1 Arguing for Wisdom in the University: An - UCL Discovery

41 Pages·2012·0.28 MB·English

ArguingforWisdominthe University:AnIntellectualAutobiography
Nicholas Maxwell
University CollegeLondon
[email protected]
PublishedinPhilosophiavol.40,no,4,pp.663-704,2012
TheKeytoWisdom
Nearlyfortyyearsago Idiscovered aprofoundlysignificantidea –orso Ibelieve.
Sincethen, Ihaveexpoundedanddevelopedtheideainsix books1andcountlessarticles
publishedinacademicjournalsandotherbooks.2 Ihavetalked abouttheideain
universitiesandatconferences allovertheUK,in Europe,theUSA,Canada,and
Taiwan. And yet,alas,despiteallthis effort,few indeedarethosewhohaveevenheard
oftheidea. Ihavenotevenmanagedto communicatetheideatomyfellow
philosophers.3
Whatdid Idiscover? Quitesimply:thekeytowisdom.4 Forovertwo andahalf
thousand years,philosophy(which means “loveofwisdom”)hassoughtin vainto
discoverhowhumanitymightlearntobecomewise–howwemightlearn tocreatean
enlightenedworld. FortheancientGreekphilosophers,Socrates, Platoandtherest,
discoveringhowtobecomewisewas thefundamentaltaskforphilosophy. Inthemodern
period,thiscentral,ancientquesthasbeenlaidsomewhattorest,notbecauseitisno
longerthoughtimportant,butratherbecausethequestisseenasunattainable. Therecord
ofsavageryandhorrorofthelastcenturyissoextremeandterriblethatthesearch for
wisdom,moreimportantthanever,has cometoseemhopeless,aquixoticfantasy.
Nevertheless,itisthis ancient,fundamentalproblem,lyingattheheartofphilosophy,at
theheart,indeed,ofallofthought,morality,politics andlife,thatIhavesolved. Orso I
believe.
When IsayIhavediscoveredthekeyto wisdom,Ishouldsay, moreprecisely,thatI
havediscoveredthemethodological keytowisdom. Orperhaps, moremodestly, Ishould
saythatIhavediscoveredthat sciencecontains,lockedupinitsastoundingsuccessin
acquiringknowledgeand understandingoftheuniverse,the methodologicalkeyto
wisdom. Ihavediscoveredarecipeforcreatingakindoforganizedinquiryrationally
designed anddevotedto helpinghumanitylearn wisdom,learntocreateamore
enlightenedworld.
Whatwehaveisalongtraditionofinquiry–extraordinarilysuccessfulinitsown
terms–devotedtoacquiringknowledge andtechnological know-how. Itis thisthathas
createdthemodern world,oratleastmadeitpossible. Butscientificknowledgeand
technological know-howareambiguous blessings, as moreand morepeople,thesedays,
arebeginningtorecognize. Theydonotguaranteehappiness. Scientificknowledgeand
technological know-howenormouslyincreaseourpowerto act. In endless ways,this
vastincreaseinourpowertoact has beenusedfor thepublicgood–inhealth,
agriculture,transport,communications,andcountlessotherways. Butequally,this
enhancedpowerto actcanbeusedtocausehumanharm,whetherunintentionally,as in
environmentaldamage(at leastinitially),orintentionally,asinwar. Itishardlytoo
muchtosaythat allourcurrent globalproblemshavecomeaboutbecauseofscienceand
technology. Theappallingdestructivenessofmodernwarfareandterrorism,vast
inequalitiesinwealthandstandardsoflivingbetweenfirstand thirdworlds, rapid
1
population growth, environmentaldamage–destructionoftropicalrain forests,rapid
extinctionofspecies, globalwarming,pollutionofsea,earthandair,depletionof finite
naturalresources– allonlyexisttodaybecauseofmodernscienceandtechnology.
Scienceandtechnologyleadtomodernindustryandagriculture,to modern medicineand
hygiene,andthus inturn topopulation growth,to modern armaments,conventional,
chemical,biologicaland nuclear,todestructionof naturalhabitats,extinctionofspecies,
pollution,andtoimmenseinequalities of wealtharoundtheglobe.
Sciencewithoutwisdom, wemightsay,isamenace. Itisthecrisisbehind allthe
others. Whenwelacked our modern,terrifyingpowerstoact,beforetheadventof
science,lackofwisdom didnotmattertoo much: wewerebereftofthepowertoinflict
toomuchdamageonourselvesandtheplanet. Nowthatwehavemodern science,and
theunprecedentedpowers toactthatithasbequeathedtous,wisdomhasbecome,nota
privateluxury,butapublicnecessity. Ifwedonotrapidlylearntobecomewiser,weare
doomedtorepeatinthe21stcenturyallthedisastersandhorrorsofthe20th:the
horrifyinglydestructivewars,thedislocationand deathof millions,thedegradationofthe
worldwelivein. Onlythistimerounditmayallbemuchworse, as thepopulation goes
up,theplanetbecomesevermore crowded,oilandotherresourcesvitalto ourwayoflife
runout, weaponsof mass destructionbecomemoreand morewidelyavailableforuse,
anddesertsanddesolationspread.
Theancientquestforwisdomhasbecomeamatter ofdesperateurgency. Itis hardly
toomuchtosaythatthefutureoftheworldis atstake. Buthowcansuchaquest
possiblymeetwithsuccess? Wisdom,surely,isnotsomethingthatwecan learnand
teach,as apartofournormaleducation,inschools anduniversities?
Thisis mygreatdiscovery! Wisdomcanbelearnt andtaughtinschools and
universities. Itmust besolearntandtaught. Wisdomisindeedtheproperfundamental
objectiveforthewholeoftheacademicenterprise:tohelphumanitylearn howtonurture
andcreateawiserworld.
But howdowe go about creatinga kindofeducation,researchandscholarshipthat
reallywillhelpuslearn wisdom? Wouldnotanysuchattemptdestroywhatis ofvaluein
whatwehaveatpresent, andjustproducehotair, hypocrisy,vanityandnonsense? Or
worse,dogmaand religiousfundamentalism? What,inanycase,iswisdom? Isnot all
thisjust anabstractphilosophicalfantasy?
Theanswer,as Ihave alreadysaid,lieslocked awayinwhatmayseemahighly
improbablyplace:science! This willseemespeciallyimprobableto manyofthosemost
awareofenvironmentalissues,andmostsuspiciousoftheroleof modern scienceand
technologyin modernlife. Howcan sciencecontainthemethodologicalkeytowisdom
whenitispreciselythissciencethatis behindsomanyofourcurrenttroubles? Buta
crucialpointmustbenoted. Modernscientificandtechnologicalresearch hasmetwith
absolutelyastonishing,unprecedentedsuccess,as longasthis successis interpreted
narrowly,interms ofthe productionofexpertknowledgeandtechnological know-how.
Doubts maybeexpressedaboutwhetherhumanityas awholehasmadeprogresstowards
wellbeingorhappinessduringthelast centuryorso. Buttherecanbenoserious doubt
whatsoeverthatsciencehasmadestaggeringintellectualprogressinincreasingexpert
knowledgeand know-how,duringsuchaperiod. Itisthisastonishingintellectual
progressthat makessciencesuchapowerfulbutdouble-edgedtool,forgoodandforbad.
2
Atoncethequestionarises:Canwelearnfromtheintellectualprogress of sciencehow
toachieveprogressinotherfieldsofhumanendeavour? Isscientificprogressexportable,
asitwere,toother areas oflife? Moreprecisely, cantheprogress-achievingmethodsof
sciencebegeneralizedso thattheybecomefruitfulforotherworthwhile,problematic
human endeavours,inparticularthesupremelyworthwhile,supremelyproblematic
endeavourofcreatinga goodandwiseworld?
Mygreatidea–thatthiscanindeedbedone –isnotentirelynew(as Iwas tolearn
aftermakingmydiscovery). Itgoes backtothe18th centuryEnlightenment. This was
indeedthekeyideaoftheEnlightenment, especiallythe French Enlightenment:tolearn
fromscientificprogress howtoachievesocialprogress towards anenlightenedworld.
AndthephilosophesoftheEnlightenment, mensuchasVoltaire, Diderot andCondorcet,
didwhattheycouldtoputthismagnificent,profoundideaintopracticeintheirlives.
Theyfoughtdictatorialpower,superstition,andinjusticewithweaponsno morelethal
thanthoseofargument andwit. Theygavetheirsupporttothevirtuesoftolerance,
openness todoubt,readinesstolearnfromcriticismandfromexperience. Courageously
andenergeticallytheylabouredtopromotereasonandenlightenmentinpersonaland
sociallife.
Unfortunately,indevelopingtheEnlightenmentideaintellectually,thephilosophes
blundered. Theybotched thejob. Theydeveloped theEnlightenment ideaina
profoundlydefectiveform,anditisthisimmenselyinfluential,defectiveversionofthe
idea,inheritedfromthe18th century,which maybecalledthe"traditional"
Enlightenment,thatisbuiltintoearly21stcenturyinstitutionsofinquiry. Ourcurrent
traditionsandinstitutionsoflearning,whenjudgedfromthestandpointofhelpingus
learnhowtobecomemoreenlightened,aredefectiveandirrationalinawholesaleand
structuralway, anditisthiswhich,inthelongterm,sabotages oureffortstocreatea
morecivilizedworld,andpreventsusfromavoidingthekindofhorrorswehavebeen
exposedtoduringthelastcentury.
Thetaskbeforeusis thus not thatofcreatingakindofinquirydevotedtoimproving
wisdomoutoftheblue, asitwere,withnothingto guideus excepttwoandahalf
thousand yearsof failed philosophicaldiscussion. Rather,thetaskisthemuchmore
straightforward,practicalandwell-definedoneofcorrectingthestructuralblundersbuilt
intoacademicinquiryinheritedfromtheEnlightenment. Wealreadyhaveakindof
academicinquirydesignedtohelpus learnwisdom. Theproblemisthatthedesign is
lousy. Itis,as Ihavesaid,abotchedjob. Itislikeapieceofengineeringthatkills
peoplebecauseoffaultydesign– abridgethatcollapses,oranaeroplanethatfalls outof
thesky. Aquitespecifictasklies beforeus:todiagnosetheblunders wehaveinherited
fromtheEnlightenment,andputthemright.5
Sohere,briefly,isthediagnosis.Thephilosophes ofthe18thcenturyassumed,
understandablyenough,thattheproper waytoimplementtheEnlightenmentprogramme
wastodevelopsocialsciencealongsidenaturalscience. Francis Baconhadalready
stressedtheimportanceofimprovingknowledgeofthenaturalworldinordertoachieve
socialprogress. Thephilosophes generalizedthis, holdingthatitis justasimportantto
improveknowledgeofthesocialworld. Thusthe philosophessetaboutcreatingthe
socialsciences:history,anthropology,politicaleconomy,psychology,sociology.
Thishadanimmenseimpact.Throughoutthe19th centurythediversesocialsciences
weredeveloped,oftenbynon-academics,inaccordancewiththis Enlightenmentidea.
3
Gradually,universitiestooknoticeofthesedevelopmentsuntil,bythemid 20th century,
allthediversebranchesofthesocialsciences,as conceivedofbytheEnlightenment,
werebuiltintotheinstitutionalstructureofuniversities as recognizedacademic
disciplines.
Theoutcomeiswhatwehavetoday, knowledge-inquiryaswemaycallit,akindof
inquirydevotedinthefirstinstancetothepursuitofknowledge.
But,fromthestandpoint ofcreatingakindofinquirydesignedtohelphumanitylearn
howtobecomeenlightenedandcivilized,which wastheoriginalidea,allthisamounts to
aseriesof monumentalblunders.
InordertoimplementproperlythebasicEnlightenmentideaoflearningfromscientific
progresshowtoachieve socialprogresstowardsacivilizedworld,itisessentialto getthe
followingthreethings right.
1. Theprogress-achievingmethods ofscienceneedtobecorrectlyidentified.
2. Thesemethodsneedtobecorrectlygeneralizedsothat theybecomefruitfully
applicabletoanyworthwhile,problematichuman endeavour,whatevertheaims
maybe,andnotjustapplicabletotheoneendeavourof acquiringknowledge.
3. Thecorrectlygeneralizedprogress-achievingmethods thenneedtobeexploited
correctlyinthegreathuman endeavouroftryingtomakesocialprogresstowards
anenlightened,civilizedworld.
Unfortunately,thephilosophesoftheEnlightenment gotallthreepointswrong. They
failedtocapturecorrectlytheprogress-achievingmethodsofnaturalscience;theyfailed
to generalizethese methodsproperly;and,mostdisastrouslyofall,theyfailedtoapply
themproperlysothathumanitymightlearnhowtobecomecivilizedbyrationalmeans.
Insteadofseekingtoapplytheprogress-achievingmethodsofscience, afterhavingbeen
appropriatelygeneralized,tothetaskofcreatingabetterworld,thephilosophesapplied
scientificmethodtothetaskofcreatingsocialscience. Insteadoftryingto makesocial
progresstowardsanenlightenedworld,theysetabout makingscientificprogressin
knowledgeofsocialphenomena. Thatthephilosophesmadetheseblunders inthe18th
centuryisforgivable;whatisunforgivableis thattheseblundersstillremain
unrecognizedanduncorrectedtoday,overtwocenturies later. Insteadofcorrectingthem,
wehave allowedourinstitutions oflearningtobeshapedbythemas theyhavedeveloped
throughoutthe19thand20th centuries,sothatnow theblundersareanall-pervasive
featureofourworld.
TheEnlightenment,and whatitledto,has longbeencriticized,bytheRomantic
movement,bywhatIsaiahBerlinhas called 'thecounter-Enlightenment',andmore
recentlybythe Frankfurt school,bypostmodernistsandothers. Butthesestandard
objectionsare,frommypointofview,entirelymissingthepoint. Inparticular,myidea
is theveryoppositeofallthoseanti-rationalist,romanticandpostmodernist viewswhich
objecttothewaytheEnlightenment gives fartoo greatanimportancetonaturalscience
andtoscientificrationality. Mydiscoveryis that whatis wrongwiththetraditional
Enlightenment,andthe kindofacademicinquirywenowpossess derivedfromit –
knowledge-inquiry–isnottoomuch 'scientificrationality'but,onthecontrary,not
enough. Itistheglaring, wholesaleirrationalityofcontemporaryacademicinquiry,
whenjudgedfromthestandpointofhelpinghumanitylearnhowtobecomemore
civilized,thatistheproblem.
4
But,thecrywillgoup,wisdomhasnothingtodo withreason. Andreason hasnothing
todowithwisdom. Onthecontrary! Itisjustsuchanitemof conventional‘wisdom’
thatmygreatideaturnsonits head. Oncebothreasonandwisdomhavebeenrightly
understood,andtheirrationalityofacademicinquiryasitexistsatpresenthasbeen
appreciated,itbecomesobviousthatitispreciselyreasonthatweneedtoputinto
practiceinourpersonal,social,institutionalandgloballivesif ourlives,atallthese
levels,aretobecomeimbuedwithabitmorewisdom. We need,inshort, anew, more
rigorous kindofinquirywhichhas,asits basictask,toseekandpromote wisdom. We
maycallthis new kindofinquirywisdom-inquiry.
Butwhatis wisdom? ThisishowIdefineitinFromKnowledgetoWisdom,abook
publishedsome yearsagonow,in1984,inwhichIsetoutmy‘greatidea’insomedetail:
“[wisdomis]thedesire,the active endeavour,andthecapacitytodiscoverand
achievewhatis desirableandofvalueinlife,bothforoneselfandforothers. Wisdom
includesknowledgeandunderstandingbutgoesbeyondtheminalsoincluding:the
desireand activestrivingfor whatisofvalue,theabilitytoseewhatis ofvalue,
actuallyandpotentially,inthecircumstancesoflife,theabilitytoexperiencevalue,
thecapacitytouseanddevelop knowledge,technologyandunderstandingasneeded
fortherealizationofvalue. Wisdom,likeknowledge,canbeconceivedof,notonly
inpersonalterms,but alsoininstitutionalorsocialterms. Wecanthusinterpret
[wisdom-inquiry]asasserting:thebasictaskof rationalinquiryistohelpus
developwiserwaysofliving, wiserinstitutions,customs andsocialrelations,awiser
world.”6
What,then,arethethree blunders oftheEnlightenment,stillbuiltintothe
intellectual/institutionalstructureofacademia?
First,thephilosophesfailedtocapturecorrectlytheprogress-achievingmethodsof
naturalscience. FromD’Alembertinthe18th centuryto Karl Popperinthe20th,the
widelyheldview,amongstbothscientists andphilosophers,hasbeen(and continuesto
be)thatscienceproceeds byassessingtheories impartiallyinthelightofevidence,no
permanentassumptionbeingacceptedbyscienceabouttheuniverseindependentlyof
evidence. Preferencemaybegiventosimple,unifiedorexplanatorytheories,butnotin
suchawaythatnatureherselfis,ineffect,assumedtobesimple,unifiedor
comprehensible.
Thisorthodox view,which Icall standardempiricismis,however,untenable. Iftaken
literally,itwouldinstantlybringscienceto astandstill. For, given anyaccepted
fundamental theoryofphysics,T, Newtoniantheorysay,orquantumtheory, endlessly
manyempiricallymoresuccessful rivalscanbeconcoctedwhich agreewithTabout
observedphenomenabut disagreearbitrarilyaboutsomeunobservedphenomena,and
successfullypredictphenomena,inanadhocway,thatTmakes falsepredictionsabout,
ornopredictions. Physicswouldbedrownedinanoceanofsuchempiricallymore
successfulrivaltheories.
Inpractice,theserivalsareexcludedbecausetheyaredisastrouslydisunified. Two
considerations govern acceptanceoftheories inphysics:empiricalsuccessandunity. In
demandingunity,wedemandofafundamentalphysicaltheorythatitascribesthesame
dynamiclaws tothephenomenatowhichthetheoryapplies.7 Butinpersistently
5
acceptingunifiedtheories,totheextentofrejectingdisunifiedrivals that arejustas,or
even more, empiricallysuccessful,physics makes abigpersistentassumptionaboutthe
universe. Theuniverseissuchthatalldisunified theoriesarefalse. Ithas somekindof
unifieddynamicstructure. Itisphysicallycomprehensibleinthesensethatexplanations
forphenomenaexisttobediscovered.
Butthisuntestable(andthusmetaphysical)assumptionthattheuniverseis physically
comprehensibleisprofoundlyproblematic. Scienceisobligedtoassume,butdoesnot
know,thattheuniverseiscomprehensible. Much less doesitknowthattheuniverseis
comprehensibleinthisorthatway. A glanceatthehistoryofphysicsreveals thatideas
havechangeddramaticallyovertime. Inthe17thcenturytherewas theidea thatthe
universeconsistsofcorpuscles,minutebilliardballs,whichinteractonlybycontact.
This gavewaytotheideathattheuniverseconsists ofpoint-particles surroundedby
rigid,sphericallysymmetricalfieldsofforce,whichinturn gavewaytotheideathat
thereis oneunifiedself-interactingfield,varyingsmoothlythroughoutspaceandtime.
Nowadayswehavetheideathateverythingis madeupof minute quantum strings
embeddedintenor elevendimensionsofspace-time. Somekindofassumptionalong
theselinesmustbemadebut, giventhehistoricalrecord, and giventhatanysuch
assumptionconcernstheultimatenatureoftheuniverse,thatof whichwe aremost
ignorant,itisonlyreasonabletoconcludethatitisalmostboundtobefalse.
Thewaytoovercomethisfundamentaldilemmainherentinthescientific enterpriseis
toconstruephysicsas makingahierarchyof metaphysicalassumptionsconcerningthe
comprehensibilityand knowabilityoftheuniverse, theseassumptionsassertinglessand
lessasonegoesupthehierarchy,andthusbecomingmoreand morelikelytobetrue, and
morenearlysuchthattheirtruthis requiredforscience,orthepursuitofknowledge,tobe
possibleatall. Inthiswayaframeworkof relativelyinsubstantial,unproblematic,fixed
assumptionsandassociatedmethodsiscreatedwithinwhichmuch moresubstantialand
problematicassumptions andassociated methodscanbechanged,andindeedimproved,
asscientificknowledgeimproves. Putanotherway, aframeworkof relativelyunspecific,
unproblematic,fixedaimsandmethodsis created withinwhichmuch morespecificand
problematicaimsand methods evolveasscientific knowledgeevolves. Thereis positive
feedbackbetweenimprovingknowledge,andimprovingaims-and-methods,improving
knowledge-about-how-to-improve-knowledge. Thisisthenubofscientificrationality,
themethodologicalkeytotheunprecedentedsuccessof science. Scienceadapts its
naturetowhatitdiscoversaboutthenatureofthe universe. Philosophyofscience(the
studyoftheaimsand methodsofscience)becomes anintegral,vitalpartof scienceitself.
Andsciencebecomes muchmorelikenatural philosophyinthetimeofNewton,a
synthesis ofscience, methodology,epistemology, metaphysics andphilosophy.
Thishierarchicalconceptionofphysics,which Icall aim-orientedempiricism,can
readilybegeneralizedto takeintoaccountproblematicassumptionsassociatedwiththe
aimsofsciencehavingtowithvalues,andthesocialusesorapplicationsofscience. It
canbegeneralizedsoas toapplytothedifferentbranches ofnaturalscience. Different
sciences havedifferentspecificaims,andso differentspecificmethods although,
throughoutnaturalsciencethereis thecommon meta-methodologyofaim-oriented
empiricism.
SomuchforthefirstblunderofthetraditionalEnlightenment,andhowto putitright.8
6
Second,havingfailedto identifythe methodsofsciencecorrectly,thephilosophes
naturallyfailedto generalizethesemethodsproperly. Theyfailedtoappreciatethatthe
ideaofrepresentingtheproblematicaims(and associated methods)ofscienceintheform
ofahierarchycanbegeneralized andappliedfruitfullytootherworthwhileenterprises
besides science. Manyotherenterpriseshaveproblematicaims –problematicbecause
aimsconflict,andbecausewhatweseekmaybeunrealizable,undesirable, or both. Such
enterprises,withproblematicaims,wouldbenefitfromemployingahierarchical
methodology, generalizedfromthatofscience,thusmakingitpossibletoimproveaims
andmethodsastheenterpriseproceeds. Thereis thehopethat, asaresultofexploitingin
lifemethods generalized fromthoseemployedwithsuchsuccessinscience,someofthe
astonishingsuccess ofsciencemightbeexportedintootherworthwhilehuman
endeavours, withproblematic aimsquitedifferentfromthoseofscience.
Third,andmostdisastrouslyofall,thephilosophesfailedcompletelytotrytoapply
such generalized,hierarchical progress-achievingmethodstotheimmense,and
profoundlyproblematicenterpriseof makingsocialprogresstowardsanenlightened,
wiseworld. Theaimofsuchanenterpriseis notoriouslyproblematic. For allsorts of
reasons,whatconstitutes agood world,an enlightened,wiseorcivilized world,attainable
andgenuinelydesirable,mustbeinherentlyandpermanentlyproblematic. Here, above
all,itisessentialtoemploythegeneralizedversionofthehierarchical,progress-
achievingmethodsofscience,designedspecificallytofacilitateprogress whenbasicaims
areproblematic. Itis justthis thatthephilosophesfailedtodo. Insteadof
applyingthehierarchical methodologytosociallife,thephilosophessought toapplya
seriouslydefectiveconceptionofscientificmethodto socialscience,tothetaskof
makingprogress towards,notabetterworld,buttobetterknowledgeofsocial
phenomena. Andthisancientblunder,developedthroughoutthe19thcenturybyJ.S.
Mill, Karl Marx andmanyothers,andbuiltintoacademiaintheearly20thcenturywith
thecreationofthediversebranches ofthesocialsciencesinuniversities alloverthe
world,isstillbuiltintotheinstitutionalandintellectualstructureofacademiatoday,
inherentinthecurrentcharacterofsocialscience.
Properlyimplemented,inshort,theEnlightenment ideaoflearningfromscientific
progresshowtoachieve socialprogresstowardsanenlightenedworldwouldinvolve
developingsocialinquiry,notprimarilyassocialscience,but ratherassocial
methodology,orsocialphilosophy. Abasictaskwouldbetogetintopersonalandsocial
life,andintootherinstitutionsbesides thatofscience –into government,industry,
agriculture,commerce,themedia,law, education, internationalrelations – hierarchical,
progress-achievingmethods(designedtoimproveproblematicaims)arrivedatby
generalizingthemethods ofscience. Abasictaskforacademicinquiryas a wholewould
betohelphumanitylearn howtoresolveits conflicts andproblems oflivingin morejust,
cooperativelyrationalways thanatpresent. Thefundamentalintellectualand
humanitarianaimofinquirywouldbetohelphumanityacquirewisdom–wisdombeing,
as Ihavealreadyindicated,thecapacitytorealize(apprehendand create)whatisofvalue
inlife,foroneselfandothers.
Oneoutcomeof gettingintosocialandinstitutionallifethekindofaim-evolving,
hierarchical methodologyindicatedabove, generalizedfromscience,isthatitbecomes
possibleforustodevelopandassessrivalphilosophies oflifeas apartofsociallife,
somewhatas theories aredevelopedand assessed withinscience. Suchahierarchical
7
methodologyprovides a frameworkwithinwhichcompetingviewsaboutwhatouraims
andmethodsinlifeshouldbe–competingreligious,politicalandmoralviews –maybe
cooperativelyassessedandtestedagainstbroadlyagreed,unspecificaims(highupinthe
hierarchyofaims)andtheexperienceofpersonalandsociallife.Thereisthepossibilityof
cooperativelyandprogressivelyimprovingsuchphilosophiesoflife(viewsaboutwhatisof
valueinlifeandhowitistobeachieved)muchastheoriesarecooperativelyandprogressively
improvedinscience.
Wisdom-inquiry,becauseofits greaterrigour,hasintellectualstandardsthatare,in
importantrespects,differentfromthoseofknowledge-inquiry. Whereas knowledge-
inquirydemands thatemotionsanddesires,values,humanidealsandaspirations,
philosophiesoflifebeexcludedfromtheintellectualdomainofinquiry,wisdom-inquiry
requiresthattheybeincluded. Inordertodiscoverwhatis ofvalueinlifeitis essential
thatweattendtoourfeelingsanddesires. Butnoteverythingwedesireis desirable,and
noteverythingthatfeels goodis good. Feelings,desiresandvaluesneedtobesubjected
tocriticalscrutiny. And ofcoursefeelings,desiresandvalues mustnotbepermittedto
influencejudgementsof factualtruthand falsity.
Wisdom-inquiryembodiesasynthesisoftraditionalRationalismandRomanticism. It
includeselementsfromboth,anditimprovesonboth. ItincorporatesRomanticidealsof
integrity,havingtodowithmotivationalandemotionalhonesty,honestyaboutdesires
andaims;and atthesametimeitincorporatestraditionalRationalistidealsofintegrity,
havingtodowithrespectforobjectivefact, knowledge,andvalidargument.Traditional
Rationalismtakesitsinspirationfromscienceand method;Romanticismtakesits
inspirationfromart,fromimagination,andfrompassion. Wisdom-inquiryholdsartto
haveafundamentalrationalroleininquiry,inrevealingwhatis ofvalue, andunmasking
falsevalues;butscience, too,is offundamentalimportance. Whatweneed,forwisdom,
is aninterplayofscepticalrationalityand emotion,aninterplayofmindand heart,sothat
wemaydevelopmindful hearts andheartfeltminds (as IputitinmyfirstbookWhat’s
WrongWithScience?).It istimewehealedthegreatriftinourculture,so graphically
depictedbyC.P.Snow.9
Therevolutionwerequire–intellectual,institutionalandcultural–ifitevercomes
about,will becomparableinits long-termimpact tothatoftheRenaissance,thescientific
revolution,ortheEnlightenment. Theoutcomewill betraditionsandinstitutions of
learningrationallydesignedtohelpus realizewhat is ofvalueinlife. Thereareafew
scatteredsigns thatthis intellectualrevolution,fromknowledge towisdom, is already
underway.10 Itwillneed,however, muchwidercooperativesupport –from scientists,
scholars,students,researchcouncils,universityadministrators,vicechancellors,teachers,
themediaandthegeneralpublic –ifitis tobecomeanythingmorethanwhatitisat
present,afragmentaryandoftenimpotent movementofprotestandopposition,oftenat
oddswithitself,exercisinglittleinfluenceonthemainbodyofacademic work. Ican
hardlyimagineanymore importantwork foranyoneassociated withacademiathan,in
teaching,learningandresearch,tohelppromotethisrevolution.
Childhood
ItmaybethoughtthatmyideathatIcanpublishafewbooks andarticles, give afew
lectures,andthereby,single-handedlyasitwere,transformtheentireacademic
8
enterprise,amounts to megalomania,ifnotdownrightlunacy. Wheredidsuchamad
projectcome from?
Itall goesbackto mychildhood. Forasfarbackas Icanremember, Iseemtohave
foundtheworldbaffling, mysteriousand frightening. Aboveall Iwasterrifiedbythe
blackinevitabilityofdeath. Fromtheageoffour, Iwas hauntedbyproblems ofwar,
theology,cosmology,physics,consciousness,epistemology, andthemeaningoflife.
Onenight,when Iwas three years old,duringtheearlystagesofthesecondworldwar,
theGerman Luftwaffe droppedbombsinafieldnotsoveryfarfromourhouse.Laterthat
night Ipacedtoand froinmyparents'bedroom, myhandsdeepinmydressinggown
pockets,myheadbowed inthought. Finally, Istopped,turnedtomyparents,andasked:
"Mummy,whydotheyhavewars?"Today, Iamproudofmythree yearoldselffor
askingthat goodquestion.
Aroundthesametime, Ienteredintoafiercetheologicaldebatewiththeboynextdoor.
HewastryingtoconvincemeoftheexistenceofGod. “IfGoddoesn'texist"heargued
"whodo youthinkmadetheearth? Who madethetrees? Whomadethestars?"Ilistened
tothis litanyofquestionsinsilencefora while,andthenaskedinturn:"Andwhomade
God?"Theboynextdoorwentawaywithoutgivingmeananswer.
Alittlelater,when Iwas four, Igotinterestedinnaturalphilosophyandcosmology. I
inventedatheoryastowhytheskyisblue.Accordingtothistheory,theskyisblue
becauseairisvery,veryslightlyblue. When youlookatthingscloseto,the blueness of
theairistooslighttobe noticed,butwhen youlookatthesky, youseethroughsomuch
airthatthebluenessis easytosee. Icanremembertryingtoconvincemyfather ofthis
explanationforthebluenessofthesky–and Iremembermyexasperation when,for
someextraordinaryreason,heremainedunconvinced.
Ialsorememberlyingawakeinbedonesummereveningatthis time,puzzlingabout
howspacecancometoanend. Itoccurredto methatfarawayintheskytheremustbea
vastwallthatmarkstheouterboundaryofeverything. Forawhile,this seemedtometo
beasatisfactoryenough solutiontotheproblem.Andthen Ihadtheawfulthought:But
whatis behindthewall?Somethingmustbebehindthewall!
Aboutayearlater,when Iwasaboutfive, Imadetheextraordinarydiscoveryofself-
consciousness. Ihadhad arowwith mymother. Shewanted meand mysisterto gofor
awalk. Iprotested. “Itwillrain”, Ideclared,pointingtosomedarkclouds. Offmy
mother andsisterwent,leavingmebehind. Feelingsomewhatresentfulandself-
righteous, aloneinthehouse,itbegantodawnon methat Ihadsomethinginfinitely
preciousand mysterious thatnooneelsehad: myownawarenessofmyself,myinner
secretthoughtsandfeelings.
A yearlater,bytheageofsix,mypassionfornaturalphilosophywas wellaroused.
Oneday, Iasked myfatherhowitwaspossibleto maketubesas smallasthoseinthe
filamentsof electriclightbulbs,sothatelectricitycouldflowthrough. Myfather
explainedthatthefilaments,likeallelectricwires,aresolidmetal.AtfirstIwasfuriously
indignant:howcouldelectricitypossiblyflowthroughsolidmetal?Butwhenitbecame
clearthat myfatherreallydid knowwhathewastalkingabout, Ifellsilent,stupefiedby
thismysteryofelectricityflowingthroughsolid metal. Electricitytookonformea
qualitythatwas bothfascinatingandnightmarish. Iknewitwasdangerous, and could
kill. Ihadbeentoldthatinanunused,upperstoryofourhouse,firmlyout ofbounds,
therewereuninsulated"live"wires. Iimagined"live" wireslashingout,dealingouttheir
9
terriblestingofelectricdeath.Ononeoccasionagirlvisitingfortheday mucholder
,
thanme(shewaseightornineyears old)persuadedme,againstmybetterjudgment,to
putmyfingerintotheemptysocketofatablelamp.Sheassured methatit wasperfectly
safe,andthatIwouldnotfeelathing. InfactIreceivedashock– fortunatelyonly
throughthetipof myfinger. Here,then,wastheviolentrushingpainand mysteryof
electricity,experiencedatfirsthand.Fromacautious distance,Iwouldcontemplatethe
transformerinourgarden,hiddenbehindsomebushes,softlyhummingto itself,quietly
containingitssecret,deadlypower.Ataboutthistime, Ibegantotaketorchesand
batteriestopiecestotrytodiscoverhowtheyworked.
Onedaywhileinthe garden, Imadewhatseemed tometobeawonderfuldiscovery. I
discovered areasonforbelievingintheexistenceofatoms. Ifatoms didnotexist –Ifelt
ratherthanthought–and matterremained exactlythesame,however minutelyitmight
besubdivided,thenthere couldexistnothingtofix thesizeofthings.Things couldbe
anysize.Butthingsarenotanysize:somehow,people,animals,plants doknowroughly
whatsizetobe.Thereforeatoms ofsomekindorother,ofadefinitesize,mustexist,to
fix thesizeofeverythingelse.
Ifoundthis argument entirelyconvincing,althoughnotforonemomentdidIsuppose
itwouldconvinceanyoneelse.Indeed,thedramaticandextraordinarydiscoverythat I
felt Ihad madewas,atthetime whollyprivate,uncommunicable,beyond words,my
,
ownpersonalwordlessrecognitionoftheforceoftheargumentthat Ihaveherespelled
outinwords,afeelingratherthanathought. Idid notimagineatthetimethataninsight
soemotionalandpersonalcouldbeputintowords,andthusberenderedopentopublic
understandingandscrutiny.
Also,ataboutthistime(aroundtheageoffiveorsix),Idiscoveredformyselfthe
problemofperception. Iwassittingonthesofain thelivingroom,and Ibegantothink
aboutwhatwas goingon as Ilookedabout meatobjectsintheroom. Ithoughtaboutthe
lightwhichwas reflectedfromtables,chairs,thewallsoftheroom,andwhichthen
entered myeyestocausemetohavetheexperienceofseeing. What Iwas reallyseeing,
itseemed, was thelightenteringmyeyes,notthefurniturearound me. Herewasthesofa,
thecarpet,thetable,whollyvisibleandobviousbeforeme.And yet itseemed,Icould
,
notpossiblybeseeingthesethings. Icouldonlyreallyseewhathappenswhenlight
enters myeyes. ThisroomIwasseeingmustsomehowbeinsidemyhead –and yetit
couldnotpossiblybeinsidemyhead! ThemoreI thoughtaboutitthemorehorriblethe
problembecame. Mentally,ifnotphysically, Iwasstaggeringabouttheroom,clutching
myhead,tearingoutmyhair,bewilderedbeyond belief.
In recountingthesechildhooddiscoveries(inthemaindiscoveriesofproblems rather
thanofsolutions toproblems), Iamperhapsinpartjustboasting,inaratherfoolishand
shamefulway.Certainly, Iamtodayabsurdlyproudofthesechildhooddiscoveries of
mine:Itrembletothinkofhow Imaysubsequentlyhavesquanderedtheearlypassionate
intellectualcuriosityand independencethesediscoveriesreveal. Butinanotherway, I
amnotboastingatall. Allofus,Ibelieve,areextraordinarilyactiveand creative
intellectuallywhenweareveryyoung. BryanMageegivesavivid,dramaticaccountof
similarphilosophicaldiscoveriesthathemadewhen young.11 Somehow,in thefirstfew
years oflife,weacquireanidentity,aconsciousnessofself;wediscover, orcreate,a
wholeviewoftheworld, acosmology; and welearntounderstandspeech, andtospeak
ourselves.Andweachieveallthiswithoutanyformal educationwhatsoever. Compared
10