Fair enough.
In this scenario, your "perfection" is defined as "being balanced". That's the ultimate ideal you are trying to achieve and each step towards greater balance is defined as progress. Movement towards imbalance is defined as regress.
I understand that progress does not have to be linear, but within any definition of progress, I think there is some sort of "ideal" (whether attainable or not) which you are aiming for.
In your example, there is the theoretical situation where you no longer need to take any steps but instead achieve a "perfect" balance.
A pendulum is headed towards equilibrium. Not moving, hanging vertically downward as dictated by gravitational forces.
I'm not sure how this would be analogous to humanity's moral, social, political, scientific or philosophical progress. Perhaps you can elaborate.
Fair enough. Lets leave that question alone for this discussion then
This seems to wander into that subjective/objective debate. The people that aren't headed to the summit are still headed
somewhere. Even if our desired destinations are subjective, that is entirely separate from
whether we need to define an ideal/goal/location/destination in order to progress anywhere. Does anyone drive out to the mountains to wander around aimlessly in the forest?
True, but it is likely that you are headed
somewhere. You have some goal, some ideal, some destination. Steps towards that are considered progress while steps away are considered regress.
This is a good point. And perhaps the analogy breaks down here, as all analogies eventually do.
Or perhaps it highlights the problem with human "progress": There is no summit which we have defined as the pinnacle of human achievement. So we will never reach something which is not defined. There is no defined goal, so how can there be progress?
The mountain analogy breaks down because for a mountain climber, the summit is well-defined, attainable and real. Therefore progress is tangible.