Does tradition hinder progress?

[DerfMidWest]

We were recently discussing this subject in my sociology class and I found it to be kind of interesting.

Tradition is the passing on of customs, beliefs, and/or ways of life.

Should we do things a certain way simply because we always have?

Keep in mind, tradition is not just things like celebrating a certain holiday. It is also the way in which we live our lives.
i.e. the traditional family: Man works, woman stays home takes care of children and such

I'm having a little trouble wording this, but I hope it makes enough sense to invoke discussion.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

This is easy since it is something that has always been very certain to me.

Traditions poison the well, and although there is nothing wrong about them innately, carrying them out is fine as long as it doesn't discourage any new practices or make certain unnecessary things have to occur. Things like taking your hat off in a building, or even proper eating etiquite, to me seems like a form of tradition and only done because it was done before, and no more thought was put into it than that. The only reason that can be said from them is that it is rude. Oddly enough, an further reasoning as to why such things are rude doesn't get much out of them. That is why I link it with tradition, it was simply done because we are a pattern seeking race and we do things that have been done before like myrmidons. Traditions force things upon family members that don't feel the way that people did earlier in the family, or simply how their parents feel. Religious matters or the family business type things fit this well, and is almost like people enjoy creating patterns, even at the sake of your child's wishes.

So I think we should always look out for when our pattern-seeking minds threaten productivity or moral boundaries. Though, ones that do not, shouldn't be avoided simply because we make a habit out of certain things, a lot of that is calming and healthy.

 

[Jim Morrison]

I'm going to have to say no, tradition is what creates progress. Traditions are put in place, some people disagree with this tradition. People that would rather see the tradition go try innovative ways of thinking/going about things and create new... things.
I really don't see how there can not be traditions in the first place. If there wasn't a traditional way to practice biology (accepting Darwin's theory blindly and basing all your biological ideas of that), then would there also be revolt against the current tradition to go out thinking in different ways and making progress?

It's also really hard to determine what is actually progress? We say we made progress because of our newly-found understanding of DNA, but we just changed the general paradigm in another direction. We still have no idea what we're doing with DNA, still something intangible we just made a model for which we, so far, hope is correct.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I think you mix up tradition and a system. Yeah, we discover systems in science, mathematics, and ways to solve the puzzles we encounter everyday, and we do them because they work, and most of the time there is no other method. Traditions are something arbitrary and not required to fulfill any sort of purpose, tradition is done for tradition's sake. Everything else has a higher purpose that transcends the repetitious process.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Excuse me on that I guess lol.

Still want to know, how would you define progress and if what you get from aboloshing tradition is actually progress?

 

[DerfMidWest]

I think that progress is a subjective term, and in being so, it is hard to define.
I'd say progress is change for the better.
Finding/correcting the flaws of any given aspect/idea/thing.
Progress is changing something in an attempt to perfect it, or get as close as humanly possible.
Progress is the process of obtaining one's goals and fulfilling the goals of society.

at least, in my opinion.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Well, if you want to be technical, any physical progressions be it destructive or productive could be considered progress. Ideas in our minds that transform, expand, or alter could be considered progress in a chronological sense. But I assume you mean primarily increasing efficiency or reaching an end which is another sense of the word. So I guess there is chronological process and efficiency processes, and then traditions and systems. (It's fun coming up with terms. :D)

Tradition accomplishes its end, its end being itself. There could be traditions that do indeed progress in the efficiency sense, but it is only a system unless there isn't any progression upon the tradition itself, as in the process remains the same. These kinds of traditions aren't damaging, not even counter-productive, but we should always be looking for innovation, even at the cost of periodically losing efficiency. It is all a part of the learning and evolving process, trial and error. Looking for perfection is something a lot of people scoff at, because they assume pretentiousness at the very air of the word, but the thing is it is impossible to achieve it, all things in life know this, all chasing after perfection means is mastering skills, expanding knowledge, and fighting bigger hurdles to jump over.

If you look closely in how humans interact socially, and how all things in nature work, you'll see how everything is influenced by progression change, a constant flux. We get tired of things that don't challenge us so we aim higher, we get better, we look for fleeting excitement constantly. We always wonder if what we are doing could be better, and we should. That is a healthy, educational, and natural perspective on seeing all things. The difficulty is making sure we don't do changes for changing sake (even people jumping out of relationships once the early "Honeymoon" phase is over because the initial excitement is over and things level off), or keeping things the same for keeping sake. Though of course innocent little rituals that we have, our typical motions through the days, there is nothing wrong with getting used to them and having a predilection to them, but we must keep in mind that it is illogical to get upset and angry when that tradition is strayed from.

Not sure if I strayed from topic with that, it wasn't very "debate" sounding, but you get the point.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Well, if you want to be technical, any physical progressions be it destructive or productive could be considered progress. Ideas in our minds that transform, expand, or alter could be considered progress in a chronological sense. But I assume you mean primarily increasing efficiency or reaching an end which is another sense of the word. So I guess there is chronological process and efficiency processes, and then traditions and systems. (It's fun coming up with terms. :D)

I'm going on a wild-ball here and say that progress differs from person to person, depending on what you find more important.
Say, if someone was a devout Christian and truly believed in heaven, it would be nothing but the opposite of progress if we were to remove his traditions like going to Church.
If you look at it from an atheist point of view (the most general accepted view on this site), it would prove no advantage and hinder progress since it would take time out of your sunday.
If you look at it from the Christian point of view, more people holding true to the tradition would be progress, since it's the way to get everyone to heaven, which is obviously progress for everyone!

This is when we touch the unbreakable and relatively new paradigm of atheism, of looking coldly at everything on a reductionist level, of only caring about the physical and measurable, which you would be foolish to push against.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

Well, if you want to be technical, any physical progressions be it destructive or productive could be considered progress. Ideas in our minds that transform, expand, or alter could be considered progress in a chronological sense. But I assume you mean primarily increasing efficiency or reaching an end which is another sense of the word. So I guess there is chronological process and efficiency processes, and then traditions and systems. (It's fun coming up with terms. :D)

Similar to Guus, I'm going to say that progress / progressions have to beneficial to be considered actual progress. "Destructive progress" doesn't exist, and even if it did, it'd be difficult to find it in some form which actually benefits people. Progress is a way of making persons / the world increasingly better in various fields, politically, medicinally, etc. etc. With the examples Guus provided, it's clear that the idea and concept of progress is subjective to each person, but there are still instances with a type of progression can be considered universally objective--say, finding the cure for cancer. As such, it can be all up to the opinions of one person to determine whether or not traditions hinder progress (again, because the idea of progress is subjective).

How exactly do you argue against or justify that tradition is simply done for tradition's sake? I'm not for or against this specific argument, but I'm curious as to why you worded it the way you did. Hopefully I can discuss more on this later.

 

[Jim Morrison]

Finding a cure for cancer has nothing to do with tradition though, see:

I think you mix up tradition and a system. Yeah, we discover systems in science, mathematics, and ways to solve the puzzles we encounter everyday, and we do them because they work, and most of the time there is no other method. Traditions are something arbitrary and not required to fulfill any sort of purpose, tradition is done for tradition's sake. Everything else has a higher purpose that transcends the repetitious process.

Of course, there's universal progress, but saying that certain (arbitrary as said in above post) traditions hold back universal progress is something that doesn't sit well with me.

 

[Terywj [태리]]

I know, but I was just referencing subjective progress vs. objective progress as a whole, I have not gotten into the stuff regarding tradition and progress yet, I'm waiting for Holder's response before I can piece something together.

 

[_Rocky_]

While having traditions might not hinder our technical progress (although some customs will still do so, look at religious opposition to stem cell research for example), bad habits can come out of something you do because it's always been done. If humanity as a race wishes to progress, I believe that we will have to look to what we do, retain the good things and throw away what only does harm.

This is speaking from a global/societal standpoint but much of it still applies to the lone individual.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

I'm going on a wild-ball here and say that progress differs from person to person, depending on what you find more important.
Say, if someone was a devout Christian and truly believed in heaven, it would be nothing but the opposite of progress if we were to remove his traditions like going to Church.
If you look at it from an atheist point of view (the most general accepted view on this site), it would prove no advantage and hinder progress since it would take time out of your sunday.
If you look at it from the Christian point of view, more people holding true to the tradition would be progress, since it's the way to get everyone to heaven, which is obviously progress for everyone!

This is when we touch the unbreakable and relatively new paradigm of atheism, of looking coldly at everything on a reductionist level, of only caring about the physical and measurable, which you would be foolish to push against.

Well yes, all progressive ideas are two dimensional, as in that they simply cannot go from A and B, but more like a flat disc with an infinite amount of ways to progress and towards different things. Physical progression is objective and applies to everyone, but not the things that go on in our minds that are different with each and every person. For every reason why someone could find losing Church as a bad thing, another could find a benefit from it, even if they're Christian. It really depends on what direction you want to take it on that infinite disc. Now although objectively it does take time out of their day, but subjectively the person who goes may feel that they are emotionally rejuvenated by going, or they can stay in touch with friends and family (that is more objective but alterable), completely irrespective of wanting God's favor. In such a case, it'd be hard to tell them to stop, other than suggesting find other ways to hold onto your loved ones and also master your emotions better or to find a replacement rejuvenating activity or so on.

Similar to Guus, I'm going to say that progress / progressions have to beneficial to be considered actual progress. "Destructive progress" doesn't exist, and even if it did, it'd be difficult to find it in some form which actually benefits people. Progress is a way of making persons / the world increasingly better in various fields, politically, medicinally, etc. etc. With the examples Guus provided, it's clear that the idea and concept of progress is subjective to each person, but there are still instances with a type of progression can be considered universally objective--say, finding the cure for cancer. As such, it can be all up to the opinions of one person to determine whether or not traditions hinder progress (again, because the idea of progress is subjective).

Would you consider the gradual unraveling of chromosomes in our body that eventually leaves us to our deaths to be a progress? Or a disease spreading through the body as a progress? Something is progressing, something is going through its purposeful cycle. As would transforming into a werewolf, regardless if you thought that was the worst possible thing at the moment. I think you're looking at it in the sense that has been conditioned through conversational use of the word, which happened to someone on here with the word faith. We humans don't go watching someone dying from cancer and go, "Oh look! Progress! " But a progress of a kind is still taking place. So in a sense, there is a objective chronological progress that happens step by step a la nature and the idea, more personal, subjective efficiency progress, for what is beneficial to one may be devastating to another.

How exactly do you argue against or justify that tradition is simply done for tradition's sake? I'm not for or against this specific argument, but I'm curious as to why you worded it the way you did. Hopefully I can discuss more on this later.

I worded it the way I did because I mentioned some things that we humans do, just like the monkey picture suggests, is that humans are made up of almost 90% of things that we do that we simply do because we have had it happen before or that is simply supposed to be done, and when asked why we people have always done it, we go, "I'm not sure, but we do it." Those types of things rule our lives because they are so consistent, that is why wisdom is like gold to us (as in knowledge with understanding, simply saying we have always done it is a piece of knowledge, but none too helpful and comprehensive), we need to use it to make sure people aren't coaxed into doing things that can hurt our progressions, slowing them, or simply doing things that do not have any meaning and are completely arbitrary. Now a lot of it is indeed in everyway harmless, and it would be actually harmful to attack all things that reach or have reached tradition status. I suppose destructive, immoral, and counter-productive traditions need to be cut, but arbitrary ones that do not enforce anything upon anyone (immoral) or put a stopper to our efficiency progressions, or harm our physical progressions. (Though it is my personal opinion that traditions that expect or inhibit others are immoral, even if just a little like "removal of hats in buildings" or expecting prudent manners like mentioned earlier, etc etc.)

 

[GofG]

Hate to enter late with completely new points without responding to any of the previous posts, but I am going to do exactly that.

The relationship between tradition and progress is complicated, yet discrete and calculable, and is almost certainly negatively correlated.

Progress might be defined as shifting the weight of our belief to be closer to what is empirically true (making our maps more closely resemble the territory they represent).

Tradition, for all of its positives (I cannot think of any but don't want to say so in a non-parenthetical), is entirely generated by a very negative heuristic: The Nostalgia bias, which has been extremely prevalent in human society. It goes something like, "The world at some point in the past was ideal, and has slowly been in decline ever since." This statement is absolutely ludicrous, and yet believed on both small and large scales by the vast majority of humans who ever lived (The Fall from Grace, when I was your age, etc).

Take, for example, the Inquisition. They believed that it was okay to torture people who disagreed with their beliefs. This is because to them, any deviation from their beliefs represents another piece of diamond chipped off of the central belief, falling irrecoverably into the void of chaos and entropy. When you take their assumptions at face value, it becomes very easy to justify almost anything to conserve the truth. This is the negative side of tradition (again, any positive sides?).

It's easy to say, at this point, "The Inquisition thought they had the truth, and look what happened! The truth is dangerous!" This is fallacious: I believe that I have the truth about 2+2 equaling 4. I wholeheartedly believe this. Why do I not go around torturing people who disagree? Why to chemists not torture the people who disagree with atomic theory? Why is their 'tradition' not similar to the 'tradition' of the Inquisition?

I just realized I am pretty hung up on this whole experimental verification thing, because there's our answer: If the Inquisition's tradition gets replaced by some other tradition, there is no way to recover it. It will never return. On the other hand, if Atomic Theory gets replaced by some other tradition, it can be regenerated at any point through the experimental method. It is a fact about the universe which can be rediscovered at any time by anyone. And if Atomic Theory is wrong, then the new theory which replaces it will better align with the results of experiments than it did. This is the definition of progress.

The ideal world is not in the past. It is in the future. That is why tradition hinders progress.

i will now read this thread. e: not much for me to comment on