The question whether, after all, the world really does progress is not
one that can be settled by an intellectual demonstration of any kind. It
is possible to prove that mankind has gained and is gaining in material
power, in knowledge, and in the extent and diversity of social
organization; that history shows an enlarging perspective and that the
thoughts of men are, in truth, “broadened with the process of the suns”:
but it is always possible to deny that these changes are progress. We
seem to mean by this term something additional, a judgment, in fact,
that the changes, whatever they may be, are on the whole _good_. In
other words progress, as commonly understood, is essentially a moral
category, and the question whether it takes place or not is one of moral
judgment. Nothing of this kind is susceptible of incontrovertible
demonstration, because the moral judgment is not bound by definite
intellectual processes, nearly the same in all minds, but takes in the
most obscure and various impulses of human nature.
Suppose you compare the state of the first white settlers in America,
narrow and hard, physically, mentally, and socially, with the
comparatively easy and spacious life of their descendants at the present
time; or contrast the life of a European peasant, dwelling in mediæval
ignorance and bondage, with that of the same peasant and his family
after they have emigrated to the United States and come to a full share
in its intelligence and prosperity. It may seem clear to most people
that these changes, which are like those the world in general has been
undergoing, are for the better; but the matter is quite debatable. The
simpler lot of the pioneer and the peasant can easily be made to appear
desirable, and there are, and no doubt always will be, those who
maintain that we are no better off than we were.
Development, I should say, can be proved. That is, history reveals,
beyond question, a process of enlargement, diversification, and
organization, personal and social, that seems vaguely analogous to the
growth of plant and animal organisms; but whether we are to write our
moral indorsement on the back of all this is another matter. Is it
better to be man or the marine animal, “resembling the larvæ of existing
Ascidians,”[83] from which he is believed to have descended? In the end
it comes down to this: is life itself a good thing? We see it waxing and
shining all about us, and most of us are ready to pronounce that it is
good; but the pessimist can always say: “To me it is an evil thing, and
the more of it the worse.” And there is no way of convincing him of
error.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account