That's very true

However, it doesn't mean we shouldn't have a road at all

We should just watch where we're going

I would disagree actually

We can look back at our path, and see that up until now, we've been expanding liberty and freedom to more and more people as time has gone on.

It's only until the era of Utilitarianism and the concept of 'progress as a goal' that we've seen an opposite trend appear

It also opens up a door for 'the ends justify the means' style thinking, and we ALL know where that leads

Also, quick response to @AlanPowell's message: we all agree on that, which is why I'm trying (as any self-respecting person should) to find the truth lying beneath all that steaming garbage pile of representations

@Fitzydog But there is no *actual* necessity to think within the bounds of those ideas.
I like to see this problem like we see juvanoia (fear of the next generation's development). We "just now notice" our youth is going bad, while really, every single generation since the dawn of time has made that same claim.
I think the problem we're having is that we see a need to root our own thinking and our own opinions in what we suppose are the ideas of today. Ergo, progressivism, liberalism, resist, and on the other side, blind conservatism and the *spooky* alt-right

I think it's possible to forget all of those modern ways of thinking and to just set goals and debate upon them

Let us think about abortion. Let us think about employment. etc.

Sorry, I'm still trying to translate your paragraph

Hey Guy, look into Dan Bongino and Judicial Watch and the work they've done putting the puzzle pieces together on the Clinton Emails and a lot of other things.

^

Thanks, I'll look into it!

Litearlly just this week, deposition was opened up

huh

In any case, all I was saying is, you are allowed to just break away from currents of thought and see problems, see goals, and work towards them assuming there exists a "best solution"

I don't think you can discount or throw out my claim of societal regression with a 'phobia' term like 'juvanoia'

Which gives the word "progress" a lot more meaning

Without all this modernism fog

That was an example

>I think the problem we're having is that we see a need to root our own thinking and our own opinions in what we suppose are the ideas of today

Can you expand on this?

The big red pill with the Clinton emails is that she worked with the Obama administration to weaponize the federal intelligence and security agencies to conduct an illegal and unconstitutional investigation into the Trump campaign in the attempt to SHUT IT DOWN. Just throwing this out there because you were curious.

anyway continue on

You assume the reason why some in the political realm do what they do. And I mean, you have to, because you cannot rely on people for being fully honest about what they think. So, quoting your previous messages, "the ends justify the means style thinking", abusing the ideal of progress, all of those mechanisms that you see people push -- they shouldn't be reason for you, in your own thinking, to abolish progress as a goal

Faster: the way others think around you shouldn't have an impact on the way you think, no matter how disillusioning it might be

I'm suggesting that 'progress' in the areas that you define, are happening on their own, without our involvement.

But by putting 'progress' as a goal, you suddenly have to have a plan for that goal, and planners, and centralization of decision making, opinions on how things should be done, etc etc.

Look at SE Asia and Africa. They're 'progressing' out of poverty at exponential rates, and yet the 'progressives' want them to make decisions that will negatively impact them in detrimental ways.

*Because they're not progressing the way THEY want.*

That's not what I suggest, I think, as you do, that that is inherently detrimental to that very progress. The pursuit of progress comes with a **discussion**. There should never be an oligarchy, especially when decisisions that impact human history are concerned (thankfully, there aren't many organisms that are able to have direct effects on that scale).

With a discussion comes finding three things: 1. whether the goal to accomplish makes sense as a goal (which is presupposed in such a discussion); 2. whether there exists a "best solution" to reach that goal; 3. whether we're capable of enacting that best solution

And yes, I'm aware that's not how society works

But I suppose that's how progress should

Okay, I see your point, but maybe I should clarify: 'Progress' should not be a *policy*

Everyone should be asking themselves constantly "How can I do this better?"

But isn't that just human nature in general?

Wait a minute

To seek out better ways of doing things?

I just want to respond to your second line in particular

While true as a guideline, that's not necessarily the method to find how we can progress. Look at it this way: you can't know that you have to improve the way you're doing something if you aren't even aware you are doing something. Isn't that true?

I don't think so

Can you provide an example?

Until science chimed in to tell us we were harming the environment, we had no way to know that we had to improve our practices. They were just that, practices, they didn't fit into any cause-to-effect relation