3 ms·
> One could criticize of the very notion of progress. It hinges on a tacit assumption there is some destination toward which all civilization will inevitably co
by saghm 5y ago
> One could criticize of the very notion of progress. It hinges on a tacit assumption there is some destination toward which all civilization will inevitably converge.
I don't see this as being obvious. I can write integers that are progressively larger and larger without converging on some final value, so why should progressing society have to have a convergence value? I think the assumption that societal progress implies convergence says a lot more about the worldview of the person with that opinion than about progress itself.
- marginalia_nu 5y agoIt's the word progress itself that carries the connotation of a destination. A boat adrift at sea isn't making progress even though it's changing its position at random. A ship crossing the ocean toward a port is making progress, and that progress is measured not in how far it is from its origin, but how close it is to its destination. If it takes a circuitous path, it hasn't made more progress, it's merely taken longer.
- saghm 5y agoObviously this is getting a bit into the weeds, but from looking up the word "progress", that doesn't seem to necessarily be the case. Merriam Webster gives almost the opposite as its first definition: "to move forward : proceed", and "proceed" says "to come forth from a source : issue". It seems pretty well established that progress can also mean to _come from_ a distinct place rather than only meaning arriving at a distinct place. I agree that it can sometimes mean a convergence will occur, but it also sometimes doesn't, so any assumption of that definition in terms of societal progress would be reflected by the reader.