Does the idea of progress corrupt philosophy?

Philosophy has both progressive and conservative functions, and these functions are intertwined.

Philosophy produces various ideas on progress. What some philosophers define as progress, other philosophers define as regression. With diverse philosophies, there are various sayings on what progress is.

There is no consensus in Philosophy about the most correct definition for progress. Philosophy conserves the difficulty for reaching consensus; it makes it difficult for philosophers to arrive at a consensus on the definitions for philosophical concepts. In philosophy, it is the most persuasive arguments that hold the power. Philosophers are encouraged to define concepts in whatever way they think is most truthful so long as they are prepared to provide reasoned arguments for their claims.

Individual philosophies can hold corrupt views about what progress is. Some definitions of progress are right; others are wrong; most are both right and wrong in profoundly qualified ways. Philosophy attempts to maximize the accuracy of its definitions and minimize their wrongness; Philosophy works to improve the precision of its definitions.

The various ideas on progress compete among the many ideas that Philosophy scrutinizes through arguments, reasoning, and logic. In that competition, the objections of other philosophers must be addressed. Philosophy professors expect their students to know about past philosophers and to identify in qualified, precise ways how other philosophers' views are similar to, not only different from, their own. Students are trained to be able to identify and respond to the objections that past (and contemporary) philosophers would pose to the students' views. Thus, Philosophy has a conservative function that it recognizes it must keep to be epistemically progressive.

Philosophy seeks to progress towards greater truths, while it conserves the openness of the deemed truths to future scrutiny.

The concept of being a "student" of philosophy necessarily implies the existence of a teacher, doesn't it? The teacher, if a teacher is anything, has something to pass on to the student - not necessarily "factual" information, but at least established tools with which to learn, challenge, discover, etc. Also, if philosophy can be said to have "always been" anything, that is a way of saying there is something established that is accepted.

Of course, constantly re-examining what has been established by past (or present) generations is an important tool of philosophy. To assume everything that has been established is worthless, though, is as flawed as it is to assume everything that has been established is correct.

Progress, as I understand it, does not require burying the past. In fact, the past must be examined before any change can be called "progress." If we accept this, philosophy - in the sense of critically examining ideas and seeking knowledge and/or understanding - does not seem to be at odds with progress. So long as progress's forward motion allows for backward examination, the two ideas need not be diametrically opposed.

I don't think that progress corrupts philosophy, rather philosophy is a measure of progress and consequently is continually changing as progress occurs moving forward. Philosophy rarely if ever retreats, it may change course but is always moving forward. Successive philosophers seem to primarily modify their predecessors ideas building them towards a conclusion.

Philosophy is only rebellious when it encounters a concept that impedes the progress. The challenge in examining accepted ideas is initiated by changes in the underlying principles. A student should be openminded, yet it would be a merciless waste of the work of the great minds that have preceed us to unceremoniously trash their work. New heights are reached by us being lifted up on their backs.

I see two questions, the first; progress can test philosophies, if they are not solid, then they were corrupt from the beginning.

second;

The student I feel, should test his predecessors, and form their own conclusions as "how" the philosophy applies to them or a more modern interpretation of its application, there lies the opportunity to corrupt ...!..? so maybe it does, or maybe it is the individuals responsibility to not corrupt philosophy for self gain or to twist it to "fit" in the line of progress. ? ok, taking the long way to figure this out. Progress corrupts philosophers! I just have a certain respect for philosophy and do not want to feel it can be corrupted if it is solid. Science that still has "theory" is not totally proven, even if philosophy is used to fill in the unexplainable until proof can be obtained. But steps are necessary and sometimes it takes generations to discover the truth in a particular subject. To conclude, I would say "No", but progress can corrupt philosophers.

No. We as a human history have seen (in most instances) that the idea or formula has been thought up or mapped out through an intuitive navigation system. If you do not know where you are or where you're going, yet are progressing forward, that seems like a philosophical perspective. I think the corruption occurs during the refinement of the explanation. Its easy to dream a philosophy but its hard to progress to the answer or formula. And it seems as though not matter how hard or complex these results may be, the results seem to be elementary to the listener. I think its very wise to learn through history, and bad to get caught up in it or bury it.

I agree with your last sentence, there is nothing wrong with a little testicular fortitude when examining ideas - even those of the greats. Not skepticism, but a vigorous exploration of the ideas. But I don't see "progress" as something that has infiltrated philosophy. Bodies of knowledge have always been expanding and elaborated on, so much so that philosophy teachers sometimes fail to elaborate on the historical context of writing on complementary topics.

"Progress" implies a teleology, so any philosophy that believes (even implicitly) in progress ought first examine and justify its presumed (or assumed) telos.

So, to answer your question: Yes, the student should accept nothing as established in every generation and be willing to mercilessly chop at what his predecessors believe that they have established.

The relationship between the history of philosophy and the philosophy of history is an interesting one, and well worth studying.

You make a good point, but no the idea of progress doesn't corrupt philosophy, because neither is sound they both change and evolve depending on the environment.Progress is not only for science, it is necessary for every aspect of our lives,so in a way philosophy and progress need each other.

Yes. Every previous idea and notion must be scrapped, rejected and abandoned along with it's teacher, guru, whatever. At the heart of that act is the 'thing' mankind looks to this incessant blathering for. Banish the teacher, destroy his teachings and reject every belief you have ever held to find this 'thing'.

Progress is only the collecting of dead ideas. None of it can touch life.