James writes:
Material progress is not up for discussion.
Why not? Becuse uyou say it isn't or because all material progress is good? And if it all material progress is good, why is it so?
Moral progress is something reactionaries worry about.
Again, why? Don't progressives have a stake in the moral development of society, in shaping/influencing the discourses/rhetoric around moral issues?
> There's something that we might call existential progress.
Are we happy/equal/just etc?
How did "just" jump from the moral to existential category of progress?