I have misunderstood your vision, which appears to be to create a new branch of history:
Our vision is that in ten years, there are hundreds of progress intellectuals who are alums of our program and part of our network, and that they have published shelves full of new books in progress studies.
I had thought you were interested in trying to figure out how to reinvigorate the rate of progress, which some consider to have stalled.
I’m a little surprised and confused by that comment. It seems a bit like telling Sloan Kettering, “I have misunderstood your vision, which appears to be to create a new branch of biology… I had thought you were interested in trying to figure out how to cure cancer.”
I have misunderstood your vision, which appears to be to create a new branch of history:
I had thought you were interested in trying to figure out how to reinvigorate the rate of progress, which some consider to have stalled.
I’m a little surprised and confused by that comment. It seems a bit like telling Sloan Kettering, “I have misunderstood your vision, which appears to be to create a new branch of biology… I had thought you were interested in trying to figure out how to cure cancer.”
Certainly, I am ultimately interested in sustaining and accelerating progress. (I would be whether or not it had stalled—indeed, I was skeptical of the stagnation hypothesis until I was a couple of years into this project.) I think that in order to do that, we need intellectual work to better understand and appreciate progress.
I wouldn’t call it a new branch of history, but maybe an interdisciplinary area that combines history, economics, and philosophy.