Philosophy and Science

[MikeF]

MikeF said: ↑
"Yes, we do create our own source of meaning, and we can do it despite knowing the full score. We can understand the facts and make reasoned decisions on how best to live together. Why? Because we still have the instinctual drive to live, to be happy, and to avoid risk.
For me, and people like me, the world is still a rich and vibrant place, full of joys and wonder. And none of it myth."​

These sources of meaning we create are just alternative myths though.

Meliorism is just a form of the Idea of Progress which was an offshoot of Christian theology secularised during the Enlightenment. It didn't stop being a myth just because the god stuff was removed though.

In Turgot's "Universal History" we are given an account of the progress of mankind which, in comprehensiveness and ordering of materials, would not be equalled until Turgot's ardent admirer, Condorcet wrote his Outline of an Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind during the French Revolution...

Before leaving Turgot, it is important to stress once again the historical importance of Christianity in the formation of the secular modern conception of progress in Western Europe. In the first place, Turgot began his career as a reasonably devout student of theology at the Sorbonne, his aspiration then linked to a future in the Church. Second, just six months before the discourse on "The Successive Advances of the Human Mind" was given in 1750, he had presented another public discourse, this one on the crucial importance of Christianity to the progress of mankind. And third, it was Bossuet's Universal History, which I have already referred to, that Turgot acknowledged to be his inspiration for the writing, or the preparation of a plan of his own "Universal History." Bossuet, proud and convinced Christian that he was, constructed his history in terms of a succession of epochs, all designed and given effect by God. Turgot allowed God to disappear (he had lost his faith by 1751 when he wrote his "Universal History") and replaced Bossuet's "epochs" by "stages": stages of social and cultural progress, each emerging from its predecessor through human rather than divine causes. But Turgot's alterations notwithstanding, it is unlikely that his own secular work on progress would have been written apart from the inspiration derived from Bishop Bossuet and other Christian philosophers of history. He is an epitome, in this respect, of the whole history of the modern idea of progress.

Idea of Progress: A Bibliographical Essay by Robert Nisbet

Idea of Progress: A Bibliographical Essay by Robert Nisbet - Online Library of Liberty

Just so we are on the same page, to learn what Meliorism meant, I had to look it up, and found the following:

mel•io•rism
n. The belief that the human condition can be improved through concerted effort.
n. The belief that there is an inherent tendency toward progress or improvement in the human condition.
n. The improvement of society by regulated practical means: opposed to the passive principle of both pessimism and optimism.​

For me personally, I would say that the first two definitions most closely align with my views, as I am primarily an optimist in this regard. The third definition seems too narrow and regimented, and not reflective of what we observe.

You seem to be saying, by quoting the passage above regarding Turgot, that Turgot nor anyone else could adopt the ideas expressed in the definition above, except from inspiration from Bossuet and other Christian philosophers of history. That the Idea of Progress requires Christianity.

If I am misinterpreting your point, please correct me.

I would ask, however, cannot one come to the conclusion of meliorism from a completely different set of facts? I, for one, am wholly unfamiliar with the works of Bishop Bossuet and other Christian philosophers.

I would say that my meliorism derives from a less myopic view of history, and instead, is formed from my understanding of all of Homo Sapiens history, and all of life for that matter.

And based on that scope, I would say that my meliorism is can be objectively justified.

I am going to anticipate your response and assume that you are going to say it is still myth, to which I would reply that you seem to be conflating subjective preference with myth.

I think we can both agree that there are objective facts about which we can make factual statements that are either true or false. There are also those statement which are subjective, which reflect personal preference and opinion. These preferences can be based on facts, or they can be based on myth, or, frankly, a combination as well. But subjective preference itself is not myth.

As an example, the statement "All men are endowed with inalienable rights by God", is a myth. A mythical entity is affording the rights to men. However, if we say "We men, join in social compact, and mutually agree to assign specific rights to those in the compact", the members subjectively choose to join the compact, but the compact is an objectively true agreement among men.

To evaluate whether meliorism is justified, we would first have to come to subjective agreement as to what criteria constitutes improved human condition. Once there is agreement there, one can provide the empirical evidence to either support or contradict a melioristic stance. In other words, we can talk about it objectively.

All of human endeavor is not myth and illusion.