Yes, those comparisons are outstanding. World War I was devastating not only in its toll on lives, economies, resources and infrastructure, but on the Western psyche. Then the Second came along and disproved the notion of a War to End All Wars. (At least in the U.S. we have managed to glorify the second a bit and forget what it tells us about human nature in general.) Wars have not stopped coming ever since. Wealthy nations may have better infrastructure in place now to help maintain power balances, but this could hardly be considered a result of Human Progress. Maybe Human Shrewdness.
I haven’t read Pinker’s book, @klw, but I think you’re right to be skeptical of his use of figures.
Another dubious example of C. 19 progress appears in Kierkegaard and the New Nationalism which I read recently. The author, Millay, described the Danish Golden Age as having arisen from Denmark’s relatively small yet very lucratively successful participation in colonialism, the slave trade and financial benefits of political neutrality that allowed them to sell to both sides in a number of European wars. The wealth came a great cost to others, AND benefitted only a few, the bourgeoisie of Copenhagen. Danish peasants as well as the Danish servant class saw no real benefit.
@klw asked about how Postmodernism (PoMo) might relate to Wright’s discussion. First (always first when PoMo comes up), in spite of the work I have done with some of it, I have a lot to learn about Postmodernism. As do most people who mention it. Don’t trust anyone who mentions it to know what they’re talking about. Follow up.
The connection with PoMo and Wright’s lecture is neatly stated in a Cliff’s Notes post, (vindicating student (ab)use of Cliff’s Notes even at the college level):
The post-modernists criticized ‘Enlightenment’ philosophers: their optimism, faith in progress and science, reliance on abstract rationality, and lack of historical self-awareness did little to prevent atrocity. It was science and ‘bureaucratic’ rationality that made it possible to build weapons of mass destruction and organize genocide, they claim: “The Fully Enlightened Earth Radiates Disaster Triumphant,” Adorno wrote. Are they right? Has the ‘long peace’ since WWII shown the post-modern critique wrong? Or are we headed towards worst disasters yet, such as climate change, which ‘modern’ scientific rationality cannot solve?
From: https://www.cliffsnotes.com/tutors-problems/Philosophy/47147759-The-post-modernists-criticized-Enlightenment-philosophers-their/#:~:text=The%20post-modern%20critique%20of,destructive%20nature%20of%20human%20beings.
A rather more academic nutshell intro is available here in an article on postmodernism and rationality.
In the lecture (00:40:20), Wright really says little about PoMo: “Postmodernism directly challenges the narrative of progress. Wisdom does not advance chronologically. But even with the horrors or the 20th Century, the postmodern protest hasn’t actually made much headway.” On page 28 of the book, History and Eschatology he corrects a bit and says: “The protests of postcolonialism have often been shrill, simplistic and merely pragmatic.”
One of the great strengths of PoMo, IMO, is its disclosure of and exploration of power relationships as well as the political nature of all sorts of relationships. This is actually carried out even more in postcolonial studies. Anyone who thinks that postcolonialism is not making a difference is unaware of DEI work in the U.S. and blossoming success in telling Comprehensive (“Revisionist” if you don’t like it) History, for example.
Based on the very few things I’ve read by Wright, I am in danger of adoring him uncritically. I want to be fair and as demanding of intellectual honesty and accuracy of him as anyone, but also to acknowledge and value it when I see it. So far I’ve enjoyed Wright’s mapping of western philosophy and popular thought. I hope he isn’t cherry picking – so easy to do with such a body of material to choose from. However, he is certainly highlighting enormously influential thinkers, whose influence we can see today. I think his assessment of the overall view of human progress is also accurate.
I am curious about where he is going with his concern about the “removal” of God from the 5 areas he mentioned: Politics, Science, Economics, History and Jesus. I get the last one or two. I’m curious if he sees a need to incorporate notions God into our understanding of Politics, Science, Economics and History (in addition to New Testament history). And if so, how? Or does he have a different purpose for developing this list? I’ll be watching for this.
I am looking forward to the development of his reconceptualization of Natural Theology. I’ve not found the common understanding of Natural Theology (working one’s way logically, rationally from nature to God) to be very effective. Wright’s insistence on the inclusion of history – things that really happened in the world – in a new concept of natural theology seems like it could be fruitful.
I am also anxious to see how he incorporates love into epistemology. Does he mean by this simply giving the benefit of the doubt? If so, then many additional questions follow.