596 What now?
Using the work of Stephen Toulmin, in the preceding
items of this blog I gave a rather grim survey of the development of thought in
Europe since the 16th century. According to Toulmin’s analysis, In
the 20th and 21st century, we have, regained some
perspectives from the 16th century Renaissance, such as
individuality, diversity, globalisation, scepticism, attention to practical
affairs, and receptiveness to emotions next to reason. In the second half of the
20th century, and in the 21st century, we have turned
back, in some respects, to old perspectives that developed from the 17th
century, in particular universalism, absolutism, nationalism, isolationism, and
an inclination towards authoritarianism. As an underlying inclination towards this
and 17th century thought, Toulin suggested a desire for certainty
and hierarchy, assumed to be needed for order.
Individuality has now derailed into egotism,
narcissism, and openness to emotions has evolved to the point of their dominance, in irrationality and disregard of
knowledge, logic and facts, in a slide into emotional outbursts, lies, fake
news, false accusations, in particular on social media, which is destroying
mutual trust between people, and between voters and government. Humanism is
fading away again
I am quite pessimistic about current developments, but
someone said that one has a duty to exhibit optimism, and design futures of a
possible better society. So, what could an attractive future look like? What
features could or should that future harbour? I list a number of items:
-
Tolerance or even
embracing of uncertainty; adaptability, resilience
-
A dynamic view concerning
knowledge, identity and being, language and morality
-
Scepsis concerning
knowledge. Theory is indispensable, but rests upon axioms that can be debated
-
Objective truth is an illusion. Instead of it ‘warranted
assertability’, which includes the practical utility and history of a theory or
claim
-
Acceptance of
individuality, variation; tolerance. Identity as developing from interaction
-
Relational
ontology: things evolve and decay in interaction with each other
-
Phronesis:
judgement of conduct or morality while taking into account the conditions and
background
-
Combining reason
with emotions
-
Not rationality
central, but being reasonable, prepared to listen
-
Interdisciplinarity
-
Seeing humanity
and nature as a whole
This clearly taps from the humanism of the Renaissance, shedding the
later urge towards certainty and hierarchy, but wants to preserve reason next
to emotions, and the use of theory in science, while recognising its imitations
and dependence on underlying fundamental assumptions that might need to change.
I have pleaded for dynamics, but is change or movement always good? It
can entail territorial expansion, of ‘life space’ as Hitler called it,
increasing extraction of resources from the earth, destroying it, so that now
we try to expand in outer space. The expansion includes the increase of riches
and pleasure.
What to do now? Life is movement, in a struggle against decay and increasing
entropy. The body has a throbbing heart, breathing lungs; flows of blood that carry
food and hormones, and flows of electric pulses through neurons. Aristotle
already recognised how organism develops from an inner potential , in ‘physis’,
like an oak from an acorn. Personal identity develops, within constraints of
heritage and environment, in interaction between people, as discussed earlier. Thus
life requires interaction. Dynamics is good if it engenders life. Intellectual
and spiritual expansion are good.
Why are spiritual and intellectual expansion good? They arise from communicative
interaction, and contribute to it. Perhaps we can say that humane interaction
is the purpose of life. It need not be highbrow, and can be just a smile or hug.
The perspective of interaction for communication also applies to the
relation between humanity and nature. We no longer need to see nature as the
god Gaia, attribute homomorphic properties to it, and act as supplicants to it.
It has no purpose and is indifferent to us, but it does respond. We one-sidedly
exploited nature, and it responds with climate change.
If readers of this blog object or have additions, please let me know..
No comments:
Post a Comment