Changing the world is not just possible; changing the world is inevitable.
Yes, but...
Granted, the world changes and people are responsible for those changes. However, I think you are a trifle optimistic in assuming that anyone who tries to change the world will succeed. Each change marks where somebody succeeded, but there were a lot of failures along the way.
Two things are needed for people to change the world. The first is the determination to try. The second is a combination of luck and skill/thought. Think of world changing as a lottery. If you don't buy a ticket, you aren't trying and you can't win/change the world. However, trying is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. We remember all of those famous people who changed the world because they succeeded. We don't remember all the ones who tried and failed.
For example, you mentioned the Wright brothers. Yes, they changed the world and we all remember them for it. How many remember Samuel Langley? He was a contemporary of the Wrights and tried very hard to change the world too, but he didn't get the details right and now he is just a historical footnote.
Arguably for Horowitz, he hadn't had any success changing the world (his life experience) so he had stopped trying. Since he wasn't trying, it really was impossible for him to change the world. Being a conservative, he may also have another problem with world changing, because some of the changes sought by some conservatives really are impossible.
From the outside, it looks like a significant number of conservatives would like to change the world and move it back to a supposedly simpler and better time. Regardless of whether their view of the past is idealized or not (I'm sure it is, but it doesn't matter for this argument), they can't really accomplish their goals. Even if, for example, they tried to change US society so that it would recreate US social conditions circa the 1950s, it would be impossible. The society of the 50s functioned without positive knowledge that there are other ways of doing things. That knowledge now exists and can't be eliminated. No matter how much some conservatives would like to go back to the culture of the 50s, it can't be done. For just one example, women now make up half the US workforce. I can't begin to imagine how most women could be persuaded to not work and stay at home. Even if there was a way to do that, the country could not afford it. So even if the 50s really was a golden age (I am quite sure it wasn't, particularly if you weren't a white male) we can not go back to it. That particular change is an impossible dream (imho, a damned good thing too).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-01-01 12:56 am (UTC)Yes, but...
Granted, the world changes and people are responsible for those changes. However, I think you are a trifle optimistic in assuming that anyone who tries to change the world will succeed. Each change marks where somebody succeeded, but there were a lot of failures along the way.
Two things are needed for people to change the world. The first is the determination to try. The second is a combination of luck and skill/thought. Think of world changing as a lottery. If you don't buy a ticket, you aren't trying and you can't win/change the world. However, trying is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. We remember all of those famous people who changed the world because they succeeded. We don't remember all the ones who tried and failed.
For example, you mentioned the Wright brothers. Yes, they changed the world and we all remember them for it. How many remember Samuel Langley? He was a contemporary of the Wrights and tried very hard to change the world too, but he didn't get the details right and now he is just a historical footnote.
Arguably for Horowitz, he hadn't had any success changing the world (his life experience) so he had stopped trying. Since he wasn't trying, it really was impossible for him to change the world. Being a conservative, he may also have another problem with world changing, because some of the changes sought by some conservatives really are impossible.
From the outside, it looks like a significant number of conservatives would like to change the world and move it back to a supposedly simpler and better time. Regardless of whether their view of the past is idealized or not (I'm sure it is, but it doesn't matter for this argument), they can't really accomplish their goals. Even if, for example, they tried to change US society so that it would recreate US social conditions circa the 1950s, it would be impossible. The society of the 50s functioned without positive knowledge that there are other ways of doing things. That knowledge now exists and can't be eliminated. No matter how much some conservatives would like to go back to the culture of the 50s, it can't be done. For just one example, women now make up half the US workforce. I can't begin to imagine how most women could be persuaded to not work and stay at home. Even if there was a way to do that, the country could not afford it. So even if the 50s really was a golden age (I am quite sure it wasn't, particularly if you weren't a white male) we can not go back to it. That particular change is an impossible dream (imho, a damned good thing too).