This week we mainly talked about Progressivism and their relations with the intellectuals. Progressives believe that men are intrinsically honest and good, though they are also subject to corruption. And they have certain fixations on the Pregressive Utopia, where a world without conflict can be built and all men in it are good or complacent. However, in reality, no such Utopia is possible. One thing we talked about was that intellectuals would always produce ideas that would challenge things. So if intellectuals were to really live in Utopian societies, either the society is not really utopian, or intellectuals would cease to exist.
We also see that Progressivism has logical flaws in their reasoning. On the one hand, they are trying to build societies that are Utopian, that is without any conflicts. On the other hand, to maintain such societies, there have to be some people or some structure in place. I believe that they are believing too much in individual “goodness.” For example, Communism also tries to achieve societies that were perfectly equal and without proper classes or differences among people – everyone would get the same for their work. However, there was still a really powerful party and party officials were clearly getting a lot more in the society compared to regular peasants. There is also the problem regarding human nature. In this case, everyone ought to get the same for their work. But people are also intrinsically lazy, that is they would prefer to not do anything “extra” if they have what they need and what they want. Then, for those who want to get more, the communist system would prevent them from getting what they want by contributing more. The more severe problem is that the lazy ones will drag everyone down.
We can also find certain links between Progressivism and Gnosticism. Mainly, they are both assuming something unreasonable about things. Progressivists were believing that an Utopia society could be built on Earth; Gnosticists also just had blind faith in their religion.
Another issue with Progressivism is their focus on the collective rather than the individual. Progressives often prioritize the needs and wants of society as a whole over the needs and wants of individual members of that society. While this may sound noble, in practice it can lead to the suppression of individual rights and freedoms.
For example, in a Progressive Utopia, everyone would be expected to conform to certain societal norms and expectations. Those who did not conform would be seen as deviant or disruptive, and could potentially be punished or ostracized. This kind of pressure to conform can be stifling for individuals, and can prevent them from fully expressing themselves or pursuing their own goals and desires.
Furthermore, the idea of a Progressive Utopia ignores the fact that conflict and disagreement are natural and inevitable parts of human society. No matter how much we may try to create a society without conflict, there will always be differing opinions and competing interests. Attempting to suppress or eliminate these conflicts can lead to repression and authoritarianism, as those in power try to enforce their own vision of what a Utopian society should look like.
In conclusion, while the ideals of Progressivism may be well-intentioned, they are ultimately flawed and unrealistic. The pursuit of a perfect society without conflict ignores the complexities and realities of human nature, and can lead to the suppression of individual rights and freedoms.