinkingemote 6y ago
        sounds like the same thing I wrote! Rejection of the idea of progress. Gray does not reject that things have happened in the past. He rejects the notion that the reason these things happened is natural and part of "Progress".
thinkingemote 6y ago
Gray is not saying motivation is wrong...quite the opposite! Gray is saying that if you believe humanity is headed naturally in the right direction, that this is a dangerous imagination. And that humanity needs motivation to ensure that any progress we make is recognised as special and fragile. Its not automatic and permanent, humanity needs motivation, they can't just believe in an imagined future and sit back and let the imagined invisible powers of progress happen to them.

by m0zg 6y ago

llamaz 6y ago

You certainly seem to have a good understanding of how provocative his philosophy is. He doesn't believe that history is leading anywhere, that there's moral progress. He believes that in the future slavery might return because history is cyclical and a result of a corrupt human nature that has not changed for thousands of years. That means genocides, racism, etc are here to stay and whatever progress we've made is a coincidence.

m0zg 6y ago
I believe the Long Peace and technological progress put us at the dawn of the Golden Age, and we're living it right now, setbacks like COVID notwithstanding. Steven Pinker puts forward a powerful argument to that effect in "Enlightenment Now", and it's hard to disagree when you look at the data. Literally none of that would be even possible under this philosophical framework.
- tomgp 6y ago
  Yeah John Gray and Steven Pinker exist at opposite ends of the spectrum on this one (eg https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-steven-pinker-wrong-violence-war-declining https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/mar/13/john-gray-stev... ). I think both perspectives are valuable
  - m0zg 6y ago
    Except Pinker's perspective is supported by data.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- thinkingemote 6y ago
  Gray's view is not that there is no progress but that the idea of natural progression, unstoppable, inevitable progress is wrong and dangerous. In the article it gives the example (a minor setback, I'm sure) of the return of torture in western democracies. Data: In terms of lives ruined via proxy wars you can make the data show that more people are in misery now compared to less actual deaths. But we can discard this (personally I think its a weak argument and is a distraction). The main point is not "are we better than we were 50 years ago?" but rather "will we continue this short term trend and reach star trek society?". The warning from Gray is that if you believe that the world is going automatically on the right path then you don't need to fight for it. You dont see the return of torture as something to be fought against, but just a minor setback. You dont see the rise of proxy wars as something to be criticised, its just a setback to progress. The rise of fascism in Eastern europe and the removal of rights is just a setback in the inexorable rise of progress. We toppled Saddam after all. China will naturally move to democracy. Its neo liberal science fiction. The warning is that any progress we make is not a natural law. "Progression" is created by and can be destroyed by humans. Indeed when you see history through this lens one often stops calling change "progress". The warning by Gray is that "believe the Long Peace and technological progress put us at the dawn of the Golden Age" is dangerous hubris and is a belief that can destroy the very things that have been achieved. Gray does not try to prove that no change has been made, he tries to point out that the good changes need to be continually fought for and defended. Cats are humble.
  - llamaz 6y ago
    You misunderstand Gray and somehow believe him to hold the exact specific position that he's arguing against, namely, the humanism of Dawkins/Pinker/Chomsky. You can't get this from the article above, but read other books he's written, or listen to any of his talks on youtube. He's not a humanist and he's anti-enlightenment. His entire claim to fame is that he rejects the humanist idea of progress despite "minor setbacks".
    - thinkingemote 6y ago
      sounds like the same thing I wrote! Rejection of the idea of progress. Gray does not reject that things have happened in the past. He rejects the notion that the reason these things happened is natural and part of "Progress".

thinkingemote 6y ago

Gray is not saying motivation is wrong...quite the opposite! Gray is saying that if you believe humanity is headed naturally in the right direction, that this is a dangerous imagination. And that humanity needs motivation to ensure that any progress we make is recognised as special and fragile. Its not automatic and permanent, humanity needs motivation, they can't just believe in an imagined future and sit back and let the imagined invisible powers of progress happen to them.