The American answer to the central questions of reality, “the good,” and achieving “the good,” is the result of a bridge building synthesis between the noumenalist and naturalist schools of thought. An understanding of these theories is required in order to gain a full appreciation of the unique synthesis of the shared values in the American metaphysic. An in depth discussion of all the theories and theorists of these schools is well beyond the scope of this paper. Instead, I will offer only a general survey of each school, highlighting the points most pertinent to this topic of discussion.
Noumenalist Theory. “Noumenalist theory equates the ‘best’ or ‘rational’ political order with a divinely ordained set of values (i.e. ends, goals) and rules of behavior which are understood as having the fullest or most perfect reality.” (William T. Blume, Theories of the Political System, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1971, p.15) Noumenalism is not idealism. Idealism, simply put, postulates that reality is ideas and although this gives ideas a greater importance the empirical, it does not rank order ideas or specify the origin of the ‘best’ ideas. Noumenalism in turn, does not assume that all reality consists only of ideas. Two subgroups emerge when defining the relationship between this divine order and the empirical order. The “transcendentalists” view the divine order as completely transcending the empirical world, which is incapable of any complete or permanent establishment of divine or “good” society. The other subgroup is the “immanentists.” They give hope to the potential of the rational order, immanent in the empirical world, to grow to perfection. Both groups agree that man can know the perfect order by intuitive faculty. Not all connote this to religious inspiration, though. Finally, noumenalists do not agree to the extent to which man can be perfected and exactly what our obligations are in attempting to achieve the good society.
Tracing the noumalist strain thorough history, such theorists as Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Strauss lead the list. Plato (a transcendentalist) borrowed from Socrates the ideas of dialogue, that it is possible to know “the good” (something is “good” in-so-far as it accomplished its purpose). Plato felt a reexamination of tradition (not a rejection of tradition that the Sophists called for) was important to establish traditional values on a new foundation. Plato’s “psyche” is also an important concept. This concept postulates that the life giving substance is the soul, which is developed through intelligence. It has the ability to discern concepts and realize absolute truths.
To Plato, empirical things are not real; ideas are real. In Plato’s Republic, he develops a system of government in which the philosophers govern, since they alone can “understand the good.” Even the specific details of the upbringing and education of these guardians are discussed at length. The concept of a philosophic aristocracy is important since justice equates to being ruled by this class. 
In other words, don’t tell the people everything, because they can’t know “the good.” This system Plato defines as the “good polis,” rules out democracy because the masses are unfit for the task. Fortitude, virtue, and temperance are required to rule and the masses are to prone to hedonism. The needs of men, which are divided into three types—rational, spirited, and appetitive, are met in the polis, which interestingly operates as a tri-functional system of a deliberative and governing body, an executive, and a productive functions body. This system of government must be consciously founded (through reform, not revolution), it will not evolve by itself.Aristotle (an immannenist) was a student of Plato, but challenged many of Plato’s ideas.
Aristotle felt that it was the empirical world that gave meaning to concept, but he doesn’t reject the idea of “the good.” In this sense he was an important synthesizer. The other concept which sets Aristotle apart from his teacher is that Plato thought things were disintegrating away from the “good.” Aristotle thought things were disintegrating to “the good.” There are four concepts which we must know—to know “the good.” First, what (final cause; ends and purpose). Second, why (formal cause; structure). Third, how (efficient cause; process). Fourth, out of what (material cause; origins). From these concepts man can know the best government. Government, in turn, must aid man to fully develop “the good life.” For governmental structure to be capable of perfection, it must achieve both political stability and the ability to change. Finally, the material environment is important. Just as oak trees do no grow out of hazel nuts, the best political system will not grow out of poverty or opulence. Value systems therefore, are dependent on class structure, quality of life, and opportunity. Aristotle saw men in two groups, the philosopher and the political man. He therefore opted for an oligarchy in which each person fulfilled the duties of his class, was subject to his won reason in that class, and overall rule was by the philosophers. Ultimately, though, as all political systems evolve, they will grow to be the “good society.”St Augustine wrote The City of God in response to the Gothic hordes’ sack of Rome and the seeming superiority of paganism over Christianity.
In his work, Augustine speaks to two realities, the earthly city and the transcendental City of God. Most of his efforts center around the City of God, but he does offer some valuable insights into the earthly city and its relationship with the City of God. Since God is “good” and God created man, man is “good.” Although man has both “good” and “bad” will and tends toward the “bad,” he can be “good” if he takes the leap of faith and accepts God. The earthly city, although providing useful functions like material goods, protection, shelter, etc., is subject to man’s will and is not God’s responsibility. The Christian should be politically passive and there should be separation of church and state (render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s). In other words, Christians should be in the world, but not of the world. This is important because Augustine saw the earthly city as founded on base passions and love of self, while he felt that the true rewards were not material, or of this world. The fall of Rome, or any society, was and is due to the material excessiveness of the state and its citizens and the follow-on decay of the citizens who refuse to selflessly give to the society, but only take.St. Thomas Aquinas synthesized the works of Aristotle and Augustine. Whereas Augustine spent most of his efforts on the City of God, Aquinas centered his interests on the earthly city and correlated Augustine’s cities with Aristotle’s men of thought and men of action.
He felt that despite the fall of Adam, natural reason remains essentially incorrupt. Man’s reason is therefore capable of helping man reach “the good.” We must look at what men are inclined toward (self preservation, reproduction, etc.) and that is what is “good.” This gives rise to norms and helps direct government to create positive laws (laws of man) that correlate with natural laws (laws of God). Government’s purpose is as the director of action for the purpose of meeting the common good. If the positive laws of government stray from the natural laws of God for a long period of time, rebellion is acceptable. St. Thomas Aquinas also tended toward Aristotle’s aristocratic notions and felt that the best form of government was a constitutional monarchy. Finally, positive law should only “tend” toward natural law. If positive law were too strict, man would turn away form society. Government must gradually lead society toward “the good.” Man need only follow the ethical standards of the world, since he was in the world, and the institutional certitude of the church (through baptism, confession, etc.) would protect him from the wrath of God.A contemporary noumenalist, Leo Straus, carries the flight to the enemy camp. Strauss indicts the behavioralists (who are naturalists) for their attempt to create a “value-free’ political science.
He explains in Natural Right and History, that the human world cannot be reduced or understood with value-free categories. The true political science is political philosophy. Political scientists have no right to relegate ultimate values to the realm of mere preferences. Values are independent of man, not, as the behavioralists would say, values stem from man. Each would use values in explanation, but Strauss would say they are part of the situation, not just part of the explanation. In the final analysis, Strauss feels behavioralism leads to indifference about goodness (since there is no “good,” why try to attain it).I will look at the Natuaralist Theory in my next post.
No comments:
Post a Comment