Magoon ended the exchange by declaring that I was 'a parrot,' 'not intellectually serious,' and that since I refused to wade through his links, there was 'no need to continue the discussion.'
This was, in its own way, the perfect conclusion. For what he cannot grasp is that the point I am making cannot be 'proved with evidence.' The claim that progress is a myth is not a matter of disputing graphs or GDP figures, but of exposing the frame that makes those numbers seem self-evidently redemptive. Progress Studies has no answer to this, because its very existence rests on the conflation of measurement with meaning.
That is why its adherents can only repeat themselves: line goes up, therefore progress. And it is why they become testy and rude when pressed on the philosophical ground they deny but cannot escape. Magoon thought he was closing the discussion; in truth, his performance was the strongest evidence for my argument. Progress Studies is not a discipline. It is apologetics for a dying myth.
The West does not need progress. It needs resurrection.
Since you directly address me in this article, let me reply in depth.
Be honest, have you actually ever read anything written by member of Progress Studies? And, no, I do not mean a quick skim. My guess is no.
It looks like you just really hate the word “Progress” and have a preconceived notion of what Progress Studies is combined with no desire to validate whether your preconceived notion is correct.
I think before critiquing a field of intellectual inquiry, you should actually read what they have to say. I see no evidence that you have actually read anything in Progress Studies or discuss with members of the field, despite the fact that I gave you a number of links overviewing the field. You seem to be just trying to jam it into a preconceived notion.
Endlessly repeating that “progress is a myth” is not evidence to support your claim. Nor does endlessly repeating “this conflates fact with meaning.”
In your previous comments, you state “Nobody denies changes in material standards of living.” If nobody denies it, then it is clearly not a myth!
If you do not care about its origins and causes, fine, but we do.
In this article, you go from one incorrect statement to another:
1. I am neither “a conservative nor a libertarian”. Nor do you actually give evidence that they are wrong.
2. Progress Studies is not a “rationalist” movement. It studies what actually happened. That is not rationalism.
3. Progress Studies does not claim “Western populations should not lament the collapse of their civilization." I have no idea where you got that idea.
4. Progress Studies does not “imagine itself the guardian of empiricism.” I have no idea where you got that idea. And by the way, empiricism and rationalism are two distinct beliefs in philosophy, so your claims contradict each other.
5. Yes, Post-Modernism is bullshit. And, yes, it is hostile to Western Civilization.
6. Progress Studies does not claim that “rising living standards equal progress.” It tries to understand the origins and causes of increased material standard of living so we can develop policies to get more of it.
7. I have no idea what “a civilizational prejudice” even means…
8. If “Progress is a dying myth that no longer commands belief” then why do you attack it so hysterically without presenting any evidence.
9. If you want to believe that “the West needs resurrection” fine. That is neither opposed to nor in agreement with increased material standard of living.
10. Massive increases in material standard of living is one of Western Civilization’s finest achievements. If you believe in Western Civilization, you should embrace it, not belittle it.
11. Why are you so obsessed with the name of field? What name would you prefer?
I challenge you to educate yourself, by reading about what Progress Studies actually is:
Nothing I wrote was hysterical; your charge is an example of projection. The only loss of composure here was yours.
Facts don’t interpret themselves. Measurable changes in material living standards are facts; calling those changes 'progress' is a frame of meaning, or teleology, born of a particular Western myth. My argument is about that frame, not about denying the data inside it.
I have made this point repeatedly from the beginning of the exchange. You cannot seriously be so obtuse as to miss the distinction between fact (material change) and interpretation ('progress'). Which leaves only two possibilities: either you refuse to see it, or your intellectual commitments forbid you from admitting it.
I have not read your links because they are not important. I am not critiquing you as an authority; I’m using your reaction as a foil.
You keep collapsing measurement into meaning and then demanding I refute your data. But the point is precisely that your conclusions are already baked into your vocabulary. If you want a neutral label for your field of enquiry, call it 'material living-standards studies.' When you name it Progress Studies, you’ve smuggled the verdict into the premise. That makes it a genre of apologetics for a particular myth, in exactly the same way as gender studies or black studies. And it means it is not only irrelevant, but philosophically unserious.
I agree that you "made this point repeatedly from the beginning of the exchange." You sound like a freakin parrot. But constantly restating a claim WITHOUT EVIDENCE is not a serious argument.
So you hate the term "Progress." Fine, then whenever you see the term "Progress Studies," feel free to substitute the term "material living-standards studies" in your own mind.
A rose by another name...
Changing the name, changes nothing.
I did not name the field, and I think you are getting way too excited about about the name of the field. I really don't care about the name.
And Progress Studies does not pretend to be a philosophy, so it does not matter whether you deem it "philosophically unserious." That is like deeming the fields of economic or political science "philosophically unserious."
Your reply "I have not read your links because they are not important" says everything that needs to be said about your level of intellectual seriousness.
Since you are not interested in learning about what you criticize, there is no need to continue this discussion.
Magoon ended the exchange by declaring that I was 'a parrot,' 'not intellectually serious,' and that since I refused to wade through his links, there was 'no need to continue the discussion.'
This was, in its own way, the perfect conclusion. For what he cannot grasp is that the point I am making cannot be 'proved with evidence.' The claim that progress is a myth is not a matter of disputing graphs or GDP figures, but of exposing the frame that makes those numbers seem self-evidently redemptive. Progress Studies has no answer to this, because its very existence rests on the conflation of measurement with meaning.
That is why its adherents can only repeat themselves: line goes up, therefore progress. And it is why they become testy and rude when pressed on the philosophical ground they deny but cannot escape. Magoon thought he was closing the discussion; in truth, his performance was the strongest evidence for my argument. Progress Studies is not a discipline. It is apologetics for a dying myth.
The West does not need progress. It needs resurrection.
Since you directly address me in this article, let me reply in depth.
Be honest, have you actually ever read anything written by member of Progress Studies? And, no, I do not mean a quick skim. My guess is no.
It looks like you just really hate the word “Progress” and have a preconceived notion of what Progress Studies is combined with no desire to validate whether your preconceived notion is correct.
I think before critiquing a field of intellectual inquiry, you should actually read what they have to say. I see no evidence that you have actually read anything in Progress Studies or discuss with members of the field, despite the fact that I gave you a number of links overviewing the field. You seem to be just trying to jam it into a preconceived notion.
Endlessly repeating that “progress is a myth” is not evidence to support your claim. Nor does endlessly repeating “this conflates fact with meaning.”
In your previous comments, you state “Nobody denies changes in material standards of living.” If nobody denies it, then it is clearly not a myth!
If you do not care about its origins and causes, fine, but we do.
In this article, you go from one incorrect statement to another:
1. I am neither “a conservative nor a libertarian”. Nor do you actually give evidence that they are wrong.
2. Progress Studies is not a “rationalist” movement. It studies what actually happened. That is not rationalism.
3. Progress Studies does not claim “Western populations should not lament the collapse of their civilization." I have no idea where you got that idea.
4. Progress Studies does not “imagine itself the guardian of empiricism.” I have no idea where you got that idea. And by the way, empiricism and rationalism are two distinct beliefs in philosophy, so your claims contradict each other.
5. Yes, Post-Modernism is bullshit. And, yes, it is hostile to Western Civilization.
6. Progress Studies does not claim that “rising living standards equal progress.” It tries to understand the origins and causes of increased material standard of living so we can develop policies to get more of it.
7. I have no idea what “a civilizational prejudice” even means…
8. If “Progress is a dying myth that no longer commands belief” then why do you attack it so hysterically without presenting any evidence.
9. If you want to believe that “the West needs resurrection” fine. That is neither opposed to nor in agreement with increased material standard of living.
10. Massive increases in material standard of living is one of Western Civilization’s finest achievements. If you believe in Western Civilization, you should embrace it, not belittle it.
11. Why are you so obsessed with the name of field? What name would you prefer?
I challenge you to educate yourself, by reading about what Progress Studies actually is:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/what-is-progress-studies
Nothing I wrote was hysterical; your charge is an example of projection. The only loss of composure here was yours.
Facts don’t interpret themselves. Measurable changes in material living standards are facts; calling those changes 'progress' is a frame of meaning, or teleology, born of a particular Western myth. My argument is about that frame, not about denying the data inside it.
I have made this point repeatedly from the beginning of the exchange. You cannot seriously be so obtuse as to miss the distinction between fact (material change) and interpretation ('progress'). Which leaves only two possibilities: either you refuse to see it, or your intellectual commitments forbid you from admitting it.
I have not read your links because they are not important. I am not critiquing you as an authority; I’m using your reaction as a foil.
You keep collapsing measurement into meaning and then demanding I refute your data. But the point is precisely that your conclusions are already baked into your vocabulary. If you want a neutral label for your field of enquiry, call it 'material living-standards studies.' When you name it Progress Studies, you’ve smuggled the verdict into the premise. That makes it a genre of apologetics for a particular myth, in exactly the same way as gender studies or black studies. And it means it is not only irrelevant, but philosophically unserious.
I agree that you "made this point repeatedly from the beginning of the exchange." You sound like a freakin parrot. But constantly restating a claim WITHOUT EVIDENCE is not a serious argument.
So you hate the term "Progress." Fine, then whenever you see the term "Progress Studies," feel free to substitute the term "material living-standards studies" in your own mind.
A rose by another name...
Changing the name, changes nothing.
I did not name the field, and I think you are getting way too excited about about the name of the field. I really don't care about the name.
And Progress Studies does not pretend to be a philosophy, so it does not matter whether you deem it "philosophically unserious." That is like deeming the fields of economic or political science "philosophically unserious."
Your reply "I have not read your links because they are not important" says everything that needs to be said about your level of intellectual seriousness.
Since you are not interested in learning about what you criticize, there is no need to continue this discussion.
Goodbye.
It needs a jizia tax on all colonizer activity.
Carbon taxes in funding the welfare state