A short history of freethinking, part two
Yes indeed: the ideal of freeing ourselves from prejudice is fraught with problems. (Many thanks, Nadim, for a superb little dialogue about this.) We can never be sure whether we are making progress with it. But that does not mean we should give up trying.
In the first place, the indispensability of logic. As I said the other day in what I thought a dry and boring, but necessary, post on ‘Logic, or how to think’, we should always try to work out the logical entailments of what we affirm or deny. What is logic after all? It is simply what happens when thinking becomes self-conscious, just as arithmetic is what happens when counting becomes self-conscious.
If people’s sums don’t add up, we tell them to check them and try harder, and won’t be very impressed if they retort that they are freethinkers, and as far as they’re concerned the world itself is unarithmetical. And we should be just as impatient with our home-grown illogicians, who claim that the world itself is illogical, and even imagine that they are speaking in the noble name of ‘freethinking’ as they do so. The world is complex and full of surprises, no doubt: but that only goes to show that we need to keep checking our logical compass.
Secondly, the problem of prejudice. When I said we should try to free ourselves from prejudice, I did not mean that we could ever succeed, still less that we could ever know that we have succeeded. But that need not stop us being on our guard against the effects of our own prejudices – excavating our unconscious reasons for thinking as we do, and correcting intellectual distortions due to our own laziness, vanity, and self-regard. That, I suspect, is the best route to the only kind of freethinking worth having. (I plan to come back to the problem of intellectual narcissism in a later post.)
And two of my intellectual heroes had some fine things to say on this point.
The great philosopher Hans-Georg Gadamer, who died four years ago at the age of 102, liked to remind his students that thinking never comes from nowhere: there is no zero-point of the mind, no intellectual garden of Eden. Those who fancy that they have escaped from prejudice (typically, in Gadamer’s opinion, the apostles of Western scientific enlightenment) are actually slaves, he thought, to the oldest prejudice of all: the prejudice against prejudice.
Gadamer was one of the most generous of men, and would have been delighted to find his doctrine prefigured in the history of freethinking itself, particularly in the writings of the essayist William Hazlitt, who was himself brought up as a radical rationalist: in every sense a child of eighteenth-century enlightenment values.
This is what Hazlitt wrote in an essay dating from 1815
There is … no prejudice so strong as that which arises from a fancied exemption from all prejudice. For this last implies not only the practical conviction that it is right, but the theoretical assumption that it cannot be wrong…. Nor do we know of any class of disputants more disposed to take their opinions for granted, than those who call themselves Freethinkers….’
‘Those who call themselves Freethinkers’: yes indeed, we should never trust people who brag about their own intellectual virtues, or who take themselves to be infallible and beyond criticism. Such sentiments may count as ‘freethinking’ of a kind, but, as Hazlitt went on to say, they ‘are necessarily adverse to any great enlargement of mind, or original freedom of thought.’
"we should always try to work out the logical entailments of what we affirm or deny."
Is it at all useful to point out to a victim of terrible abuse that how they have come to deal with their abuser - the thought of whom would otherwise overwhelm them and make them mentally unstable and incapable of living - isn't consistent in itself or with the known facts (e.g. 'he is a real life demon') or leads to further absurd beliefs?
Should we, really, _always_ try to work out the logical entailments?
No doubt, you would say that such a person isn't ready to 'try', or indeed would try but is temporarily incapable - maybe a few year down the line they'll be in a stronger position to deal with their past. My point is that we shouldn't suggest that logical reflection is a cureall, nor should we suggest that our prejudices necessarily need questioning - they wouldn't be prejudices if we didn't believe them.
Replacing these prejudices with new ones is certainly transformative, but what position are we moving from and where are we moving to? Does our logical action of including all the beliefs involved in some logical questioning include the beliefs we have _after_ performing this operation? Does logic take into account our intuitions and feelings about the world, or does it do so only by proxy?
When is 'thinking because it is right in itself' or 'thinking logically because it is how thinking works' a practical reason to think? I suggest that firstly we can think of examples where this would be a monstrous imposition (as with the thought experiment at the start of this comment); secondly that what is involved in thinking are things of real value, that we in our more moderate daily lives choose not to question _for good reasons_.
Interesting article. What counts is the inside of the person.
philosophers -talk - talk -talk - the greek meaning tells us that a philosopher is a 'lover of wisdom' but of course what is wisdom? well the old English tells us 'a wise condition' but that leaves us none the wiser really does it?
To philosophize in my dictionary defines it as ' people who philosophize talk about important things in a boring, pretentious way - ah now we are getting nearer the truth me thinks.
But I do believe that philosphers take their lives seriously and believe that their most trusty ally is their mind. But what is 'mind' I ask. I know the brain - I have studied anatomy and physiology ad nauseum - I know for example that when I visualize, or hear, or smell or taste or walk - that my brain allows or promotes this to happen. But what of logical thought, or reasoning or thinking - is this from the brain or the mind. MY dictionary tells me that my mind is ' my ability to think together with all the thoughts I have and my memory'
But where is the mind - if philosophers are people who use their minds a lot surely they will be very knowledgeable about their minds and what they are? So tell me oh sages oh deep philosphers, where is your mind? is it in the brain for example or does it remain outside of the brain?
The anatomist and physiologist as experts in their own fields can pin point the activity of their studies - the brain and describe its function. So come on philosophers - you of the mind - experts of the mind - tell us where it is and how it functions - we are curious to know your expert field and knowledge?
Because if you cannot give us accurate information as the anatomists do then you will leave us doubting your authenticity - yes you speak of mindful things - of things beyond the brain and of the mind - but do tell - where is the mind? After all this is your greatest asset - your greatest gift. So as you use it please define it.
I am reminded at this point of the biblical quotes 1 Corinthians 3:19 - for the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God: for he taketh the wise in their own craftiness - 20 - and again the Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain
You can "talk about important things in a boring, pretentious way " philosophize but you cannot tell us where the seat of your philosophy is can you?
You may have been trained in fancy words and phrases but it is all in vain as the scriptures tell us and the fancier they get they more we know you are trying to exalt yourselves - trying to impress but the wisdom of the world is foolishness.
Rant on dear philosphers whilst the rest of us get on with our lives and don't really give a jot as long as we are at peace with our God and our world, we don't need you to point the wrong direction!
"The anatomist and physiologist as experts in their own fields can pin point the activity of their studies - the brain and describe its function. So come on philosophers - you of the mind - experts of the mind - tell us where it is and how it functions - we are curious to know your expert field and knowledge?"
Hello Fitz. I've noticed that we have been in vague agreement over logic, but I don't think you're right here.
A philosopher isn't an expert like a scientist; if you have a philosophical problem you don't ask a philosopher to work it out for you - this is, for example, the root error of those who say philosophy is worthless because it 'makes no progress'. Philosophy is an intimate, personal thing that involves your mind and not mine or Jonathan Ree's. Consider the very fact that:
"A man cannot see by another's eye, nor hear by anothers ear, no more can a man conclude or infer the thing to be resolved by anothers understanding or reasoning."
Chief Justice Vaughan, 1670
Fitz, why is it so necessary to locate the mind in order to use it? You can agree 2+2=4 without knowing who you're agreeing with.
Surely it's not so much a matter of taking you from your God's peace as of asking you to consider using simple rules which say "true" or "false", and not "God is dead" - which is what you seem to think happens as an inevitable consequence of even using such heretical devices!
Perhaps philosophy defends logic whereas people tend to defend the human. So will there be any defence counsel for the evil and illogical? Maybe we're playing categories too easily.
""A philosopher isn't an expert like a scientist; if you have a philosophical problem you don't ask a philosopher to work it out for you - this is, for example, the root error of those who say philosophy is worthless because it 'makes no progress'. Philosophy is an intimate, personal thing that involves your mind and not mine or Jonathan Ree's. Consider the very fact that:
"A man cannot see by another's eye, nor hear by anothers ear, no more can a man conclude or infer the thing to""
Couldn't agree more Matt - but they sometimes sound like they want to be experts in the field!
""Fitz, why is it so necessary to locate the mind in order to use it? You can agree 2+2=4 without knowing who you're agreeing with.""
and Eman - I don't specifically want to locate the mind - I was merely questioning the philospher's base of practice - it would seem very LOGICAL on such a site as this to philosphize on what is the mind - where is it - how does it function - does it obey the lawws of logic etc etc - after all we would seem to be using it an awful lot around here. Just thought I'd ask the philosophers who seem to use it even more than the common man.
If I was debating neuro-scientific phenomena the 'expert's or neuro scientists would willing tell me where the apparatus is!
So come on all your eminent philosophers - Where is your mind?
I wanted to add that on the 26-IX-2006, I saw the programme Polos Opuestos [Opposite Poles] in which one of the dissidents in Cuba Paya has received death threats from Cuban Authorities for being in disagreement with Castro. There is a calculated plan to kill dissidents in Cuba after Fidel Castro dies. Their crime: freethinking. Please feel free to visit my blog concerning this.
Matt makes an interesting point when he says that it's not always appropriate to remind people of the truths of logic.
"Is it at all useful", he asks, "to point out to a victim of terrible abuse that how they have come to deal with their abuser - the thought of whom would otherwise overwhelm them and make them mentally unstable and incapable of living - isn't consistent in itself or with the known facts."
Well I would have thought it depends on the circumstances: it might be helpful and it might not. But even when it's not. that's a question of tact and timing and therapeutic effectiveness, rather than a doubt about the relevance of logic.
I would repeat my comparison with arithmetic and ask you to conisder a parallel case. If someone is suicidal about their credit card debts, it would probably be a bad idea to remind them of the arithmetical facts about compound interest. But that does not cast doubt on the relevance of arithmetic, surely.
Thanks for responding to my comments. Maybe it's time to be as explicit as possible about the issue, as I'm not sure we've made any progress with it.
I agree with you that logic is necessarily 'relevant' to any case we could possibly describe, even when it seems that we want to deny this or indeed should deny this. But the difference lies in logic being either necessarily relevant or practically relevant as doctrine.
Insofar as logic is necessarily relevant, it seems to me that it can be taken utterly for granted - there is no possibility whatsoever of going against it. Speaking of logic as a doctrinal method of analysis, the case must be made for its status as an ideal. This is the challenge for logical analysis to answer, and poses a very different sense of the 'relevance' of logic. Specifically, this challenge concerns the relevance of the propogation of logical concepts, and ability to use them.
It is crucial to understand that without the knowledge of logical concepts, logic is not made any less than it is, and our ability or not to logically analyse propositions/arguments etc. does not necessarily pass judgment on the standard of our ability to reason, which happens on a solely moral basis aposteriori (i.e. as a cherished ideal and not as a necessary proof).
I know this kind of writing is difficult for many, and though while I have not wanted to get into philosophical distinctions too much, having just written it out fairly tersely, I don't think it's too bad after all (or too different from my previous comments, which maybe doesn't reflect well on me).
Finally, understanding that the logical analysis of analytical philosophy does not have the transcendent birthright of its namesake (logic), and is in fact an ethical problem, it becomes easy to see that another moral system (the freethinkers) aren't simply saying nothing (denying the necessity of logic qua logic) when they refuse the command to 'think logically'.
It even seems to me that if 'logical procedure' or 'logical thinking' or 'critical thinking' (ugh), however we want to put it, were a necessary thing, we would already be in conformity with it - in its entirety - wouldn't we?