The Illusion of Progress

WARNING. THE FOLLOWING IDEAS ARE UNABRIDGED, UNEDITED, and A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF MY TYPICAL LINE OF THOUGHT.

Concerning the subject of goals and ambition, there is an issue I've encountered which needs some prying into: The Illusion of Progress.

Early this month, I had a conversation with a young but brilliantly balding pastor named Chuck. He was the first person I've talked to who was able to put flesh onto my most recent unorganized thoughts by referring me to a French philosopher (whose name eludes me), whose main concept is, respectfully, "The Illusion of Progress".

While I never really looked Frenchy up, my mind since then has been soaked daily in fresh analyzations of my own life, and others, concerning this rather pessimistic viewpoint.

Or is this view of progress actually pessimistic? Maybe it's simply reactionary realism? Such a debate is PRECISELY why I'm writing.

For organization and the sake of not losing the reader, assuming I have readers, in semi-sequential ramblings and various spontaneous tangents, I'll begin with my old idea of progress.

As an idealist to the core, progress has always presented a strange dichotomy to me. On the one hand, progress has brought me to this airplane seat at this particular moment in life, with this pencil, and with these ideas. Thoughts don't just appear out of nowhere, do they?

Let's take a moment to cognate this. If you're an artist, say, a painter specializing in profiling, how did you make the decision to devote a lifetime, or at the very least a substantial period of a lifetime to the subtleties of the human countenance? Did this idea to lavish and blend hues and tints and shades come to you in a dream? Likely not! Instead, you probably realized a knack and appreciation for artistry at an early age, which set in motion the desire to draw, then sketch, then enroll in higher level art classes in high school, then research the most prestigious, or maybe most affordable collegiate art program, all the while developing an intuitive sense for the finer details of the human sense of sight!

It can be argued from the opposing standpoint that the original realization of artistic inclination came out of nowhere. However, I would argue that such a realization is nothing more than a reaction to a fusion of personal emotions and circumstance, neither of which are absolutely controllable by a human being. But it is our reaction to emotion and circumstance that sets the wheels in motion for the progression of the rest of out lives.

This leads me to a very logical opposition to my idealistic and inevitably frustrating approach to the idea of progress. To the idealist, reality is never enough. To the dreamer's insatiable spirit, this world will ALWAYS offer salt water, at best, to his thirst. Progress is always possible, and therefore never reached.

So to go back, on the one hand, progression is beneficial because it created the people we currently are and, if we accept the theory of evolution on at least a micro-social level, who we are is arguably better than who we were.

But on the other hand, the most obvious devil's advocate would say that as time progresses, we humans, on a personal level do not. While it IS true that America, and most modern societies are more "civilized" in the dictionary sense of the civilization, and have "progressed" into such a state, I STILL see overwhelmingly uncivilized problems. I'm going to save several leaflet pages and some wrist strength by sparing the details, but in short: In an America, no, in a world where hate, intentional neglect, apathy, malice, and utter moroseness still exist as much as they do, I would argue that an advanced civilization doesn't treat its people any better than an uncivilized society.

If I were writing this to be published, I'd probably insert a bit of modern, researched statistics on hate crime and a bit of ancient culture rituals to back up the above point...

All that to say, one can simply not use the argument of societal progress as an intelligent argument for progress. Even if society were somehow provably "better" now, that doesn't mean it can be made into a generalization big enough to refute the point that progress is an illusion.

I'll attempt a different approach. In my personal life, I have grown through boy struggles to adolescent struggles, and now to young adult struggles. You see? How can progression exist if struggles continue to exist? Progression is an illusion!

I suppose I could have had a misconception of the word "progress" for twenty one years.

Maybe progress isn't necessarily the lessening of pain; maybe progression is simply referring to an improvement in my reaction to changing situations over time.

Or is that too general?