First, Daniel C Dennett writes an enthusiastic review of a book about how we became WEIRD. Here are some parts (from the New York Times):
How the West Became Psychologically Peculiar and Particularly Prosperous
By Joseph Henrich
According to copies of copies of fragments of ancient texts, Pythagoras in about 500 B.C. exhorted his followers: Don’t eat beans! Why
he issued this prohibition is anybody’s guess (Aristotle thought he
knew), but it doesn’t much matter because the idea never caught on.
According to Joseph Henrich, some unknown early church fathers about a thousand years later promulgated the edict: Don’t marry your cousin!
Why they did this is also unclear, but if Henrich is right — and he
develops a fascinating case brimming with evidence — this prohibition
changed the face of the world, by eventually creating societies and
people that were WEIRD: Western, educated, industrialized, rich,
democratic.
In the argument put forward in this engagingly written, excellently
organized and meticulously argued book, this simple rule triggered a
cascade of changes, creating states to replace tribes, science to
replace lore and law to replace custom. If you are reading this you are
very probably WEIRD, and so are almost all of your friends and
associates, but we are outliers on many psychological measures.
The world today has billions of inhabitants who have minds strikingly
different from ours. Roughly, we weirdos are individualistic, think
analytically, believe in free will, take personal responsibility, feel
guilt when we misbehave and think nepotism is to be vigorously
discouraged, if not outlawed. Right? They (the non-WEIRD majority)
identify more strongly with family, tribe, clan and ethnic group, think
more “holistically,” take responsibility for what their group does (and
publicly punish those who besmirch the group’s honor), feel shame — not
guilt — when they misbehave and think nepotism is a natural duty....
WEIRD folk are the more recent development, growing out of the
innovation of agriculture about 10,000 years ago, the birth of states
and organized religions about 3,000 years ago, then becoming
“proto-WEIRD” over the last 1,500 years (thanks to the prohibition on
marrying one’s cousin), culminating in the biologically sudden arrival
of science, industry and the “modern” world during the last 500 years or
so. WEIRD minds evolved by natural selection, but not by genetic selection; they evolved by the natural selection of cultural practices and other culturally transmitted items.
Sounds interesting. Other reviews have appeared in The Atlantic and (ugh) Quillete, amongst other places.
Secondly, a short article at Philosophy Now makes the case that Kant was pretty progressive in his thoughts on history:
In 1784, three years after the publication of his Critique of Pure Reason,
Kant published a curious article in a prominent intellectual newspaper
titled: ‘Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Perspective’.
Made up of nine Propositions, the article attempted to outline the
necessary elements a future historian would have to consider if he or
she wanted to compile a universal human history. This may not seem like
such a curious idea today, as we see this type of history frequently
published, with various subjects as their catalyst. For example, Jared
Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel (1997) or Harari’s Sapiens
(2015) are both attempts to construct a universal history from a
particular point of view. But what is curious about Kant’s short article
is its discussion of conflict in history, as well as nature’s role in
conflicts....
In Kant’s view history tells us that conflict is not simply a set of
randomly occurring mindless acts, nor is it a sign that we are heading
toward an apocalyptical nightmare. Rather, there is something integral
to all conflicts no matter how multifarious they are and in what context
they appear.
In Proposition Four, Kant outlines a notion commonly linked to a
concept of the ‘cunning of nature’ (Hegel’s later doctrine of the
‘cunning of reason’ is a clear reference to Kant). The cunning of nature
involves a feature of human social interaction which Kant calls
‘unsociable sociability’, which he defines as the human “tendency to
enter into society, a tendency connected, however, with a constant
resistance that continually threatens to break up this society.” Put
simply, it is a natural human inclination to connect with other people
and to be part of a larger whole; yet it is also part of our natural
inclination to destroy these social bonds through isolationism and
divisiveness. Kant argues that this dichotomy is the source of all human
conflict, even attributing conflict between states as emanating from
unsociable sociability: countries entering into conflict break sociable
links, resulting in a state of war. We need only look at the Cold War
for a striking example of unsociable sociability propelling states into
dangerous and unresolvable deadlocks.
Yet Kant also attributes historical progress to it – which means that
unsociable sociability is responsible for humanity developing toward
more enlightened states. Without the antagonistic aspect of humanity,
Kant thinks we wouldn’t be compelled to grow culturally or
intellectually. In these senses, unsociable sociability is the driving
force behind all human history.....
.....According to Kant’s Proposition Five, the point toward which human historical development tends is a perfectly just civil constitution,
meaning an egalitarian or ‘cosmopolitan’ society where all are welcome,
and equal. Kant attributes this utopian goal also to unsociable
sociability, because we may learn from the conflicts it catapults us
into. This is the crux of Kant’s article, and perhaps its most peculiar
feature: unsociable sociability pushes human beings into conflict with
each other, forcing them to learn how and how not to treat one another,
and so develop moral laws. Moreover, according to Kant, this will all
lead to a state whereby conflict is necessarily eventually abolished.
Hence the cunning of nature: conflict occurs in the pursuit of a
developmental end we are oblivious to by helping us learn from the
mistakes made in history on both an individual and a global level. In a
note from 1776, Kant already had a clear inkling of this idea, writing,
“The useful aim of philosophical history consists in the preservation of
good models and the display of instructive mistakes.”
I think this teaches us a key lesson about today. It is easy to lose
sight of our ability to construct laws and institutions which prevent
harm to others. It’s easy to look at the social and political situation,
globally or in our own country, and determine that things can never
improve – that we’re on course to collide with catastrophe. What Kant
teaches us is that no matter how unlikely it appears, we must not lose
hope that a perfectly just society is possible, and that the social
antagonisms and conflicts we see are steps toward this goal. Without
this hope we are rendered powerless to change anything.
I like his optimism. And how ironic is it that to fulfil his vision, the side of politics in America that is most aligned in his stern view of morals is the one that must be defeated in order to make for a better future.