Is Advancement Possible?
Amogha Dalvi
Prompt #4
Is Advancement Possible?
Progress and growth has always been the underlying cause for our existence. We define progress, in terms of material growth, by the option of affording better or more cars, or to a luxurious lifestyle. We appreciate technological advancement in the field of science that we once thought was impossible to explain let alone exist. Advancement holds a very important place in history and science. However, understanding advancement is difficult because for different people and situations the meaning of progress would be relative and conditional, and thus change. For instance, an NGO worker who is fighting towards the cause of education for underprivileged would believe that spending million dollars on a scientific experiment is worthless in comparison to, spending it on the education of less privileged children in a third world country. However, for the scientist, who invests into a scientific experiment believes that he is advancing science. His choices that determine what progress means to him are relatively different from an NGO worker. This leads us to the question, how does one know whether human beings are actually capable of advancement? Aung San Suu Kyi, a Burmese politician fighting for democracy in her country, claims in her speech “Freedom from Fear”, that whole of humanity is constantly progressing towards an ultimate spiritual and material truth. Her ideas communicate a basic principle that human beings value advancement because they are different from animals, and consequently capable of rational choices. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave also sheds light upon this difference, while helping in understanding advancement. However, Thomas Hobbes argues from a different perspective, and provides an approach that seeks to question whether there really is any distinction between humans and animals that enables us to be rational and make human choices. In my essay, I choose to agree with Aung Saan Suu Kyi’s view
Prompt #4
Is Advancement Possible?
Progress and growth has always been the underlying cause for our existence. We define progress, in terms of material growth, by the option of affording better or more cars, or to a luxurious lifestyle. We appreciate technological advancement in the field of science that we once thought was impossible to explain let alone exist. Advancement holds a very important place in history and science. However, understanding advancement is difficult because for different people and situations the meaning of progress would be relative and conditional, and thus change. For instance, an NGO worker who is fighting towards the cause of education for underprivileged would believe that spending million dollars on a scientific experiment is worthless in comparison to, spending it on the education of less privileged children in a third world country. However, for the scientist, who invests into a scientific experiment believes that he is advancing science. His choices that determine what progress means to him are relatively different from an NGO worker. This leads us to the question, how does one know whether human beings are actually capable of advancement? Aung San Suu Kyi, a Burmese politician fighting for democracy in her country, claims in her speech “Freedom from Fear”, that whole of humanity is constantly progressing towards an ultimate spiritual and material truth. Her ideas communicate a basic principle that human beings value advancement because they are different from animals, and consequently capable of rational choices. Plato’s Allegory of the Cave also sheds light upon this difference, while helping in understanding advancement. However, Thomas Hobbes argues from a different perspective, and provides an approach that seeks to question whether there really is any distinction between humans and animals that enables us to be rational and make human choices. In my essay, I choose to agree with Aung Saan Suu Kyi’s view
References: [ 5 ]. Plato and Progress Rupert C. Lodge The Philosophical Review , Vol. 55, No. 6 (Nov., 1946), pp. 651-667Published by: Duke University Press on behalf of Philosophical Review [ 6 ]