This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
What about the idea of progress as seen outside the West? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.238.202 ( talk) 15:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
First, what is progress? I extrapolated a definition from vague ramblings in the text, but I am not an expert. What perspective does the article take -- a philosophical discussion about progress, or the history of the idea? Currently, it is written as the history. If it is meant to be about philosophy of the idea, more stuff as in the "20th century" section should be summarized as the current introduction. - Pgan002 09:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I came onto the subject of Progress on wikipedia here via a cleanup of Progress (philosophy), and I have to say I find this whole corner of the wiki a mess. There appear to be four articles which, as far as I can tell, are largely discussing the same topic: Idea of Progress and Myth of Progress seem to be, essentially, POV forks, albiet without being actual forks of a single previous article; meanwhile, this article ( Progress (history)) and Social progress appear to have no difference in scope at all.
All four of these articles are rather weak in their respective ways, and I think it would be best for all of them to merge their good-quality contents together into a single article. Furthermore, I believe that article would be best located at Progress simpliciter, and the article currently at that name moved to Progress (disambiguation) and linked from a hatnote on this page. Thoughts? -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 07:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Further thoughts:
So if no one objects within a day or so, I think I will go ahead and merge Idea of Progress and Myth of Progress into this article, and do the moving of this article to Progress and the moving of what's currently there to Progress (disambiguation). -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 11:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Unrelated to the debate about what title to use: I'm thinking more now that Social progress should not be included in this merger: while all notions of progress are in some way or another social, the subject of that article seems to be progress through different systems of social organization, e.g. different political, economic, and moral/ethical systems. In that sense, I think it is perhaps more akin to Scientific progress and Philosophical progress inasmuch as it is about progress in a particular field (broad as it may be), rather than about (the possibility/desirability/inevitability of) progress in a more abstract sense. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 00:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's great that we organize all the articles about "Progress". It's not good for the encyclopedia to have a subject scattered in various entries without criteria. I support the inclusion of the criticism of the 18th century concept of progress in the criticism section of this article. However, this doesn't mean that we don't have enough sources to justify an entry that deals specifically with the expression "myth of progress". In keeping with this recent task of organizing the information on progress in the article, and in respect with the standards of Wikipedia, we would just need to put a "main" our "see also" template at the top of the criticism section in this article, directing to the article on the expression. There is nothing strange about having an article written about an expression, as long as backed by the proper sources (see Myth of the Flat Earth). If there are no objections, I will make the proper changes. Maziotis ( talk) 21:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we just rename this article Idea of Progress, which is what it is all about--that is the theory that progress will inevitably make the world better in every way (and its opponents). The current title is never used by anyone. The bibliography shows that scholars often write about the "idea of progress." The article on Progress is a disambig page that leads to many quite different topics, so it's not a good vehicle for this article. Rjensen ( talk) 00:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
the section "Status of Women" is currently placed as a subsection of "History" as an equal-level title along with historical periods like Antiquity, the Enlightenment, and Modernity. This seems poorly organized. I had integrated it into the Modernity section as the dates references in there fall within that period, but Rjensen has undone that change. Per WP:BRD I'm here to discuss. Please explain why this should be in its own section and not a part of the Modern history of progress? If nothing else, it certainly doesn't belong as a section alongside historical periods as it is now. -- Pfhorrest ( talk)
Ok, based on the new section lede of your (Rjensen)'s most recent edit, in the section now titled "Idea of Progress" I am getting the impression that what you mean by "Idea of Progress" might be something like "the theory that technological progress entails social progress", or put in more layman's terms, "the theory that improvements in technology necessarily imply improvements in society". Is that correct?
If so, it doesn't seem that all the material in the section now titled "Idea of Progress" (or in the old article of the same name) is solely about that theory. Much of it seems to be about progress in more general terms: for example, the section on the American revolution speaks entirely about how changes in social structures could or would improve society, which is about social progress in abstract, not about technological progress causing social progress. Likewise the section on Antiquity says nothing about technology improving society, but more about whether things are generally getting better or worse or moving in cycles, i.e. questions of progress in abstract, not this more particular "Idea of Progress" theory. Even in the section on Enlightment, only the first two paragraphs say anything about technology; the latter two are more about defining Progress in abstract, e.g. "Adam Ferguson defined human progress as the working out of a divine plan". The section "Modernization" is largely about technology improving society, except for the "Status of Women" subsection, which is just about improvement in women's social status over time (i.e. social progress for women), nothing about whether that has any relation to technology.
I suggest that we go through and separate the section I had titled "History" and you have titled "Idea of Progress" and split it into two sections; one on the history of scholarly writing on the general idea or concept of Progress (titled "History"), and one on the specific theory called the "Idea of Progress" (titled thus), into the latter of which "Criticism" would be subsumed as a subsection. If the latter of those is large enough, it may even warrant remaining its own separate article at Idea of Progress (which would be summarized and main'd from here). The purpose of my proposed merger to here was to consolidate material into an article on progress in general, not one on such a specific theory of how progress in one area related to progress in another; so if that is the intended scope of the article that was at Idea of Progress, perhaps the merger was not a good idea to begin with, though even if so I think it has been productive to the improvement of all the articles involved. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 05:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The simplest approach is to move the sections on the Idea of Progress and Myth of Progress back to the "Idea of Progress" article. That will allow editors to ad d all they want here and rename it as they please. Rjensen ( talk) 08:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey. I saw someone requested a third opinion for this page, so here it is. Titling an article "Idea of Progress" seems awkward to me, and is probably a violation of WP:NAME. I also think that it would be inappropriate to redirect this page to Progress and move Progress to its own disambiguation page, as this is just one definition of 'progress'. One alternative would be to move this to Historical progress or Human progress. One other thing you could do, and that would probably be best, would be to open it up for consensus by listing it at Wikipedia:Requested moves and get other people to comment on it. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was reject.
Anthony Appleyard (
talk) 22:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Progress (history) →
Progress — This article is about the main sense of "progress", and should be at that name; the disambiguation page currently at that name should be at
Progress (disambiguation), which currently redirects to it. (The preceding is contentious; seeking outside input for consensus per 3O.)
Pfhorrest (
talk) 06:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.I was flipping through Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near the other day and thinking about its implications for progress as a historical idea. Kurzweil's book seems to be (one of several) logical evolutions of the ideal of progress discussed in this article. He holds many of the same tenets as the Enlightenment thinkers described within this article. However, he updates the ideal of progress by considering the implications of possible 21st century advances in technology. Are there any other thinkers and/or intellectual trends that might contribute to a sub-section (perhaps placed after the "Enlightenment" section in the chronological overview?) that details current manifestations of "progressive" thought?
Implications of Kurzweil's work for the ideal of progress and/or history: 1) Exponential, not linear progress 2) The end of history: when the Singularity occurs, the rate at which new events occur will outpace traditional methods of history, while the new man/machine intelligence will be able to comprehend all of history in a manner presently inconceivable.
Note that these are merely the ideas that I extrapolated from Kurzweil's book; maybe some one knows an article that has explored the topic already? This is probably a can of worms best not opened, but I was just going to throw it out there, in case there are any takers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latvahat ( talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Slightly tired of the Philhellenistic bias in, well, pretty much everything. Many Sumerian stories begin with the line like "Men used to eat grass with their mouths like sheep" for instance "How grain came to Sumer" http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.7.6# maybe this is worth mentioning. Moon Oracle ( talk) 20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Social progress. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
What about the idea of progress as seen outside the West? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.238.202 ( talk) 15:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
First, what is progress? I extrapolated a definition from vague ramblings in the text, but I am not an expert. What perspective does the article take -- a philosophical discussion about progress, or the history of the idea? Currently, it is written as the history. If it is meant to be about philosophy of the idea, more stuff as in the "20th century" section should be summarized as the current introduction. - Pgan002 09:54, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
I came onto the subject of Progress on wikipedia here via a cleanup of Progress (philosophy), and I have to say I find this whole corner of the wiki a mess. There appear to be four articles which, as far as I can tell, are largely discussing the same topic: Idea of Progress and Myth of Progress seem to be, essentially, POV forks, albiet without being actual forks of a single previous article; meanwhile, this article ( Progress (history)) and Social progress appear to have no difference in scope at all.
All four of these articles are rather weak in their respective ways, and I think it would be best for all of them to merge their good-quality contents together into a single article. Furthermore, I believe that article would be best located at Progress simpliciter, and the article currently at that name moved to Progress (disambiguation) and linked from a hatnote on this page. Thoughts? -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 07:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Further thoughts:
So if no one objects within a day or so, I think I will go ahead and merge Idea of Progress and Myth of Progress into this article, and do the moving of this article to Progress and the moving of what's currently there to Progress (disambiguation). -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 11:22, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Unrelated to the debate about what title to use: I'm thinking more now that Social progress should not be included in this merger: while all notions of progress are in some way or another social, the subject of that article seems to be progress through different systems of social organization, e.g. different political, economic, and moral/ethical systems. In that sense, I think it is perhaps more akin to Scientific progress and Philosophical progress inasmuch as it is about progress in a particular field (broad as it may be), rather than about (the possibility/desirability/inevitability of) progress in a more abstract sense. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 00:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it's great that we organize all the articles about "Progress". It's not good for the encyclopedia to have a subject scattered in various entries without criteria. I support the inclusion of the criticism of the 18th century concept of progress in the criticism section of this article. However, this doesn't mean that we don't have enough sources to justify an entry that deals specifically with the expression "myth of progress". In keeping with this recent task of organizing the information on progress in the article, and in respect with the standards of Wikipedia, we would just need to put a "main" our "see also" template at the top of the criticism section in this article, directing to the article on the expression. There is nothing strange about having an article written about an expression, as long as backed by the proper sources (see Myth of the Flat Earth). If there are no objections, I will make the proper changes. Maziotis ( talk) 21:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we just rename this article Idea of Progress, which is what it is all about--that is the theory that progress will inevitably make the world better in every way (and its opponents). The current title is never used by anyone. The bibliography shows that scholars often write about the "idea of progress." The article on Progress is a disambig page that leads to many quite different topics, so it's not a good vehicle for this article. Rjensen ( talk) 00:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
the section "Status of Women" is currently placed as a subsection of "History" as an equal-level title along with historical periods like Antiquity, the Enlightenment, and Modernity. This seems poorly organized. I had integrated it into the Modernity section as the dates references in there fall within that period, but Rjensen has undone that change. Per WP:BRD I'm here to discuss. Please explain why this should be in its own section and not a part of the Modern history of progress? If nothing else, it certainly doesn't belong as a section alongside historical periods as it is now. -- Pfhorrest ( talk)
Ok, based on the new section lede of your (Rjensen)'s most recent edit, in the section now titled "Idea of Progress" I am getting the impression that what you mean by "Idea of Progress" might be something like "the theory that technological progress entails social progress", or put in more layman's terms, "the theory that improvements in technology necessarily imply improvements in society". Is that correct?
If so, it doesn't seem that all the material in the section now titled "Idea of Progress" (or in the old article of the same name) is solely about that theory. Much of it seems to be about progress in more general terms: for example, the section on the American revolution speaks entirely about how changes in social structures could or would improve society, which is about social progress in abstract, not about technological progress causing social progress. Likewise the section on Antiquity says nothing about technology improving society, but more about whether things are generally getting better or worse or moving in cycles, i.e. questions of progress in abstract, not this more particular "Idea of Progress" theory. Even in the section on Enlightment, only the first two paragraphs say anything about technology; the latter two are more about defining Progress in abstract, e.g. "Adam Ferguson defined human progress as the working out of a divine plan". The section "Modernization" is largely about technology improving society, except for the "Status of Women" subsection, which is just about improvement in women's social status over time (i.e. social progress for women), nothing about whether that has any relation to technology.
I suggest that we go through and separate the section I had titled "History" and you have titled "Idea of Progress" and split it into two sections; one on the history of scholarly writing on the general idea or concept of Progress (titled "History"), and one on the specific theory called the "Idea of Progress" (titled thus), into the latter of which "Criticism" would be subsumed as a subsection. If the latter of those is large enough, it may even warrant remaining its own separate article at Idea of Progress (which would be summarized and main'd from here). The purpose of my proposed merger to here was to consolidate material into an article on progress in general, not one on such a specific theory of how progress in one area related to progress in another; so if that is the intended scope of the article that was at Idea of Progress, perhaps the merger was not a good idea to begin with, though even if so I think it has been productive to the improvement of all the articles involved. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 05:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The simplest approach is to move the sections on the Idea of Progress and Myth of Progress back to the "Idea of Progress" article. That will allow editors to ad d all they want here and rename it as they please. Rjensen ( talk) 08:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hey. I saw someone requested a third opinion for this page, so here it is. Titling an article "Idea of Progress" seems awkward to me, and is probably a violation of WP:NAME. I also think that it would be inappropriate to redirect this page to Progress and move Progress to its own disambiguation page, as this is just one definition of 'progress'. One alternative would be to move this to Historical progress or Human progress. One other thing you could do, and that would probably be best, would be to open it up for consensus by listing it at Wikipedia:Requested moves and get other people to comment on it. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was reject.
Anthony Appleyard (
talk) 22:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Progress (history) →
Progress — This article is about the main sense of "progress", and should be at that name; the disambiguation page currently at that name should be at
Progress (disambiguation), which currently redirects to it. (The preceding is contentious; seeking outside input for consensus per 3O.)
Pfhorrest (
talk) 06:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's naming conventions.I was flipping through Ray Kurzweil's The Singularity Is Near the other day and thinking about its implications for progress as a historical idea. Kurzweil's book seems to be (one of several) logical evolutions of the ideal of progress discussed in this article. He holds many of the same tenets as the Enlightenment thinkers described within this article. However, he updates the ideal of progress by considering the implications of possible 21st century advances in technology. Are there any other thinkers and/or intellectual trends that might contribute to a sub-section (perhaps placed after the "Enlightenment" section in the chronological overview?) that details current manifestations of "progressive" thought?
Implications of Kurzweil's work for the ideal of progress and/or history: 1) Exponential, not linear progress 2) The end of history: when the Singularity occurs, the rate at which new events occur will outpace traditional methods of history, while the new man/machine intelligence will be able to comprehend all of history in a manner presently inconceivable.
Note that these are merely the ideas that I extrapolated from Kurzweil's book; maybe some one knows an article that has explored the topic already? This is probably a can of worms best not opened, but I was just going to throw it out there, in case there are any takers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Latvahat ( talk • contribs) 02:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Slightly tired of the Philhellenistic bias in, well, pretty much everything. Many Sumerian stories begin with the line like "Men used to eat grass with their mouths like sheep" for instance "How grain came to Sumer" http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/etcsl.cgi?text=t.1.7.6# maybe this is worth mentioning. Moon Oracle ( talk) 20:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
See Talk:Social progress. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)