539. Universal and
particular
A perennial quandary in philosophy is the choice and relation between the universal and the particular, and this comes up in various ways in the dilemmas discussed. Universal ideas or rules are fixed and apply everywhere, in contrast with the particular, chaotic, variable and changing phenomena we experience in the world. According to the ancient Greek philosopher Plato universal ideas exist in an ideal world that constitutes what is really real. Many philosophers have been attracted by the pristine clarity, simplicity and certainty of universals, shedding all the confusing variety and variability of experience. Proponents of universals argue that without universals we could not learn from experience, with generalisation from one particular to a similar one, in scientific laws, and there would not be language, with general concepts of things, such as the concept of a cat that covers all cats.
In particular, we need universals, or something at least general,
regarding laws, regulations and morality that do not allow for unspecified
exceptions. Under equal circumstances the same rule should apply, regardless of
the consequences, otherwise we open up to arbitrariness, inside dealing and
corruption. If morals are relative, specific to a person or to the conditions
and history of a nation or community, the arena is wide-open to injustice and
suppression, and international law becomes a matter of power. This is
inevitable. Conflicts are settled by whoever is in the Security Council of the
United Nations.
If there are no universal natural laws, how can we rely on science and
technology, in building and using artifacts? Will you dare cross a bridge? In deontological ethics, Kant’s categorical imperative is universal:
engage only in actions that you would like to raise to a universal principle. The
paradigmatic case is the ancient Golden Rule: do (not) do unto others
what you would (not) want to be done to you.
On the other hand, an opponent of universalism will claim that it has been shown to lead to imperialism, suppression, discrimination and exclusion of those who deviate. In any case, the universal is a prejudice and an illusion. No one can be certain of some idea or ideal, and universality deteriorates into a suppressive ideology. Ideas and ideals arise, develop and change in time. Ideas and presumed laws have changed, even in natural science, and physics is now in turmoil, with rival views.
We have a rule against driving through a red traffic light, but in
Amsterdam, where I live, bicycles, motors and scooters drive through red lights
in throngs. I might do so myself at night, with no other traffic, or if I am
driving a dying person to hospital. I may go against rules out of conviction or
necessity, although I then have to accept the fine. Some people go against the
rules instituted to control Covid-19, and some even call it state terrorism.
In contrast with his former teacher Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher
Aristotle claimed that only the particulars really exist. He did not deny that
there are universals, but those have no existence in a separate world. There is
no world of pure ideas. Aristotle proposed that moral judgement requires phronesis, taking into account
circumstances in making a moral judgement. I cannot be expected to save a
drowning person if I cannot swim, or if I am hand-in-hand with a small child on
a slippery slope. There are lies of goodwill, to avoid hurting someone. But
where does this relativity derail in feeble excuse? Poverty may be an excuse
for theft, but mere desire is not. There are lies of goodwill and lies of
blatant self-interest.
The currently dominant idea in morality is that of utilitarianism, which is a form of
consequentialism, looking only
at outcomes, not motives. By contrast, duty ethics, deontology, looks at
motives, regardless of outcomes. According to the ancient golden rule one should (not) do to others what one does (not) want
done to oneself. But people differ in what they would or would not like to be
done to them. I am not a soccer fan, and would not appreciate a ticket to some
match, but others would. Nevertheless, under same circumstances the rule should
apply. The problem is that circumstances are never exactly the same, and it
requires Aristotelian phronesis to
judge to what extent they are. It is better to speak not of rules but of
principles.
Taoist
philosophy is against universal rules (wu-wei) and in favour of
recognising differences between individuals. Tapping from the Taoist philosophy
of the Zhuangzi (2007), Yong (2005) proposed to replace the Golden Rule with
the ‘Copper Rule’ of ‘Do unto others as they would have us do unto them’. I
would hit only masochists.
My position is that we do need general rules and linguistic and scientific generalities, but those are not strictly universal, yield exceptions, and are provisional, subject to change of our ideas. We once thought that parallel lines do not intersect, but later we found that on a globe they do, like lines of longitude on the world globe. We abhor slavery but once it was part of normal business. The bible does not contest but condones it.
Concerning issues of good and bad, I adopt neither deontology nor
utilitarianism, but Aristotelian virtue
ethics, with the cardinal virtues,
i.e. virtues around which things turn, of prudence, i.e. rational deliberation,
courage, moderation and justice. In its attention to justice virtue ethics is
consequentialist, in its orientation to moderation it is more deontological.
The virtues are not only instrumental in achieving goals, but also have
intrinsic value, as part of the good life, eudaimonia,
in being the person one wants to be.
People live in particularity. Abstractions are manifested in the
particular, and particulars are the soil from which abstractions blossom. This was
discussed before in the notion the hermeneutic
circle from linguistics, which is a circular to-and-fro between a paradigmatic axis and a syntagmatic axis.
The paradigmatic axis is composed of the generalised concepts, of a cat, for
example, and the syntagmatic axis of
particular uses of the concept in specific contexts, in sentences, this
particular cat on the mat. The general concept may be seen as having a variety
of possible particular meanings, in specific things it may refer to. However, I
associate the notion ‘cat’ with my particular tabby, with blue-gray stripes. Particular
things may be odd, exceptional in some way, but remain seen to belong to the
concept, and may in their peculiarity shift the concept, in being included in the
general notion, or may constitute a new notion. I have used the example of a
picture I once saw of someone sitting in a dent in a stuffed cow, with the
caption ‘see him sitting in his cow’. This may lead to a new industry of
manufacturing cow chairs, of different colours of hide (Nooteboom, 2021).
A
point here and in other dilemmas is that the change of meaning and knowledge
never ends. The world is never fully known. Perfection is never achieved. My
motto is imperfection on the move.
One need not accept what we have, and there is always room for improvement, but
that will not achieve perfection either. I find this also in Taoism.
What is the relation between particular and universal or general? The
universalist will see the universal as the essence of a type of thing, and the
particular as a reflection, shadow, or exemplification plus inessential
details. A particularist will see the general as a generalisation or abstraction
of particulars, shedding detailed features, and their history, neglecting what
remains hidden in the particular. The idea that a particular has hidden
features, is partly ‘withdrawn’ goes back to the philosopher Martin Heidegger
(Harman, 2002). Things have a potential that may not yet be manifested, and are
thus not completely shown, and that potential may change.
In linguistics, in a treatment of what meaning is, a distinction was
made (by Frege, see Thiel, 1965) between reference,
what an expression is intended to refer to, as the notion of ‘cat’ refers to
the collection of all cats, and sense
as ‘the way in which something presents itself’. The classic example of sense is
the planet Venus that shows itself at daybreak, and then is called the ‘morning
star’, as well as in the evening, and then is called the ‘evening star’. I turn
the idea of sense around a bit, and see it as the way in which we identify
something as being of a certain kind, such as the cat’s pointed ears, fur, tail
and soft paws with sharp claws. Reference is not ontological but intentional.
We never know whether or to what extent an expression refers to reality, but pragmatically
we do intend to refer. Life would be impractical without it. What a term is
meant to refer to is part of public language, universally shared, with which we
mostly agree, and sense is made up of personal associations by which we
identify the particular as belonging to the general concept. Sense is personal
meaning, connected with particular experiences along the path of one’s life. Reference
is stable, shared and public, sense is variable and personal. As mentioned
before, the French linguist Ferdinand de Saussure called the first ‘langue’ and the second ‘parole’ (Saussure, 1979). In his ‘Other
than being’, Emmanuel Levinas (1991) distinguished between the process of
saying (‘le dire’), comparable to
parole, and its arrest, freezing, in the said (‘le dit’). In linguistics, an idea of how shared, public langue is
related to personal, particular parole, is given in the notion of the hermeneutic
circle, mentioned before, with general, public meanings or langue along the paradigmatic axis, and particular,
situation-specific meanings or parole along the syntagmatic axis. A general
concept, taken from the hermeneutic axis is inserted in a sentence, the syntagmatic axis, in a specific action
context, and becomes a particular. Langue becomes parole. A cloud condenses
into rain. In that sentence the concept can adopt new associations, which when
adopted by others turns into an expansion or shift of the general meaning, and
is adopted in the public meaning along the vertical axis. Together, these
movements between the vertical and horizontal axes constitute a circle. This is
a model of how one can go from order (langue) to disorder (parole) and back
again, in an ongoing development. General concepts also change in the long run.
Order regulates disorder, but is shifted in its practice.
Closely related to the dilemma of universal and
particular is the dilemma of theory and practice. ‘There is nothing more
practical than a good theory’, a scientist says. Theory serves to learn from
experience, identifying regularities across phenomena of a certain kind, with
which one aims to predict, and to which one attributes causes, to infer
appropriate actions. However, this can go too far, in abstraction getting
removed from the issues at hand, dropping significant details, historical
provenance and ignoring alternative perspectives. Theory is a view in a certain
direction, since one cannot look in different directions at the same time, but
practice, as in policy making, cannot afford that, must attend to
particularities, and has to be open to different perspectives. Sociology looks
differently at society than an economist. A mono-disciplinary theory may lead
practice astray, as much economics has done, in market ideology, neglecting
social issues.
The
adequacy of a causal theory to a practice depends on how one treats causality. Concerning
causality, for social science and economics, I adopt an Aristotelian multiple causality of action. The efficient cause is the agent, individual or collective, such as an
organisation. The final cause is the
goal or purpose of the agent. Aristotle made the mistake of applying the final
cause also to nature, as if falling objects home in on the centre of the earth,
but in social sciences it fits. The material
cause is the ‘stuff’ the agent uses, such as the wood of a carpenter. The formal cause is the method, knowledge,
skill or technology that the agent uses. The conditional cause affects the other causes, enabling or blocking
them, such as institutions and markets. The exemplary
cause is the example or model followed.
The exemplary cause can be a design or a role model. A painting of a
phenomenon takes that phenomenon as its exemplary cause. One can take the
conduct of someone as a role model. The interesting thing about such an
exemplary cause is that it allows for variety of interpretation, in the choice
of matter or form. It gives more room for improvisation and personal
interpretation than a direct order, blueprint or rule.
A telling example is that of narrative. In fighting the Covid pandemic,
one can impose rules based on statistics and the arguments of medics, epidemiologists
and hospital management, but one can also, perhaps more effectively, narrate a
poignant case of a strong, young person who disregarded the rules and
succumbed. One can issue a rule, but it will not work until people incorporate
it in their purpose.
Another example is that of a charismatic leader setting an example. Here
also lies the force of ritual. Many people say they cannot join a religious
ritual if they do not have the faith. The philosopher Blaise Pascal said that
you get the faith by performing the ritual. Rational arguments for divinity are
notoriously void, and enacting a religion in ritual is more enticing.
Role models can be constructive but also destructive, as was discussed
in the section on democracy and authoritarianism. It can tempt people away from
rationality and reality, and lure people into destructive or undemocratic ideologies,
as has been demonstrated by president Trump.
Aristotelian multiple causality of action
is part of a more general notion of multiple causality, called ‘causal flock’
by MacCumber (2007: 71-72). Objects and phenomena generally have multiple,
partly sequential, partly simultaneous causes. For an example, take the lamp
giving light on your desk. It is produced by a filament inside the bulb that is
heated to give light from electricity,
but the bulb rests screwed in its socket carried by a ceramic vase made by an
artist, with a lamp shade causing the distribution of light, after a light
switch was thrown by someone, the electricity being fed in along wiring,
produced by a generating station, with labour and management. There is no
clear, sigular causal chain. Which causes you pick out depends on the context,
such as ‘turning on the light’ or ‘paying the electricity bill’, or ‘buying a
bulb’. Here, I adopt the multiple causality of action because action is what I
am interested in.
Questions
-
Can you name a
true universal, admitting of no exceptions
-
Can you give
another example of the dilemma of theory and practice
-
Do you adhere to
utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics, all of them a bit, or none of
them
-
In the above
account of causality, do you miss a cause, which
-
Have you witnessed
positive role models; and negative ones
No comments:
Post a Comment