This can only be said to be true if progress is a linear progression along a path, but the only linear progression about changes is the nature of time. There is nothing inherent about the accumulation of sequences of cultural changes to its current point, as demonstrated by the various points in history where we could see parallel developments and atittudes on issues and what was considered progressive at the time. The very premise of what is considered 'most favorable' is an output of culture that has been in the hands of chance and forces beyond cultural control.Misticsan wrote...
Although Progressivism tends to forget the failures of the past to make a better story of itself, the underlaying principles behind it are still correct and human history proves it right in the end.Dean_the_Young wrote...
Progressivism, in other words, is a mythology of constant improvement and forward advancement towards an inevitable and better future.It claims to be both enlightened and unopposable, because all the failures and errors of the past are constantly expunged from the myth and denied. But once you do remember the failures, and don't buy into the myth... then Progressivism is just another self-justifying movement of people who think they know best, whether they do or do not.
It's much harder to hand over power and authority to well meaning people who have increasing disinclination to not only concede that they are fallible, but that they have failed, and who cast opposition to them in terms of ignorance and fear, a mark of personal weakness and failure on the part of the opponents.
Progress requires a constant supply of changes, be them big or small, and that means a constant supply of failures too, that's right. Conservatism in that regard tries to keep the negative changes to a minimum, and that's good. But it also perpetuates the bad situations that are already in effect, instead of looking for new solutions to solve old problems. Progressivism means more problems, but also more solutions. Conservatism means less problems, but less solutions too.
In the end, it's a matter of human nature. Despite blatant cases of self-destructing stupidity, we can say that for the most part humans are not an "always chaotic evil" species. So if you present them a constant stream of possible solutions, in the end (and after many, many mistakes) they will keep the most favorable ones. However, by defending a conservative way of thinking, they will keep making the same mistakes because they can see no other way of solving their current problems.
You're falling into the same trap about retroactively relabeling the history of what was progress to justify a narrative. When you claim that all changes seen from the current perspective as beneficial constitute progress, the premise of progressivism loses all meaning besides 'what is appreciated at the moment.' There's nothing self-evident on that past the tautalogy.
Anders just wants the status quo changed, and killing the mages is an acceptable resolution to that. He doesn't have a plan for making things better for the mages by any sane standard.That's in the end what the Mage-Templar War is about, and the reason why Anders was right in doing what he did.
Retour en haut
)
