Is There Social Progression As Well As Individual Progression?

[jaxenro]

I came across this question as part of my discussion on morality but decided to make it a separate topic. Is there social progression as well as individual progression?

 

By this I mean do societies progress and grow in learning just as individuals grow and learn?

 

And would the same principles of learning apply? Do we teach advanced calculus in grade school? Or do we teach the basics first?

[Storm Rider]

Good questions.  I think a society is a reflection of the sum total of the individuals involved and how ideas gain prevalence. I think it is error to judge a society by a moment in time, but rather over periods of time. 

 

I view American culture as lost at this time. It politicians and the citizenry don't know who they are or what they are supposed to be.  Our nation is capable of recognizing great ideals, but has a terrible record of living those standards. Our media resists almost all efforts to portray ideals, wholesomeness, in any way except with denigration.  The problem is that no other movement or force has been able to counter their assault.  Traditionally, we had politicians who would be capable of speaking honestly and with integrity to counter the degradation of society's lowest common denominator.  They helped the citizenry to have hope and vision. Now they have joined with the media and assist in distorting any sense of right and wrong.  The religious organizations, another influence upon society, has also abdicated the pulpit of moral teaching to extreme positions if not error.  

 

Society's reflection of its individuals ths been distorted by seeing only the worst in individuals, the worst and most base of our choices. Yes, societies progress and societies fail.  

[katherine the great]

I came across this question as part of my discussion on morality but decided to make it a separate topic. Is there social progression as well as individual progression?

 

By this I mean do societies progress and grow in learning just as individuals grow and learn?

 

And would the same principles of learning apply? Do we teach advanced calculus in grade school? Or do we teach the basics first?

Evolutionary theory encompasses social evolution as well as biological evolution but is less well understood.  Part of the problem is in defining progress.  Our brains have not fundamentally changed in tens of thousands of years but technology has because knowledge builds upon itself.  Societies are made up of individuals and each culture has its own unique history and dynamic.  When anthropologists first began to ponder the concept of social evolution, it was a very Eurocentric view seeing human societies as going through inevitable stages, basically: Primitive, barbaric and civilized.  "Civilized" societies, of course were embodied in "enlightened" western societies.  We don't really think that way anymore.  There is complexity in all cultures--ancient and modern, and environment plays a huge role in the direction that societies evolve.

[mfbukowski]

I came across this question as part of my discussion on morality but decided to make it a separate topic. Is there social progression as well as individual progression?

 

By this I mean do societies progress and grow in learning just as individuals grow and learn?

 

And would the same principles of learning apply? Do we teach advanced calculus in grade school? Or do we teach the basics first?

No, I think we should start with calculus in kindergarten and then go back through algebra ending with 1+1 in college.

And to make it interesting we should give up electricity and then go back to hunting with spears.

 

Just kidding.

 

I don't understand your point I guess.

Edited March 14, 2014 by mfbukowski

[jaxenro]

"it was a very Eurocentric view seeing human societies as going through inevitable stages"

 

If you really think this is Eurocentric you should read this and understand ibn Khaldun's theories on the rise and fall of civilizations:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun

 

[jaxenro]

"I don't understand your point I guess"

 

On the morality thread the concept seemed to be emerging from some posters that God changes because what is considered moral changes over time. For instance slavery, once moral, is now considered immoral. Yet I instead see it as the opposite, not that God has changed but that mankind has grown and progressed allowing God to increase the teachings. If you look at the moral teachings from each era, lets use pre-Christian, early Christian, and latter days, as a rough example, you see God "stretching the envelope" a little more in each. Each time the moral code He laid out was a little more advanced than the time before.

 

So my point is I see this not as evidence of a changing God but a growing mankind. Each time He gave us guidance that was a little more advanced than what was the common practice but not so far advanced that man could not handle the increase. He didn't teach us calculus until we had learned basic math. First basic rules on slavery in early Jewish law, then Jesus teaching slaves and masters how to act, then Jospeh Smith advancing to abolition. I think God knows where He wants to take us from the beginning but does so in incremental steps so He doesn't loose us along the way.

 

One could also argue that the treatment and status of women has grown in the same way. Not that God has changed but that man has matured and is able to handle more and more instruction

Edited March 14, 2014 by jaxenro

[JLHPROF]

 

By this I mean do societies progress and grow in learning just as individuals grow and learn?

 

And would the same principles of learning apply? Do we teach advanced calculus in grade school? Or do we teach the basics first?

Well, according to the scriptures societies can progress towards God and away from God as a whole, which would imply progression and regression, and some would argue also implies learning.

It also seems evident that societies progress technologically which would also imply learning and developing.

 

And I also think that as societies grow and develop that we can acquire established knowledge at a faster rate, although I think Calculus in grade school might be a bit of a stretch.

[The Nehor]

Yes but there is also social and individual regression.

[mfbukowski]

"I don't understand your point I guess"

 

On the morality thread the concept seemed to be emerging from some posters that God changes because what is considered moral changes over time. For instance slavery, once moral, is now considered immoral. Yet I instead see it as the opposite, not that God has changed but that mankind has grown and progressed allowing God to increase the teachings. If you look at the moral teachings from each era, lets use pre-Christian, early Christian, and latter days, as a rough example, you see God "stretching the envelope" a little more in each. Each time the moral code He laid out was a little more advanced than the time before.

 

So my point is I see this not as evidence of a changing God but a growing mankind. Each time He gave us guidance that was a little more advanced than what was the common practice but not so far advanced that man could not handle the increase. He didn't teach us calculus until we had learned basic math. First basic rules on slavery in early Jewish law, then Jesus teaching slaves and masters how to act, then Jospeh Smith advancing to abolition. I think God knows where He wants to take us from the beginning but does so in incremental steps so He doesn't loose us along the way.

 

One could also argue that the treatment and status of women has grown in the same way. Not that God has changed but that man has matured and is able to handle more and more instruction

Agreed.

[mfbukowski]

Yes but there is also social and individual regression.

Who did you have in mind ?

[Rivers]

I think so? The church itself is progressing. Ironically, it seems to progress slower than the rest of society. But we certainly progress as a church.

[Ahab]

"I don't understand your point I guess"

On the morality thread the concept seemed to be emerging from some posters that God changes because what is considered moral changes over time. For instance slavery, once moral, is now considered immoral. Yet I instead see it as the opposite, not that God has changed but that mankind has grown and progressed allowing God to increase the teachings. If you look at the moral teachings from each era, lets use pre-Christian, early Christian, and latter days, as a rough example, you see God "stretching the envelope" a little more in each. Each time the moral code He laid out was a little more advanced than the time before.

So my point is I see this not as evidence of a changing God but a growing mankind. Each time He gave us guidance that was a little more advanced than what was the common practice but not so far advanced that man could not handle the increase. He didn't teach us calculus until we had learned basic math. First basic rules on slavery in early Jewish law, then Jesus teaching slaves and masters how to act, then Jospeh Smith advancing to abolition. I think God knows where He wants to take us from the beginning but does so in incremental steps so He doesn't loose us along the way.

One could also argue that the treatment and status of women has grown in the same way. Not that God has changed but that man has matured and is able to handle more and more instruction

Those are good observations but its nit so much a progredsion through time as it is a progression through obedience. The more we live by his teachings the more he will teach us. Remember Enoch, and Zion.

[The Nehor]

Who did you have in mind ?

When I think of social progression I think we are progressing in some areas (technology, science) and regressing in others (social bonds, the arts, economically, and nutritionally to name a few).

It is always this way. Society advances in some ways and regresses in others.

In individuals we see teenagers wise beyond their years and 70 year olds who somehow survived while still acting like teenagers.

[jaxenro]

"the arts"

 

OK yes modern art is an abomination. I doubt sculpture has progressed since the Greeks and painting since the Renaissance. And I will always follow Palladio in the father of all arts

[katherine the great]

"it was a very Eurocentric view seeing human societies as going through inevitable stages"

 

If you really think this is Eurocentric you should read this and understand ibn Khaldun's theories on the rise and fall of civilizations:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun

You quoted me out of context.  "When anthropologists first began to ponder the concept of social evolution, it was a very Eurocentric view."  The fathers of modern anthropology were Europeans (with a couple of Americans) and their world view was decidedly Eurocentric.  Of course history has many philosophers from different parts of the world who consider their own cultures or forerunners of their own cultures as the archetype for "civilization."  I haven't studied Khaldun, but just from skimming over your link, he sounds like he was a brilliant thinker.

[katherine the great]

"I don't understand your point I guess"

 

On the morality thread the concept seemed to be emerging from some posters that God changes because what is considered moral changes over time. For instance slavery, once moral, is now considered immoral. Yet I instead see it as the opposite, not that God has changed but that mankind has grown and progressed allowing God to increase the teachings. If you look at the moral teachings from each era, lets use pre-Christian, early Christian, and latter days, as a rough example, you see God "stretching the envelope" a little more in each. Each time the moral code He laid out was a little more advanced than the time before.

 

So my point is I see this not as evidence of a changing God but a growing mankind. Each time He gave us guidance that was a little more advanced than what was the common practice but not so far advanced that man could not handle the increase. He didn't teach us calculus until we had learned basic math. First basic rules on slavery in early Jewish law, then Jesus teaching slaves and masters how to act, then Jospeh Smith advancing to abolition. I think God knows where He wants to take us from the beginning but does so in incremental steps so He doesn't loose us along the way.

 

One could also argue that the treatment and status of women has grown in the same way. Not that God has changed but that man has matured and is able to handle more and more instruction

Are you referring specifically to Christians and not human beings overall?

[jaxenro]

"Are you referring specifically to Christians and not human beings overall?"
 

I suppose a little of both. Yes civilizations rise and fall but it is rare that all is lost from the prior one. We do stand on the shoulders of those that came before us.

[jaxenro]

You quoted me out of context.  "When anthropologists first began to ponder the concept of social evolution, it was a very Eurocentric view."  The fathers of modern anthropology were Europeans (with a couple of Americans) and their world view was decidedly Eurocentric.  Of course history has many philosophers from different parts of the world who consider their own cultures or forerunners of their own cultures as the archetype for "civilization."  I haven't studied Khaldun, but just from skimming over your link, he sounds like he was a brilliant thinker.

 

Sorry abput the context. Khaldun came up with the theory that (to simplyfy) barbarians conquer, settle down, assimiliate, and are conquered by the next wave of barbarians, in cycles, and civilizations rise and fall with it.

 

Of course he got to live out his theory with Tamerlane which scared the hell out of him