Hugo lays out in argument here that how one is oriented toward the “Infinite” will determine the destination their philosophy is taking them toward. He draws a straight line from denial of the “Infinite” to nihilism, and further says it results in a philosophy that reduces everything to an answer of “no” which effectively blocks all roads of progress.
The question this brings me to is what should the answer be? If it is a “yes!” to everything that can lead to an equally ineffective philosophical posture where we see possibility everywhere but deny the very real friction needed to actually solve problems. I am no philosopher, but I find that in most cases the best we can do is “perhaps”. Not a finite and final no, not an unfettered yes that ends up in escapism, but a provisional “perhaps” that builds on what we have around us and is chastened enough to focus on what we can control and influence.
For Hugo, philosophy is only valuable if it is built on a foundation of the infinite and it shouldn’t just be focused on progress as an abstract, but specifically pointed at the growth of true faith and love. Quoting him directly:
Progress is the aim: The ideal is the concept. And the ideal is God. Ideal, Absolute, Perfection, Infinite - all these words have the same meaning.
In other words, for Hugo progress cannot be disconnected from the ideal we are moving toward, and that ideal is the “Infinite” itself.