There's no purpose. Civilization is simply the result of a group of individuals living together. Those individuals might reach a consensus on that something has to be constructed or achieved and those things might change over time or evolve but that is unrelated to the concept of civilization as such.

>>347
Isn't the basic tenet of progressivism that we are changing toward something, rather than flailing about aimlessly? Is progressivism just wrong?

Isn't there real advancement every time there is a major breakthrough in our understanding of the world, such as in the industrial revolution? Are we not continually adapting the world to our will, thus improving it, or rather improving our condition in the world? Isn't this what civilization is for? If not, doesn't that imply we don't really need it? And if we don't need it, why do we build it? Why not live in caves or mud huts the way birds live in nests instead?

It just seems like there is an ultimate end in the activity of civilization-building; a logical conclusion that our initial drive to create civilization can be taken to. Because a drive without a purpose doesn't have a reason for being, and so can't exist. It's just not clear to me what that purpose could be.

>>348
>Isn't there real advancement every time there is a major breakthrough in our understanding of the world
Yes.

>Are we not continually adapting the world to our will, thus improving it, or rather improving our condition in the world?
Yes.

>Isn't this what civilization is for?
It might be what some people would claim civilization is for, but a civilization that went in a completely different direction or choose to get rid of all these advancements within science would still be a civilization and thus it can't be the purpose of civilization.

>If not, doesn't that imply we don't really need it?
No.

>And if we don't need it, why do we build it?
We build it because we do need it, because many of us wouldn't be alive today without it and it makes our lives that much easier on a day-to-day basis. That does not mean that civilization has a set purpose, rather it will never reach a conclusion but will only keep on evolving over time.

>It just seems like there is an ultimate end in the activity of civilization-building; a logical conclusion that our initial drive to create civilization can be taken to.
There isn't, and the thought that there is has been an underlying reason for many of the most harmful ideologies and philosophies in our history; the idea that there is a utopia to be reached.

I wonder if it makes sense that we can ask such a question. Rorty thought so and said that we do progress.