Sunday, January 28, 2024

597. Aim of life

According to Nietzsche, the human being has an urge to manifest itself, fired by its ‘will to power’. According to Spinoza it struggles to survive, in what he called ‘conatus’. From biology we know that life struggles against decay, the increase of entropy. All this can be done egotistically, in self-interest, and it can be done benevolently, with regard to others.

In the foregoing I proposed that people should go for spiritual, intellectual and social expansion. Why are spiritual, intellectual and social 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. Nature has no purpose and is indifferent to us, but it does respond. We one-sidedly exploited nature, and it responds with climate change.

The American naturalist Thoreau enjoyed just being in nature, feeling at one with its flow. Nature can inspire us to experience the dynamics I plead for. Nature is in constant change , of air, wind, rain, with waving trees and rippling ponds. And earth quakes, floods and tsunami’s. It is the exemplary manifestation of dynamics. God is everywhere in nature. The creator is not distinct from its creation, as. in German Romanticism. Thereby nature is divine.

If readers of this blog object or have additions, please let me know.

  

Friday, January 19, 2024

 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..

Saturday, January 13, 2024

595 Rational or reasonable

 The ages of reason and Enlightenment, in the 17th and 18th century, were obsessed by reason. Following Descartes, people saw body and mind as separate. Ideal knowledge was context-independent, with universal truths, as in geometry. The body was part of chaotic, variable nature and not a respectable subject for science. Emotions overturned reason, and were to be avoided, to maintain objectivity and ‘clear and distinct ideas’, as Descartes called them

 There was a revival of 16th century humanism in the second half of the 20th century, which was more sceptical of the certain knowledge that science had claimed to offer, and appreciated the context-dependence and practical use of knowledge, which made room for the sciences of the human being and society. Emotions came to be seen as indispensable in human life, and even as embedded in the brain. Attention to practical affairs did still lag behind dominant theory.

 A humanistic perspective is critical of exclusive reason, and recognizes the inevitability and value of emotions, but does not proclaim irrationality. It offers being reasonable instead of only rational. It still appreciates logic and facts, but recognises their dependence on history and context. One can still practice and use science, but with scepsis. Science can be useful, but must make an effort to show that, and must recognise that it is based on presumptions or axioms that can be debated and can change in time. An example is Einstein’s theories trumping that of Newton. Attention to circumstances and background in human conduct is needed in ethical and moral judgement, where Aristotle called it ‘phronesis’, as discussed before, in this blog. Ethical and moral rules are seldom absolute and universal. An exception may be human rights.


Saturday, January 6, 2024

 594. Triggers of philosophical change

 In the previous items in this blog, I gave a rendering of Stephen Toulmin’s account of  the change of ideas and perspectives since the 16th century Renaissance, in the development of the second phase of ‘modernity’, since the 17th century.

 This entailed a shift to universalism, intolerance, neglect of individuality, geometry as the ideal of science, abstract theory independent of time or context, dogmatism, disregard and even disdain of practice, background and history.

 Why did this happen? Toulmin asked himself this question, and came up with two fundamental urges of people: flight from uncertainty and inclination towards hierarchy, deemed to be necessary to maintain order, in the flight from uncertainty.

 This mentality started to erode in the second half of the 20th century, with the rise of tolerance, acceptance of individuality and variety, sciences of man and society, rejection of hierarchy, non-abstract art, organic architecture, scepticism regarding science.

 However, I added that in the 21st century we seem to be backsliding, in a renewed flight from uncertainty, and a re-appreciation of authoritarian systems. We seem to go overboard in the appreciation of emotions and individuality, to the neglect of reason, logic, knowledge, facts and reciprocity in relations.

 The most fundamental urge seems to be the flight from uncertainty, and the evasion of risk, with the demand on government to take over risks.

 It is dubious that hierarchy is needed for order. The opposite, with leaders paying attention to the conditions and opinions of workers or citizens, seems to be better, creating more satisfaction and stability.

Saturday, December 30, 2023

593. Cycle of ideas in the history of philosophy

 According to the account given by Stephen Toulmin, in his book ’Cosmopolis’, the Renaissance of the 16th century, with the humanists Montaigne, Erasmus and Shakespeare, was followed by the modernist ‘anti-renaissance’ in the 17th century and the Enlightenment of the 18th century engendered by Galilei, Descartes, Newton, Kant, Spinoza, and the industrial revolution and imperialism in the 19th century, until a revival of ‘neo renaissance’ and anti-Enlightenment in the 20th century. Here I follow Toulmin, but will add an idea of my own concerning what might follow.

 In the 16the century, following the Renaissance, there was humanism, tolerance, rejection of certainty, scepticism, absolutism and universalism, dedication to practice as opposed to context and time-independent theory, as in legal and medical affairs, relativism, context-dependence of knowledge and judgement, and the acceptance of diversity of religion and culture. The French king Henri IV instituted the Edict of Nantes, which gave freedom of religion, in the struggle between Catholicism and emerging Protestantism. International trade blossomed, and here was the discovery of the Indies and South America by Portugal and Spain. This was the beginning of imperialism, but it was accompanied by interest in varieties of indigenous culture.

 This ended with the murder of Henry in 1610, and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, followed by the 30 year war of religion, absolutism and dogmatism in philosophy, science and government, the rise of autonomous states with absolute rule, the ‘Little Ice Age’, and widespread poverty. Philosophy and science followed the ideals of the abstract rigour of mathematics and logic, and empirical testing of formalised theory, but disregard of practical matters. History, rhetoric, emotions and practical science were neglected and derided for their context-dependence and lack of rigour An exception was the scepticism of David Hume. The ideal of the Enlightenment was the uncompromising use of reason and mastery of emotions. All this remains in Analytical Philosophy.

 Early opposition, in an emerging anti-Enlightenment, arose already in the 18th century, by Giambattista Vico, Schiller, Hamann, Herder, and Kierkegaard, and came to fruition in the 20th century. In the 18th century, Kant was sceptical of knowledge, but remained universalist in his ethics and anti-realism. in the 19th century, Nietzsche caused a break with rationalist and universalist knowledge in science and ethics. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, the interest in practical matters was revived with the emergence of ‘pragmatist philosophy’ in the US, in particular that of John Dewey. He also held that the individual develops from interaction with others, ‘symbolic interactionism’, which inspired Habermas with his ‘Theory of communicative action’. What is now called ‘Continental Philosophy’, developed from the ‘Critical Theory’ of the ‘Frankfurter Schule’, with Adorno and Horkheimer, raising doubts about the Enlightenment ideal of rationalism, and with the scepticism of Wittgenstein. This was radicalised in the ‘Post-modern Philosophy’ of Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, and Rorty. Following Toulmin’s line of thought, this might be called a ‘New Renaissance’

 What we now see is a re-emergence of anti-renaissance absolutism, nationalism, universalism, isolationism, authoritarianism, intolerance , and exclusion of immigrants, in the emergence of rightist populism, in the US and Europe. We can hardly call this a ‘New Enlightenment’, in view of its disregard of reason, logic and facts. It threatens democracy. Some people seem to long for an authoritarian regime.

 What will next happen, in the history of ideas? Will there be a new restauration of Renaissance tolerance, and resistance to universalism and absolutism? Postmodernism has been mostly destructive, or, as Derrida would say, deconstructive. After postmodernism, what remains of logic, theory, mathematics and science? After destruction there should be reconstruction, in a new setting, as Derrida allowed. What theory can there be that does not get mired in universalism, absolutism, dogmatism, intolerance, while allowing for scepticism, and yet guides understanding and action in the world? I have argued that a next stage in the development of ideas could be dynamism, with the fluidity of ideas, and a relational ontology, with the evolution of ideas in interaction between things, which is unpredictable, disabling certainty, and thus is sceptical of what we know, is in what I have called ‘imperfection on the move’.

 

Bart Nooteboom, 2023, Dynamic coherence of continental philosophy, Aspekt publishers.

Bart Nooteboom, 2021, Process philosophy, Anthem publishers. 

Friday, December 22, 2023

592. Dutch civil war

 I have a tenacious nightmare that after the victory in the recent Dutch elections for parliament of the extreme rightist party PVV, we are in an uncertain period that might develop in a civil war. The PVV has items in its programme that go against the constitution and the legal system. It wants to discontinue help to Ukraine, exit from the EU, stop environmental spending, stop the entry of refugees, suppress Islamic citizenship and schooling, and outlaw the Koran. With this, it is difficult to engineer a cabinet, and the attempt might fail. The PVV will be acceptable in a government only if it recants a number of its tenets. It claims that it will not try to implement its contentious tenets, but cannot afford to do so, since those are ‘in its DNA, as it proclaims itself. If negotiation does yield a compromise, to yield a government, that is likely to fall soon due to the opposition defending the constitution. That will necessitate new elections, and there will be a uproar, fuelled by the PVV, claiming that a democratic vote has been frustrated, yielding a yet higher vote for the PVV.

 

The upheaval will call forth violent protests and attacks, and civil war is evoked. The majority of the population will call for a dictatorship by the leader of the PVV, and the rest will resort to a violent response. Politicians will be assassinated.

Saturday, December 16, 2023

 591. Counterenlightenment.

 In earlier items in this blog I discussed the Counter Enlightenment of Vico, Hamann, Kierkegaard, Adorno, Nietzsche and the postmodern French philosophers. Foucault, Gadamer, Lyotard, Derrida, and Rorty. They criticised the dominance of reason, universalism, absolutism, equilibrium, mono-disciplinarity, and static, rigid world views.

 In his book ‘Cosmopolis’ Stephen Toulmin argued that there was an earlier attempt, with theb humanism of Erasmus, and Montaigne, who pleaded for tolerance, diversity, individualism,  The king of France Henry IV, engineered the ‘Edict of Nantes’ that ensured the liberty of religion in France.

 According to Toulmin, this period ended with the murder of Herry IV in 1610, and the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. This initiated endless religious wars, upheavals, poverty and strife in the 17th century, which is often lauded as ‘the age of reason’, but engendered dogmatism, separation of scientific disciplines, absolutist, universalist pretentions in science, religion and politics, which would justify the religious and political oppositions, and emergence of separate states to contain the wars. One sceptical 17th century philosopher was David Hume. The philosopher Kant launched his critical theory, and maintained a universalist ethics.

 The Enlightenment of the 18th century celebrated reason and the imposition of static ultimate, absolute order, universalist science and rule, until the 20th century (Nietzsche died in 1900) The Enlightenment heritage had grown static and dogmatic.

 Now we see a re-emergence of intolerance, universalism (‘our values apply to everyone, one populace’). exclusion, absolutism, nationalism. isolationism (no more help for Ukraine, exit from the EU), rigidity and conservatism (no change) indifference to environmental damage, in waves of populism. We can hardly call that a re-emergence of Enlightenment, since it is irrationalist. It is more a darkening inhumanism.