I had a conversation with a close friend this week that highlighted many salient questions about rationality, faith, knowledge, morality, and human influence.
Is science the only legitimate method of seeking knowledge?
Is morality simply a social construct, or do immutable moral laws exist?
Can a compelling argument be made for generally applicable moral standards outside the belief in a higher power? Does atheism necessarily lead to relativism?
Does a person have any right to tell another person what they should or should not believe? Doing so would seem to imply that there are immutable truths and that our human experience is similar enough to warrant generally applicable morals. In other words, the fact that we are both human is a truth that reaches beyond the anatomical.
The following essay of mine does not answer all of these questions, but it strikes at the debate through analysis of two classical thinkers, one ancient and one contemporary.
Aristotle’s reason holds little resemblance to the empty modern view of rationalism. To Aristotle, the end of reason was to give purpose and direction to human action. Modern rationalism, on the other hand, offers no direction to human action, claiming that such matters are purely subjective. Aristotle’s rationalism is informed by virtue. Under modern rationalism, virtue is, at best, a convenient myth, necessary for living in human society. In Aristotle’s view, the ability to reason is the highest expression of man’s humanity. Under modern rationalism, reason is divorced from humanity and filtered exclusively through method.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explains reason in his discussion of practical and contemplative wisdom. These two forms of wisdom arise from the rational portion of the human soul. In Aristotle’s view, the human soul is divided into rational and non-rational halves. Each half is further divided: the rational portion containing contemplative and practical reason, and the non-rational portion containing moral virtue and the nutritive sense, concerned with physical health. Practical wisdom, the applied knowledge gained from the exercise of practical reason, functions to guide human action. In fact, practical wisdom is defined as “a true and reasoned state of capacity to act with regard to the things that are good or bad for man” (Book VI). In other words, practical wisdom tells us how we can achieve good ends. However, Aristotle recognizes that this knowledge is useless unless man has a standard by which to determine which ends are good. This is the role that virtue must play. Aristotle refers to “natural virtue” as the sense of just action inherent in the human soul. However, this “natural virtue” is useless and even harmful if it is not guided by reason. As a result, Aristotle places moral virtue in the non-rational half of the human soul. Morality is partially inherent in the human soul, but must also be guided, trained, and refined by the rational principle of practical wisdom (Book VI).
The other half of Aristotle’s rational soul is contemplative, or philosophic, wisdom. “Philosophic wisdom is scientific knowledge, combined with intuitive reason, of the things that are highest by nature” (Book VI). Thus, this type of wisdom also is rooted in something inherent or “intuitive” to the human soul. Beyond the intuitive, however, man can grasp higher truths through contemplation of invariable truths like the cosmos. Indeed, this form of contemplation is the highest activity of the human soul, for “reason is divine” (Book X). The life of contemplation is most like the life of the gods, who have no cares for human virtues like liberality, which are rooted only in the physical world. Reason, then, will lead man to the ultimate happiness as it points to something higher and more permanent than man. Because happiness is the end of human action, “reason more than anything else is man” (Book X).
Virtually everything that Aristotle and other classical thinkers identified as rational is stripped away by the modernism. As Philippe Bénéton writes in Equality by Default, for the moderns, “Whatever lies outside of the scientific method lies outside reason.” Science claims a monopoly on legitimate knowledge. In this view, there is no rational way to answer the fundament questions of Aristotle’s philosophy. What is virtuous? What is the best way of life? What is the best political regime? To the modern rationalist, these questions have no meaning. Science cannot answer them; therefore, they have no answers.
To Aristotle, reason should be the guiding force of human action and the reasoned path of virtue can be discovered by human contemplation. The modern view states that reason can only be accessed by the scientific method; it has nothing to do with the essence of humanity. Man does not reason, the method merely reasons through him. The scientific method cannot distinguish between good and bad actions, so all ways of life must be equally good and, thus, equally meaningless. Aristotle placed great responsibility on the individual to seek virtue and wisdom in pursuit of the good life. By claiming that no life is better than any other, modern rationalism releases man from any responsibility. Thus, human nature and Aristotle’s “natural virtue” are either discredited or reduced to the processes of evolutionary biology. In contemporary society, modern rationalists may have succeeded in winning claim over the domain of rational knowledge, but only by drastically reducing its size.
This paradigm shift on the idea of rational knowledge has deep political implications. Aristotle believes that politics is the master science because it is responsible for ordering men’s souls. This claim is based on the belief that there is a model order for men’s souls – that some souls are in better order than others. To a modern rationalist, there is no way to determine which order of the soul is best. Therefore, politics has no place in attempting to order men’s souls. In other words, modern rationalism begs the question, “How can the good life be the end of political action, when reason cannot give us any idea of what the good life is?”
The first effect of the modern rationalistic view of politics is the atomization of society. Aristotle discusses the common good, or the good of the city, because he believes that men share a common human nature. To him, what is moral and good for one man is moral and good for another. The good life may vary, as men’s interests and faculties vary. Some men will be soldiers, others artists, others philosophers. However, the good life for each man is founded in virtue and wisdom. The modern rationalists cannot make the same claim about the common good. To them, morality is an illusion – each man engages in self-actualization according to his own values. The city no longer claims the solid foundation of a common concept of the good life. Thus, the political order of liberal democracy evolves toward the idea of the radical autonomy of the individual. The individual is not responsible to contribute to the common good, for the common good is no longer seen as an attainable goal. He is free to pursue his own self-interest. In this way, the individual is freed from his duties to the community, and granted rights by which he seeks self-actualization.
This atomization is not merely theoretical. It can be seen in all sectors of society. Bénéton offers a striking example of atomization in contemporary American society. The military, above all other institutions, must be devoted to the common good and recognize the value of devoting the individual will to a higher cause. Even so, Bénéton pulls his example of the atomization of modern society from the evolution of recruitment advertising for the American military. In an attempt to recruit soldiers for the First World War, the military distributed the famous poster of Uncle Sam pointing at the viewer and sternly declaring “I want you for [the] U.S. Army”. The poster evoked a sense of patriotism and duty. In the 1990s, the U.S. Army launched a campaign with the slogan “be all you can be,” appealing to the potential recruits’ sense of self-actualization. One of the Army’s most recent slogans, “an Army of one,” evokes the modern sense of atomization and pride in individualism. As a motivator, self-interest is rarely surpassed.
Modern society can learn much from Aristotle’s rational political thought. In this age, scientistic rationalism rolls forward blindly with no external guiding principles, and “progress” is praised for progress’ sake. Now more than ever, Aristotle’s voice of reason is needed as a reminder that practical wisdom should guide our actions toward ends that promote the common good. Even in the realm of human rights, Aristotle’s reason provides us with a more substantive view of freedom than modern rationalism. After all, if human rights are to be meaningful, it must still mean something to be human.
No comments:
Post a Comment