Bridge Builders
In the strict definitions of noumenalists and naturalists, these two metaphysics are mutually exclusive. In actual practice though, there are theorists from both camps that incorporate elements of the opposing school in an attempt to perfect a synthesis. Although I did not include them in this category, both Aristotle and Augustine have elements of the naturalist school in their works. Aristotle’s work in metaphysics places him squarely in the noumenalist camp, but in his work on psychology he manifests strong naturalistic tendencies. Augustine, in The City of God, draws on the rise and fall of the Roman Empire for his analysis of the earthly city using naturalistic psychology and reason. Two more important bridge builders from the noumenalist school that I discuss below are Edmund Burke and Reinhold Niebuhr.
Noumenalist bridge builders are nor necessarily realists (as is Niebuhr). Realists assume universal principles are not more real than objects as sensed. Noumenalists could place higher importance on some empirical “facts” over some ideas, but will continue to equate the “best government” with divinely ordained values above all else (something pure realists could not do). Bridge building naturalists, subjectively, seem more numerous. This may be due to pure naturalists’ difficulties in coming to grips with a source of morality and search for a foundation that offers rational hedonism, or a Nietzschean extreme. These modified naturalists (teleo-naturalists) have, on the other hand, built bridges to altruistic motives, hierarchical value systems, and ideals of perfection (if only as psychic facts). This group of teleo-naturalists includes John Stuart Mill, Lipset, Almond, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Dewey. 
Naturalist bridge builders are not necessarily pragmatists (as is Dewey). From the definition of teleo-naturalists, it is clear that not all in this school are concerned with practical consequences and most would certainly not agree with the pragmatists’ stand that if there is no difference in the consequences between two alternatives, then they mean practically the same thing.Burke was a firm believer in God and that He gave us laws to follow.
We can know these laws through our instincts. The institutions which survive in society over time are those that parallel our instincts and therefore may be good (but survivability may not be the only requirement of the “good.”). We must adhere to the social and political institutions to find the “good.” If a society doesn’t follow the natural order, it will decay (France of his day—a very British viewpoint!). Political experiment is important, though to refine the “good” institutions, but we must act cautiously. Burke believed in a natural aristocracy that defines and leads the nation. The aristocracy must do what is best for the people because they know what is best. If leaders don’t follow their superior instincts, society will collapse. The reason corruption occurs is because aristocratic society itself is corrupt. Religion is crucial for public virtue, for the aristocracy and the masses.Niebuhr’s work is a reaction against the neoclassical rationalists (who are naturalists).
He was part of a wave of realists (including Kennan and Morgenthau) who believed that American foreign policy, if continued to be based on rationalist assumptions, might prove to be disastrous. Niebuhr rejects the possibility of reason to solve all problems and that at best only a precarious peace could be hoped for. Niebuhr is committed to Judeo-Christian noumenalism and sees transcendent theological values in every aspect of realist/rationalist combat. This viewpoint offers hope of gradual progress toward a more just world and that the influence of the Freudian irrational id can be reduced.
Thomas Hobbes sees all men as too equal, which causes conflict. Man’s appetite is selfish and in the pursuit of his own values, leads man to deprive others, but he is guilty of no moral sin. If there were a “pecking order,” problems of equality and appetite could be dealt with. As long as this conflict continues, man will not develop because it is easier to steal than produce. For self-preservation, man should be willing, when others are too, to come to an agreement and establish a society. Man is selfish though and therefore it is unreasonable to expect that this society will work self-imposed. Covenants such as this only work when a third party (the sovereign) is available to keep order. Without the sovereign there is no government. Without the government, there is no society. He sees temporal and spiritual sovereignty as the same thing (religion is only a branch of government). Hobbes, although writing in support of monarchy, states that the form of government doesn’t matter, as long as it can impose its will to keep order.John Locke’s work was stimulated by the same civil stresses that led Hobbes to his conclusions.
There are in fact some epistemological parallels of these two men’s works. Both men said our knowledge extends no farther than our ideas. We cannot know the inner meanings of essence and purpose. Hobbes continues beyond ideas to make judgments on the cosmos. Locke, although believing in God, is agnostic concerning the cosmos. He feels we cannot know the ultimate “why,” but only the “how.” We can reason what God wants though, by seeing what man tends to and establish natural laws from these tendencies. “Good” to Locke is what gives us pleasure, “bad” is what does not. Therefore, we can know “the good,” because “good” is our passions. Mankind has the natural right to pursue these passions (such as self-preservation, property, etc.) because they are “good.” A social contract is formed to get and keep rights. When men’s passions are in conflict, the majority should rule. In Hobbes’ social contract, individual rights are ceded to the sovereign. Locke says we give our rights to society. Government is the protector of this social contract and has the duty to preserve live, property, and equality. Government does this by elections and separation of powers, with the legislature dominant (parliamentary). If government does not meet these conditions, men can look to heaven and revolt.
Jean Jacques Rousseau believed in a good-hearted common man in contrast to the Machiavellian man of Locke and even more so, of Hobbes’. To Rousseau, man in the stat of nature is personified by the peace and innocence of Adam in the Garden of Eden. Self-preservation is still man’s first desire, but he is not aggressive and his wants are simple. Rousseau’s natural man is his own master and his only authority is his own will. Rousseau’s society is a synthesis of noumenalist teleological tradition and naturalist utilitarianism of the Enlightenment. Man discovers the utility of association and from association arises the habits of living together, which in turn spawns a new development in man’s moral life (through a sense of commitment). With the development of society, new wants also develop. The rich want to dominate the poor. Society becomes corrupt in its goal to gain prosperity and wealth. A “good” society is possible though (characterized by common interest and moral unity). Through the general will (the collective is more than the sum of its parts) of society decisions are made. Rousseau calls for a middle class economy with little specialization, legal equality of all members of society and majority rule.
John Stuart Mill was trained in the principles of Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian ideals.
Bentham proposed a political philosophy centered on the precept of “greatest happiness of the greatest number.” Happiness to Bentham simply meant pleasurable sensations. This pleasure is the only thing that man actually pursues. Motives and abstract principles such as natural right had no place in his theory. Bentham confines his philosophy to the world of facts. He felt that to leave this realm would destroy the possibility of objective measurement. Mill, at the age of twenty, began to question strict utilitarian theory. As told in his Autobiography, “Suppose that my highest aim in life—complete public reform—could be effected at this very instant, would this really make me happy? And a distinct vice answered—NO!” (John Stuart Mill, Autobiography, New York: P.F. Collier & Sons, 1937, p. 10.) Mill came to believe that happiness could only be achieved by not making it a direct end. The only chance for happiness is to treat not happiness, but some end external to it, as the purpose of life. Mill transcends the naturalist state of phenomena to a noumenalist set of values (ends). Through out his life Mill refused to give up his naturalist premises, but insisted on noumenalist conclusions, trying to unite value with fact, purpose with process. Mill offers the lesson of “open-mindedness of the many-sidedness of truth; [and] he became the most tolerant of philosophers.” (F. Parvin Sharpless, Essays on Poetry by John Stuart Mill, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press, 1976, p. xii).
John Dewey expands the freedom and pluralism ideas of Rousseau in the context of turn of the century America. Dewey believed that social equality is a necessary precondition for society. The problem is, how does one obtain a sense of cohesion in a society while still maintaining equality and individualism? His answer: Man as an individual is meaningless, but in society he can develop morally. Democracy is the only political system that can meet the needs of moral development. In a democracy our individual actions all have effects on society. Therefore the establishment of a social contract is justified. This is not a static entity, however, and from time to time new forms of state must be evolved to express new interests. Dewey saw specialization, industrialization and bureaucracy as working against the general good by alienation the individual. He could not reconcile that modern fact that where ever there is a large effort to establish social equality, etc. bureaucracy and hierarchy are also developed. He saw social science as the best hope in developing correct policies, such as expanding the social obligation of the better off to enhance equality and thus true freedom. He did not agree with the behaviorists though, that certain laws will happen.Seymour Lipset and Gabriel Almond complete this discussion of bridge builders with their contemporary Aristotelian synthesis.
Lipset studied various democracies and then described the social conditions under which a democratic order can be constructed and maintained. He theorizes that the more well to do a nation, the more likely it will sustain democracy. Rather than poverty though, inequality is the key causal factor which leads to instability in any system. For equality, and thus stability, Lipset offers three conditions which must be present in any system. First, the status of conservative institutions must not be threatened. Second, major new groups have access to the system. Finally, new structures must be effective. Only a democracy can encompass these three conditions successfully.
Almond offers a final key factor for stability, system maintenance through change and adaptation. System maintenance has three criteria, subsystem autonomy, cultural secularization, and structural differentiation. Both Lipset and Almond seek to define an implicit process, like Aristotle. There theories are empirically oriented. They also make the judgment though, that stability is impossible without “goodness.” Therefore, stability must be evidence of “goodness.”
No comments:
Post a Comment