Philosophy

PHILOSOPHY

Philosophy is an important part of the heritage of Western democracies, political systems, and education. In his book, The Passion of the Western Mind, Richard Tarnas tells us that his purpose is “understanding the ideas that have shaped our world view.” He begins with the ancient Greek “World View,” a view which interpreted the world in terms of specific model principles, principles so imbedded in our own world view that we seldom think about them.

These principles fall into two groups. From Plato and his school come the following:

The world is an ordered whole (cosmos, not chaos), whose order is akin to an order within the human mind. A rational analysis of the empirical world is therefore possible.

The cosmos as a whole is expressive of a pervasive intelligence that gives nature purpose and design, and this intelligence is directly accessible to human awareness.

Intellectual analysis at its most penetrating level reveals a timeless order that transcends time and place, and contains a deeper meaning, both rational and mythic in character, which comes from an eternal dimension that is both the source and goal of all life.

Knowledge of the world’s underlying structure and meaning requires exercising our cognitive abilities—rational, empirical, intuitive, aesthetic, imaginative, moral, and use of memory.

The direct apprehension of the world’s deeper reality satisfies not only the mind but the soul: it is a redemptive vision, a sustaining insight into the true nature of things that is at once intellectually decisive and spiritually liberating.

THE IDEAS JUST MENTIONED CAME FROM THE PLATONIC SCHOOL WITH ITS MYSTICAL ORIENTATION AND EMPHASIS ON MIND AND REASON. IT HAS MADE POSSIBLE THE WHOESALE ACCEPTANCE OF RELIGION IN WESTERN SOCIETIES, ESPECIALLY JUDAISM, ISLAM, AND CHRISTIANITY.

BUT THERE WAS A CONFICTING OR DIFFERENT TREND IN OUR ANCIENT GREEK HERITAGE, A SECOND SET OF PRINCIPLES, THAT STEMMED FROM THE INFLUENCE OF ARISTOTLE. CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

Genuine human knowledge can be acquired only through the rigorous employment of human reason and empirical observation.

The ground of truth must be sought in the present world of human experience.

The causes of natural phenomena are impersonal and physical and should be sought within the realm of observable nature. This view rejects all mythological and supernatural elements.

Any claims to comprehensive theoretical understanding must be measured against the empirical reality of concrete particulars in all their diversity, mutability, and individuality.

There is no absolute or final truth and the search for truth must be both critical and self-critical. Human knowledge is therefore relative and fallible and must be constantly revised in the light of further evidence and analysis.

The Greek mind and, very generally, our Western scientific, religious, and moral heritage, is a legacy of the complex interaction of these two sets of assumptions and impulses. Their constant interplay has established a profound inner tension within our history and finds itself being played out in classrooms, Sunday Schools, and political platforms on the major political parties in our own country today. Secular skepticism and the evolution of science in one stream and the metaphysical/religious idealism of the other provide a crucial counterbalance to each other, each undermining the other’s tendency to crystallize into dogmatism.

Why do we ask students to study the extraordinary vitality and profundity of the Greek mind?

We ask them to study and reconsider these two sets of principles because they are unresolved tensions in our present-day society—a creative tension and complexity they needs our own transformation, criticism, amplification, and reconsideration.

The Ethical Problem

The Ethical Problem

The ethical problem, from my personal observation, is that all human beings are different; implying a different culture, strangely obscure values, familial and other institutional ties that defy logic, and educational experience – formal and informal – that put reason, historical understanding, and conceptual imagination at risk. The idea of a universal morality is more ideal than reality. It’s a wonderful notion that has community potential, but is defeated as soon as we open the door to inner assumptions, biases, and understanding.

Philosophers, for so long, have had it all wrong. The question or problem isn’t moral understanding and justification. On the contrary, the problem is the differences in the knowledge, attitude, and commitments of people—any people. We are all so different, have herd tendencies, and wilt in the face of power. So, how do we motivate and get people to believe, and how do we engender in them the moral courage to act on their beliefs? This is not a philosophical question at all—it’s practical and sociological, perhaps psycho-social.

What are our choices? Where do we turn? Does a universal morality have a chance or is relativity the reality we agree to live with? Was Plato right? Will it take a benevolent dictator to hold the pieces of this world together or will greed and injustice—me first, screw you—win out? Some of us want a benevolent dictator—a Pope to outline our responsibilities and hang on it the reward of heaven or hell. FDR performed that role for Americans in the 1930s and 1940s; Reagan came close, but fell short of being canonized. It’s what keeps Billy Graham a hot item. But just look at the differences in those four men! If we put them in a room together, could they work out a universal morality that would satisfy not only us, but them as well? I doubt it.

Do we continue to rely on education and think that putting Bible stories in the schools will solve our problems? We had them when I was a kid and nothing much has changed. Do we continue to rely on education and half-way educate our teachers—we give them method and a little content, but no in-depth studies in the humanities, foreign languages, and sciences (physical and social). We tell them “teach to the test, because what gets tested is the most important facts we teach.” Have we ruined a generation of teachers with this limited view of education? What have we done to our students? If education isn’t doing the job, it’s not because religion has been removed from the schools; its because “education” has been removed, in the truest sense.

Perhaps I have more questions than answers, and I do. This world is confusing because we refuse to give up our prejudices and seek common answers to universal problems. I think I’m always right, don’t you? That’s the attitude I hear and read about most of the time. Maybe “courage” is the one virtue that is missing from our leaders. I don’t mean the kind of courage president’s muster up to send young men and women into battle or that school administrators call upon when they order teachers to focus on the narrow windows of present-day testing and school measuring. I’m talking about the courage to teach the total curriculum in the face of administrative threats. I’m talking about the political courage to give up looking at polls and saying what’s expedient to doing what’s morally right and practically sane.

When I go to church and see an American flag sitting along side of the Christian flag, I wonder about my self- identity as a human being and as a religious human being. If I wrap myself in the flag, I admit my secularity and secular values. If I turn to the Christian flag and there posit my loyalty, can I be secure in my faith and its truths? If so, can I be sure that my version of faith is guiding the American enterprise? Eighty-two percent of Americans say that believe in God, but those who dominate America – media America, political America, and capitalism and greed America paint a different picture. I really don’t know where to turn and have few answers. We’ve been pretty good at identifying some of the problems, but can’t agree on the answers. Can we stop identifying ourselves as liberal or conservative, democrat or republican, American or foreigner long enough to recognize our common humanity? I doubt that we can but I do hold out hope!