I understood the thread roughly this way: „philosophy makes progress. The evidence is that the modern world has adopted the more progressed rules of enlightement and scientific rules.“
And my reply was that this is highly questionable.
I’m saying that the enlightenment ideas happened because the uprising middle class needed justifications in their power struggle. Not that the ideas formed a middle class that then acted upon them.
I agree with you that humans need ideas to tell a story of themselves. And that story better paint them as good! But that story is usually not the driving force.
So I fail to see progress as I don’t see a criterion to measure progress (in general. Aristoteles‘ logic is a tool. Here I see how to compare it to FOL and judge which is better or worse for specific use cases).
As for human rights: do I agree with them? Yes! Can I justify them? No! Do I know where to exactly draw the lines when two rights collide? No! Is it important to justify them in a philosophical way? I doubt.
I’m saying that the enlightenment ideas happened because the uprising middle class needed justifications in their power struggle. Not that the ideas formed a middle class that then acted upon them.
I agree with you that humans need ideas to tell a story of themselves. And that story better paint them as good! But that story is usually not the driving force.
So I fail to see progress as I don’t see a criterion to measure progress (in general. Aristoteles‘ logic is a tool. Here I see how to compare it to FOL and judge which is better or worse for specific use cases).
As for human rights: do I agree with them? Yes! Can I justify them? No! Do I know where to exactly draw the lines when two rights collide? No! Is it important to justify them in a philosophical way? I doubt.