Plenty of progress isn’t done by scientists who do science for science’s sake but by engineers.
Now I’m not a leftist or Marxist or anything but bourgeoise is a thing and Enlightment Era has been started by them not for the sake of progress but for the sake of themselves.
Bourgeoise essentially means “middle-class” in today’s terms. What’s wrong with the middle-class from your perspective?
Capitalist success lies in its ability to utilize economical/technological progress for the sake of a very large group which, as the living conditions went better and better, included nearly all of the society.
I never claimed there is something wrong with bourgeoise....
Progress, aka moving forward from current state of art is done by inventing things which requires one to know the fundamental principles in his field. Scientist is not a job but engineer is. One can be scientist and engineer at the same time.
Bourgeoise is essentially, through leftist/marxist narrative, a group of people who held capital. And they used this capital to finance scientists of their time or they were those scientists, and through that they ensured economical progress.
The main argument here is that a group/class of people ensure progress for their own betterment. If we would like to have a philosophy for progressivism, we need to have an agenda. For whom this progress is for? And how to finance it? What is our moral foundation of operating this progress? And so on.
Just because I’ve used couple of terms people are automatically putting me into leftist category.
Anyway, agenda is not about how something is equally distributed. It is about a holistic perspective.
Possible effects of innovation and progress on arts, health, architecture, social disciplines, culture in general etc. must be planned properly to not only to ensure progress but create an actual civilization/culture of progress, innovation.
To plan that you need to have very firm values, be it economic and social to build that culture on it.
Bourgeoisie is not a word that meant in Marx time everybody who makes the bulk of their money via rents from capital.
Middle class people who just own their own house and all professions (including groups like carpenters) were bourgeoisie. In the earlier part of the 19th century most of the capital wasn’t held by the bourgeoisie but by aristocrats. By the time Marx writes The Capital businesses run dy the bourgeoisie amassed enough capital to make them more economically powerful then the aristocrats but the bourgeoisie was still a much larger group of people than just those who owned the new businesses of the industrial revolution. Middle class people were still bourgeoisie.
Patronage is in spirit not very bourgeoisie and if you look at the Wikipedia article it suggests nobel (which means aristocrat and not bourgeoise) and religious patronage as being important but doesn’t say anything about bourgeois patronage existing in a significant manner before the 20th century.
Thomas Kuhn makes the point that academic fields where researchers don’t follow external agenda but are driven by the scientific quest to understand their field better are more productive the fields where scientists follow external agenda like education research (Or even worse domestic science).
Plenty of progress isn’t done by scientists who do science for science’s sake but by engineers.
Bourgeoise essentially means “middle-class” in today’s terms. What’s wrong with the middle-class from your perspective?
Capitalist success lies in its ability to utilize economical/technological progress for the sake of a very large group which, as the living conditions went better and better, included nearly all of the society.
Problem is we are not at that stage anymore.
I never claimed there is something wrong with bourgeoise....
Progress, aka moving forward from current state of art is done by inventing things which requires one to know the fundamental principles in his field. Scientist is not a job but engineer is. One can be scientist and engineer at the same time.
Bourgeoise is essentially, through leftist/marxist narrative, a group of people who held capital. And they used this capital to finance scientists of their time or they were those scientists, and through that they ensured economical progress.
The main argument here is that a group/class of people ensure progress for their own betterment. If we would like to have a philosophy for progressivism, we need to have an agenda. For whom this progress is for? And how to finance it? What is our moral foundation of operating this progress? And so on.
I don’t agree with the necessity. To me it is more important that a glorious future arrive than how evenly distributed it is.
Just because I’ve used couple of terms people are automatically putting me into leftist category.
Anyway, agenda is not about how something is equally distributed. It is about a holistic perspective.
Possible effects of innovation and progress on arts, health, architecture, social disciplines, culture in general etc. must be planned properly to not only to ensure progress but create an actual civilization/culture of progress, innovation.
To plan that you need to have very firm values, be it economic and social to build that culture on it.
Thats what I am emphasizing on.
Bourgeoisie is not a word that meant in Marx time everybody who makes the bulk of their money via rents from capital.
Middle class people who just own their own house and all professions (including groups like carpenters) were bourgeoisie. In the earlier part of the 19th century most of the capital wasn’t held by the bourgeoisie but by aristocrats. By the time Marx writes The Capital businesses run dy the bourgeoisie amassed enough capital to make them more economically powerful then the aristocrats but the bourgeoisie was still a much larger group of people than just those who owned the new businesses of the industrial revolution. Middle class people were still bourgeoisie.
Patronage is in spirit not very bourgeoisie and if you look at the Wikipedia article it suggests nobel (which means aristocrat and not bourgeoise) and religious patronage as being important but doesn’t say anything about bourgeois patronage existing in a significant manner before the 20th century.
Thomas Kuhn makes the point that academic fields where researchers don’t follow external agenda but are driven by the scientific quest to understand their field better are more productive the fields where scientists follow external agenda like education research (Or even worse domestic science).
If that would be true we wouldn’t have so many young successful startup founders.