Steadily Perfecting

"How extreme and uncritical the optimism underlying the doctrine of progress was can be seen in one of its main premises: that there would be a corporate human advance toward perfect wisdom and righteousness. We still are so habituated to progressive modes of thought that the idea may not strike us as particularly problematic.

But how could such an advance possibly occur? Can wisdom be passed from one generation to succeeding generations and steadily deepened in its passage? Surely not. Objective knowledge can be thus transmitted, but wisdom (without which objective knowledge is of doubtful value) cannot. A wise father cannot at will call into being a wise son; ordinary human experience makes this abundantly plain. Neither can a righteous father call forth a righteous son. One generation cannot achieve righteousness and then bestow on the next generation.

Perhaps laws and customs can be gradually elevated, just as objective knowledge can be extended. But righteousness is a more vital and creative state than mere conformity with law and custom, this being so, perfecting the existing order is not the same as perfecting righteousness.

Wisdom and righteousness alike have to do with personal qualities which we cannot even assuredly define, much less hand over to others. It is likely that the doctrine of progress, and with it modern hope, could survive as long as it did because of the growing self-satisfaction of Western peoples; they were able to assume unthinkingly that they were steadily becoming better and better human beings. Progress seemed natural, and hope mere common sense."

― Glenn Tinder, "The Fabric of Hope" (1999)

********

Dear Kate,

Still remember the Starbucks red Christmas cup controversy a few years back?  As stated in this article, "while the world rages on and problems like starvation, a massive refugee crisis, and homelessness remain unfixed, people in America — including an American presidential candidate — are arguing over a red beverage container."  That particular then "presidential candidate" would go on to become the most colorful leader of the greatest country and save Christmas as he promised, if not his presidency.

My not-as-great land has her own problem too, this year a mammoth mammalian one, that we want to kill the killer whale.  One would have thought one is safe as long as one steers clear of any historical figure who would, as all human beings go, bring to present noses an odious smell of our less-enlightened past.

I have no intention to add to the outrage, any outrage from any side (presuming simplemindedly there are sides to side with).  My only suggestion today is that maybe we need to question our own assumption, that we, humankind, are on a path of progress, and there's no going back for us once we are enlightened.

Rowan Williams commented on Dostoevskian insights, "...part of the distinctively human is the capacity for perversity, addiction, self-sacrifice, self-destruction and a whole range of 'rationally' indefensible behaviors.  Remove this capacity and two things result: the distinctively human disappears and is replaced by a pattern of ordered but mechanical interaction; and the violence is canonized as the means of social rationalization — because the amputation of irrational human needs or wants can only be effected by force."

By force, that's the only way to do it when we want to do it our ways to explain ourselves away.

Yours, Alex