History shows that human progress is a myth
There are two different kinds of stories. The first is the linear story. The characters start at position A and end at position B, having beaten all the baddies, and married the right person. The real story is about the transformation that happens along the way. This is a story about direction. Mostly, it’s about progress. We move from naïve to wise, raw to cooked, NPC to hero. In terms of…
There are two primary narratives that shape our understanding of history: the linear, progressive story and the cyclical, pendulum-like tale. The linear narrative, often rooted in Western intellectual traditions, posits that humanity is steadily improving and moving towards a utopian future. This idea, popularized by thinkers like Hegel and Marx, suggests that each era builds upon the previous one, leading to a permanent enhancement of human civilization.
However, philosopher John Gray argues that this notion of progress is a modern myth, a secularized version of Christian assumptions about the meaning and improvement of human history.
Gray contends that the idea of progress is a projection, a belief that everything is inherently getting better. He suggests that this perspective is not found in ancient literature or religious traditions, indicating that it is a distinctly modern construct. In his view, progress is an illusion, particularly when it comes to ethics and politics.
While technology may show cumulative gains, ethical and political advancements are often temporary and easily reversed. This cyclical perspective aligns with historical evidence, where civilizations tend to oscillate between periods of peace and war, order and chaos, security and terror.
Gray's argument is based on the premise that progress is not synonymous with improvement. While technological advancements often provide tangible benefits, ethical and political progress is more fragile and prone to decay. He uses examples like political systems evolving from despotism to feudalism to capitalism and socialism, arguing that each transition is not inherently better but merely different.
He dismisses the idea of an "end of history" as both a Francis Fukuyama and Marxist perspective, emphasizing instead the cyclical nature of revolutions and countermovements. In essence, history is shaped by sudden, catastrophic events that can drastically alter human behavior, leading to a constant state of upheaval and transformation.
Written by urgent.news from Big Think's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.