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

I'll try to find an example that's more relevant to social progress (as a vague term) though

I took that into account with my statement, yes

I mean, you obviously have racism and sexism. The revelation that we had to improve our practices relative to that happened *quite* a while ago, and so far I think we can both say there has been undeniable progress since that point onward. Now, imagine if, somehow, we had never been made aware we were doing something wrong (as in simply unfair and unfit to our (yes, subjective) very basic moral principles)

(Let's not take into account the changes made to those basic moral principles over time. I know they exist but if we're going to discuss modern time, let's just agree they are unchanging)

If we weren't aware of doing something wrong, *were we ever doing something wrong?*

Right. And likewise for the environment. That would've caused a slew of different problems and to a lead poisoning crisis, but I do see your point

And I am of the opinion that morality is objective and unchanging, fyi

Defining "wrong" is hard

There's nothing but our morality and our common sense to assess whether something is wrong, and that's a very bad thing

Wait a minute

<:thronk:441701565607444482>

Nevermind I thought I had a revelation but I didn't

All I'm saying is, it would be a very good thing if there was an objective way to define a practice as "wrong"

But sadly it's a human thing, so there isn't

Well, that also depends on what you mean by 'wrong'

I see Wrong as a label, to be honest. Like "Expired". If something is wrong, we should avoid doing it.