Alice C. Linsley
Timeline
Charles Darwin 1809-1882
Soren Kierkegaard 1813-1855
Soren Kierkegaard 1813-1855
Freidrich Nietzsche 1844-1900
Albert Einstein 1879-1955
Albert Einstein 1879-1955
Ludwig Wittgenstein 1889-1951
Rudolf Carnap 1891-1970
Martin Heidegger 1889-1976
Ayn Rand 1905-1982
Elizabeth Anscombe 1919-2001
John B. Rawls 1921-2002
Jacques Derrida 1930-2004
Historians have reflected on the 20th century as a time of the great World Wars, the Holocaust, and the development of the atomic bomb. The United States begin the century in an isolationist mood, but was compelled to enter World War I as an ally to Great Britain and then World War II to confront the aggression of Hilter and as a response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
There was a mid-century baby boom in the United States as soldiers, sailors and airmen returned from the war to young wives eager to start families. These growing families needed housing and this lead to the development of track housing; Levittown being one of the most famous examples. Levittown is the model on which many post World War II suburban communities were based. It began as an experiment in low-cost, mass-produced housing and became the most famous suburban development in the world.
Albert Einstein
Einstein became a household name in the late 20th century. The applications of his theories lead to the development of the television, remote control devices, automatic door openers, lasers, and DVD-players.
As a child, Einstein revealed an extraordinary curiosity for understanding the mysteries of science. He was particularly fascinating by the physics of light. His family moved first to Italy and then to Switzerland, where the young prodigy graduated from high-school in 1896.
In 1905, while working as a patent clerk in Bern, Switzerland, Einstein had his “miracle year.” He obtained his Doctorate degree and published four of his most influential research papers, including the Special Theory of Relativity which contained the now world famous equation e = mc2. This would unlock some of the mysteries of the Universe and forever change quantum physics, ethics and diplomacy. Einstein had much to say about the ethical ramifications of his discovery. He was known for his strong convictions on social justice, pacifism, and moral leadership. He once said, "Only a life lived for others is a life worthwhile."
In 1915, Einstein completed his General Theory of Relativity and in 1921 he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics. He emigrated to the United States in 1933 and took up residence in Princeton, New Jersey and held a professorship at the prestigious Institute for Advanced Study. In 1999, TIME magazine named Albert Einstein the “Person of the Century.”
Charles Darwin
 |
| A youthful Charles Darwin |
Darwin’s ideas have been applied to social patterns in the works social Darwinians. In this view, societies exhibit evolution in that the social order is seen as the product of natural selection. Through Herbert Spencer, who coined the phrase “survival of the fittest,” and Darwin ’s
cousin Francis Galton, Darwinism and eugenics came together in the late 19th
century. This relied on demonstrating that traits such as disease and lack of
intelligence were inherited and that selecting against these traits would
benefit society. The idea targeted the poor although history has shown that
many great contributors to societal good have been people who began their lives
in poverty. In the United
States , eugenics persisted among the
intellectual “elite” and was supported by racial discrimination. The
involuntary sterilization laws, enacted in the early 1900s, were not repealed
until 1979. The leading 20th century economist, John Maynard Keynes, was a staunch eugenicist who served as the director of the Eugenics Society in Britain from 1937 to 1944.
Eugenics became less attractive when many of the elite became poor as a result of the Great Depression and when the Holocaust atrocities became known. Social Darwinism along with the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche found expression in the Nazi dogmas. Nietzsche’s idea that the leader who wills to power is above the moral law embraced by ordinary men runs throughout Hitler's public utterances.
Eugenics became less attractive when many of the elite became poor as a result of the Great Depression and when the Holocaust atrocities became known. Social Darwinism along with the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche found expression in the Nazi dogmas. Nietzsche’s idea that the leader who wills to power is above the moral law embraced by ordinary men runs throughout Hitler's public utterances.
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)
Wittgenstein is the leading analytical philosopher of the 20th century. He
studied at Trinity College , Cambridge
with Bertrand Russell.
Russell inspired Wittgenstein to consider the nature of thought itself. Russell was famous for statements like these:
“Thought is subversive and
revolutionary, destructive and terrible. Thought is merciless to privilege,
established institutions, and comfortable habit. Thought is great and swift and
free.”
“Do not fear to be eccentric in
opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.”
Wittgenstein believed that words are human constructions without
absolute meaning and that language is incapable of perfect communication. When
we speak of a chair, for example, each of us has a different mental picture.
Chair is really a word for various wood components that have been assembled in
a certain way with nails or brackets. Or perhaps the components are metal and
the chair folds. Of perhaps the chair is padded with cushions and upholstered
with a colorful fabric. So the word
“chair” can produce different mental pictures.
Logical analytic approaches are concerned with the use of
language, the logic of language systems, and the relation of language and mind.
Wittgenstein influenced two important British philosophers: Elizabeth Anscombe
and Philippa Foot.
Wittgenstein’s Tractatus
Logico-philosophicus (1921), a volume of only 75 pages, became the Bible of
the Vienna Circle .
He believed that he provided the “final solution” to philosophical problems. In
the Tractatus, he wrote that
“philosophy aims at the logical clarification of thoughts” and philosophy is
“not a body of propositions, but to make propositions clear.”
In Philosophical
Investigations (1953), Wittgenstein argued that “philosophy is a battle
against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” These two
writings divide Wittgenstein’s work into two distinct phases. The two periods
are not oppositional, however. In the Tractatus, he develops
his thought about the logic of propositions, and in the Philosophical
Investigations he is concerned about other forms of language and begins to
explore the question more metaphysically.
In Wittgenstein's view this mental picture (chair) which we suppose gives us a true account of an object actually “stands in the way of our seeing the use of the word as it is” (PI:305). The picture of one thing, that is in fact many things, leads us to the childish belief that there is a correspondence between the word and the nature of the thing.
According to Wittgenstein’s picture theory, meaning requires that there be “atomic” facts. This means that meaning is arrived at through analysis of only propositions that picture facts, or propositions of science. By this reasoning, metaphysical and ethical statements are not meaningful assertions. Words such as good, evil and beauty do not represent simple propositions, so a statement such as “Murder is evil” is impossible to verify factually. Logical positivists, such as Rudolf Carnap, were influenced by Wittgenstein’s Tractatus. They soundly rejected all truth claims that could not be reduced to atomic facts. They also pushed metaphysical consideration of ethics aside, viewing it as a waste of intellectual energy.
This sort of discussion about language raised doubts about
the meaning of words like “good” and “evil.” Some philosophers went so far as
to say that these words are without meaning.
This would find support in Utilitarian ethics which stresses outcomes
rather than motivations. Jesus’ teaching that evil comes from within the heart
is set aside. Snip! Snip! Modern ethics is cut free from the Judeo-Christian
tradition that sees evil and good as outward expressions of inward motivation.
Logical Positivism
(1922-1950)
The philosophical
movement of Logical Positivism can be traced to the Vienna Circle, a group of philosophers in Austria Great Britain
by A.
J. Ayer and in America
by Rudolf Carnap whose
antimetaphysical views are set forth in such writings as The Logical Structure of the World (1928).
Logical
Positivism held two key beliefs: (1) absolute confidence in empirical
experience as the only source of knowledge; and (2) logical analysis performed
with the help of symbolic logic is the single method for solving philosophical
problems. This group of philosophers
attempted to exclude metaphysics from philosophical investigation in favor of
strict logical and mathematical analysis. They also stripped ethics of aspects considered important from
the earliest time: conscience, intuition, emotion, etc. The result was a
materialist and empirical skepticism about all truth claims. The Logical
Positivists were largely atheists who said that God doesn’t exist, or agnostics
who regarded the existence of God as impossible to verify.
While skeptical
about all truth claims that were not reducible as a mathematical formula, many
Logical Positivists were optimistic about the capability of science to better
the human race and life on earth. These shared a commitment to Unified
Science; that is the construction of a system in which every legitimate
statement is logically reduced to a direct experience. The Manifesto of the Vienna Circle
Logical Positivism was a highly academic approach that had
little appeal to the average person who struggled with day to day moral choices.
It also didn’t represent the religious sentiments of Wittgenstein, who called Soren
Kierkegaard “a saint.”
Although only a few explicit references to Kierkegaard exist
in Wittgenstein’s works, it is clear that Wittgenstein shared Kierkegaard’s
religious inclinations. In conversation with his friend Maurice O'Connor Drury,
Wittgenstein made the following remark:
“Bach wrote on the title page of his Orgelbuchlein, ‘To the glory of the
most high God, and that my neighbor may be benefited thereby.’ That is what I
would have liked to say about my work.”
A much as he may have wanted to be remembered for giving glory to God, Wittgenstein’s religious thought had little influence on 20th century ethics. On the other hand, the Tractatus influenced the development of Logical Positivism in Great Britain and the United States, and works published after his death influenced Idealism in Germany.
In Idealism, we find renewed interest in Platonism in
reaction to an empiricism that has striped away metaphysical language. Idealism
views the world as a mental construct with no objective existence independent
of the Mind. All objects are fundamentally immaterial and a dimension of the
mind. Objects exist but, they lack substance. Their existence necessarily
requires their being perceived.
The German philosopher Martin
Heidegger succeeded his former mentor Edmund Husserl at Freidburg University
Heidegger dedicated his book Sein und Zeit (Being and Time) to Husserl and describes his method
using Husserl’s term “phenomenology”, but the book represents a departure from
Husserl’s thought. Heidegger was
concerned with discovering the nature of being (ontology), specifically human
being which he termed “Dasein.” The word is a compound of the German “da” which
means there/here and “sein” which means to be.
Heidegger exposes the fundamental problem of ontology, the
definition of Being as being and influenced the work of Jacques Derrida. The significance of Heidegger's work was often downplayed because he was viewed as a Nazi sympathizer. There is little doubt that his
failure to speak against the Nazi regime hurt his acceptance as an important
philosopher. Another factor was the difficulty of understanding his writings
which rely on subtleties of the German language.
Heidegger argued
that humans do not create their world by mental pictures, but exist in the
world and are shaped by the world. This means that each individual’s existence
is unique. We see immediately that Heidegger’s work allows for an interpretative
aspect that runs counter to the positivist claim that there can only be one
right answer to a properly formulated logical problem. This is why Carnap, in a
famous article, “The Elimination of Metaphysics" (1923), cited Heidegger’s
work as an example of “philosophical nonsense.”
Heidegger’s
Dasein deals with everyday human existence, not just the consciousness of
the individual. It references the unique “human way of being”, a way of being
that embodies an understanding of its mortality. Life leads to death and
involves a dread of death. Heidegger believed that authentic being was possible
only as the individual faces death honestly.
As with Nietzsche, Heidegger offered no hope of another
world or another life beyond this one. We have only this life and that
realization moves us to live this life differently. We each have a
responsibility to act in the time we have to make life meaningful, but our
being is only meaningful as it is seen against our movement to non-being or
extinction.
Because there is no God and no moral structure to the world,
each of us has a radical or “dreadful” freedom to choose our own world view,
our lifestyle, and our moral standards.
This is more than freedom. It is
an inescapable existential necessity. The world is such that there is no
escaping making a choice or escaping the consequences of our choices.
Heidegger’s thought implies a new definition of moral duty,
one totally removed from the Judeo-Christian morality. The individual’s moral duty is not to obey
God-given laws, but to face the reality of non-existence or negation. In What is Metaphysics? Heidegger poses
these questions about negation:
Why are we
concerned about this nothing? The
nothing is rejected by science and sacrificed as the unreal. Science wants to have nothing to do with the
nothing. What is the nothing? Does the
nothing exist only because the not, i.e., negation exists? Or do negation and the not exist only because
the nothing exists? We maintain: the
nothing is the simple negation of the totality of being (sein). Anxiety reveals
nothing.
Elizabeth Anscombe (1919-2001)
The philosopher who most directly answers Heidegger is one
of Wittgenstein’s students, G.E.M. ("Elizabeth ")
Anscombe,
a devout Roman Catholic who smoked cigars and protested the
practice of abortion. In 1968, when much of the intellectual world reacted with
anger to Pope Paul VI's reaffirmation of Catholic teaching on contraception, Anscombe
and her philosopher husband, Peter Geach, toasted the announcement with
champagne. They had seven children. In the essay “Contraception and Chastity,”
Anscombe defended Christian teaching on sex and marriage. The essay was unpopular, but so
intellectually rigorous that her opponents have never successfully refuted her
argument.
Elizabeth Anscombe resourced in classical philosophy in her
argument against Bentham’s utilitarianism. Against Locke's "natural
law" theory, Bentham insisted that real rights are
those established and enacted by the State. He proposed reforms, not on
the basis of natural rights, but on the basis of his utilitarian
"principle of extension." According to this principle, the
"utility" or usefulness of a law depends on how widely the pains and
pleasures of the law are felt across the spectrum of a society. This is the
dominant approach in Post-Modern American politics.
Anscombe was one of the 20th century's most remarkable
philosophers. She studied with Ludwig Wittgenstein, and upon his death in 1951
became one of his literary executors. She translated Wittgenstein's unpublished
writings, preparing them for publication after his death, and she wrote a book
entitled An Introduction to
Wittgenstein's Tractatus. In 1970, Anscombe was appointed to the chair in Cambridge that had been
held by Wittgenstein. Despite her loyalty to her former teacher, Anscombe was
not one of Wittgenstein's true disciples. Her great intelligence and
originality led her in different directions and to different conclusions.
In 1958, Anscombe produced a paper entitled “Modern Moral
Philosophy” in which she offered a critique of prevailing academic approaches
to ethics. In this paper she pointed out that while Aristotle had much to say
about virtue and vices, he did not think of morality as people do today. Our conception of morality comes from
centuries of Christianity, drawing on Jewish law (Torah). The Judeo-Christian conception of moral
obligation is based on codified law. From the first century A.D., Greek-speaking
converts to Christianity sought to conform to virtues and avoid vices because
these were viewed as a requirement of divine law.
It was in the area of moral philosophy that Anscombe countered Heidegger’s bleak existentialism. She argued that since 20th century western society is no longer Christian, the terms “good” and “evil” or “right” and “wrong” are no longer useful. These terms are only meaningful as they are attached to the Judeo-Christian concept of a law-giving Creator God. Anscombe believed that in the post-Christian world many philosophers have become utilitarian, judging a right action by the best possible consequences. She pointed out that utilitarianism is incompatible with the Judeo-Christian insistence that some actions that are always forbidden regardless of the consequences. She recognized that Christian moral theology no longer has meaning for the Post-Christian world, and she proposed a way forward. She recommended discarding the notions of good and evil in favor of the notions of justice and injustice.
Let us consider Anscombe’s argument. First, she assumes that the world is a place
where the reasoning individual can be assured that concepts of justice, good,
and moral obligation have meaning. This
suggests that Heidegger’s “nothing” which causes us anxiety has a binary
opposite – something – and this something potentially relieves anxiety. The
logic of her argument is that when we feel the anxiety of injustice (which is
negating) we should perform justice.
Justice then is not a state of affairs, but a practical virtue of a good
person. It is perhaps the derived virtue
of being made in the image of a Good God.
Anscombe responds to Leibnitz’ criticism of conceptions of
God as good. Leibnitz wrote: “It is generally agreed that whatever God wills is
good and just. But there remains the question whether it is good and just
because God wills it or whether God wills it because it is good and just; in
other words, whether justice and goodness are arbitrary or whether they belong
to the necessary and eternal truths about the nature of things, as do numbers
and proportions (Reflections of The
Common Concept of Justice). Anscombe’s common-sense argument is that
humanity’s anxiety about death and negating injustice can only be experienced
because humanity knows the Good. Her argument is the reverse of Heraclitus’
(540-480 BC) who said “If it were not for injustice, men would not know
justice.” Essentially, Anscombe is
saying that the study of Man as subject leads logically to the conclusion that were
it not for justice, humans would not know injustice.
The question of justice and how it is to be achieved becomes
more complex in pluralistic societies where there are many competing
interests. How can a modern liberal
democracy hope to have “liberty and justice for all” when the rule of the
majority necessarily overrides the interests of minorities? This problem was addressed by the American
political theorist John B. Rawls.
Kant, Bentham,
and Anscombe’s common-sense morality recognize that the moral agent must consider
the interests of others. They recognize the possibility that sacrifices may be
necessary to achieve a good end or a just society. Even Nietzsche recognized a
potential place for sacrifice. Ayn Rand’s thought marks a departure from these
thinkers.
Nietzsche and Kierkegaard: Different Directions in Existentialism
Nietzsche and Kierkegaard shared an overarching realization that anything meaningful or important must come from within the individual. It is the human race itself that attributes meaning. They both regarded the objective truth of the Enlightenment as a concept that ultimately leads to frustration, despair and anxiety. In Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling and in Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals, each philosopher sets out to discover the importance of subjective human emotion, and the role of human freedom in the universe. For Nietzsche there is no supernatural element, no knowledge to be gained by divine intervention or revelation.
Nietzsche and Kierkegaard: Different Directions in Existentialism
Nietzsche and Kierkegaard shared an overarching realization that anything meaningful or important must come from within the individual. It is the human race itself that attributes meaning. They both regarded the objective truth of the Enlightenment as a concept that ultimately leads to frustration, despair and anxiety. In Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling and in Nietzsche’s On the Genealogy of Morals, each philosopher sets out to discover the importance of subjective human emotion, and the role of human freedom in the universe. For Nietzsche there is no supernatural element, no knowledge to be gained by divine intervention or revelation.
Although Kierkegaard never used the term "existentialism" in his writings, he is regarded as the founder of Christian existentialism. Kierkegaard believed that the value of a philosopher's ideas should be judged by the person's life. He would have judged Nietzsche's perspective on the will to power as lacking moral and intellectual value. According to Kierkegaard, the individual’s life is the basis upon which he is judged by God. A writer's work is an important part of his existence, but his life as a whole is what ultimately matters to God.
Kierkegaard explained knowledge as miraculous or supernatural because it only can be initiated by God through a series of historical/temporal events. This learning or enlightenment is highly individual and subjective, and it is unique for every learner. He believes that individuals are unable to know anything that is certain except through this supernatural intervention in history.
What makes this learning or enlightenment possible? Human existence involves suffering, anguish, pain, sickness and death. That being our plight, we naturally desire an escape. This desire is very powerful. It is a yearning for the eternal that leads us to “leap into absurdity.” For Kierkegaard, it is the supernatural intervention of the divine Person Jesus Christ entering history, making it possible for us to know that God exists. The existence of God's existence can only be known by faith in this divine intervention that gives hope in this life and moves us from ignorance to enlightenment. Kierkegaard’s supernaturalism it is clearly the opposite of the Nietzsche's naturalism.
Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
Another view of how humans act in their own self-interest
was developed by the Russian novelist Ayn Rand in her famous book The Fountainhead (1943). The title is a reference to Rand 's
statement that “man's ego is the fountainhead of human progress.” In this book, and in her later volume Atlas Shrugged (1957), Rand
lays down the ethical principle of rational self-interest that would become the
basis for Objectivism. She argues that rational selfishness is a
virtue and that this virtue can be developed only by those who autonomously
develop their own code of values and conduct.
Objectivism holds
that individuals are in contact with an objective reality through sensory
perception and that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of
personal happiness through acting in one's "rational
self-interest". Rand
argued that the only social system consistent with this morality is laissez-faire
capitalism.
John B. Rawls (1921-2002)
Rawls's theory of justice is posed as an alternative to the
utilitarian approach that holds that the best consequences indicate the best
political choices. In his book A Theory of Justice
(1971), Rawls wrote “Each person possesses an inviolability founded on justice
that even the welfare of society as a whole cannot override. Therefore, in a just society the rights
secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or the calculus of
social interests” (Theory of Justice, p. 66).
Rawls proposed a social contract approach to justice that revolves
around three principles: (1) each individual is to have equal right to the
greatest personal liberty that is compatible with like liberty for all; and (2)
social and economic inequalities are to be attached to public positions that
are open to all under conditions of fairness in opportunity. Rawls also stated that when these principles
are in conflict, the first principle must take priority.
Rawls accepts that there will always be some economic
differences in society. He is not a
Marxian. His concern is that those who are at the bottom should never be
allowed to sink below the level of basic material needs. Fairness of
opportunity requires consideration of those in society whose abilities may be
such that they remain the least fortunate. To prevent extreme poverty, he developed a third principle which he
called the “difference principle.”
Using the difference principle, Rawls hoped to minimize
wealth differences by insisting that inequalities in basic goods can be allowed
only if distribution of primary goods first benefits the poorest. He argued that the welfare of society
depends on the welfare of the poorest, and that a just society makes fairness
to all a primary consideration when forming public policy.
Rawls’ egalitarian approach to justice is a hypothetical
one. It is not so much a philosophy as
it is a method for constitution-building.
He conducted his thought-experiment with his students at Harvard. Rawls’ method requires that participants
forget their economic status, race, gender, level of education, religion,
physical and mental abilities, etc. Under this “veil of ignorance” each is to
consider fairness from an “original position.” They must establish a
principle of fairness, such as distribution of income, without knowing
beforehand where they end up in the pecking order. Rawls believed that nobody
would agree to a system that incorporates unjust practices such as slavery or
totalitarianism since they themselves might end up a slave or oppressed by the
state. Rawls assumes that participants will always act rationally, and in
seeking their best self-interest under the veil of ignorance, they actually
will be seeking the best interest of all.
Rawls’ thought experiment operates on the assumptions that
democracy is the best system, that people should vote, and that private
property in not an inalienable right (against John Locke). His primary concern
is justice. Rawls defends a welfare form of democracy on the basis that a just society requires that individual’s rights must
always take priority over the common good. In his view that there is a fixed
point of reference by which to decide justice. Rawls follows the deontological
ethics of Kant.
Rawls developed a democratic system of determining distributive justice when people decide from a neutral or “blind” position. He proposes the following two principles of justice:
1. Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme the equal political liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: (a) They are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and (b), they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
1. Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme the equal political liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value.
2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: (a) They are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and (b), they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.
Rawls held that a
person committed to justice for all as the highest self-interest can put
himself in the “original position” and decide impartially. Rand ,
on the other hand, argues that justice for all is meaningless because nobody is
able to reason impartially. Humans, in order to be human, act in accordance
with what they think will promote their own best interest. To do otherwise, in Rand ’s view, is to act as a non-rational animal.
Jacques Derrida (1930-2004)
Postmodernism moved away from traditional interpretations in
the work of the French Algerian philosopher, Jacques
Derrida, who sought to uncover the underbelly of meaning. Darwin on Heidegger, he explored "the metaphysics of presence." Heidegger maintained that Western philosophy has always granted primacy or “privilege” to presence itself. That is to say, something is because it can be and something can be because it is.
We might add that "something is not" is also about metaphysical presence. Derrida is familiar with the apophaticism of eastern thought.
Derrida focused on the ontological status of criticism and he established himself as a leading figure in deconstructionism. Deconstruction dismantles the underlying assumptions upon which a metaphysical argument is based. It requires detailed reading of a text, parsing of terminology, and language “freeplay” on the part of the critic.
We might add that "something is not" is also about metaphysical presence. Derrida is familiar with the apophaticism of eastern thought.
Derrida focused on the ontological status of criticism and he established himself as a leading figure in deconstructionism. Deconstruction dismantles the underlying assumptions upon which a metaphysical argument is based. It requires detailed reading of a text, parsing of terminology, and language “freeplay” on the part of the critic.
Derrida's analysis of the Western philosophical project employs important descriptors such as: logocentrism, phallogocentrism, and ontotheology. “Logocentrism” emphasizes the primacy of logos or speech in the Western tradition. “Phallogocentrism” points to the patriarchal nature of this primacy.
Postmodernism is characterized by skepticism toward all
truth claims. Traditional morals and
values are seen as relative to one’s culture and place in society. This does
not mean that all rejected the possibility of absolute truth. Derrida admitted
that there is something at “the center” of reality, a function that is fixed
for all people, though it is called by different names: Arche, Nous, God, Logos,
the sacred center, etc.
Derrida saw Western Philosophy at a dead end. In his lectures series at Villa Nova University he suggested a possible remedy: recovery of the dynamic tension between Plato and Aristotle. He ascribes to objects a less substantial existence than the shadow they cast, or their trace. His reversals are a strategic intervention within the bounded Western philosophical system whereby he attempts to break out of that system.
As Derrida suggested: "Deconstruction cannot limit itself or proceed immediately to neutralization: it must, by means of a double gesture, a double science, a double writing, practice an overturning of the classical opposition, and a general displacement of the system. It is on that condition alone that deconstruction will provide the means of intervening in the field of oppositions it criticizes." (Metaphysics)
Derrida saw Western Philosophy at a dead end. In his lectures series at Villa Nova University he suggested a possible remedy: recovery of the dynamic tension between Plato and Aristotle. He ascribes to objects a less substantial existence than the shadow they cast, or their trace. His reversals are a strategic intervention within the bounded Western philosophical system whereby he attempts to break out of that system.
As Derrida suggested: "Deconstruction cannot limit itself or proceed immediately to neutralization: it must, by means of a double gesture, a double science, a double writing, practice an overturning of the classical opposition, and a general displacement of the system. It is on that condition alone that deconstruction will provide the means of intervening in the field of oppositions it criticizes." (Metaphysics)
Summary
Throughout the 20th century, ethicists continued
to address many of the key questions that have been considered from antiquity:
human nature, the good life, moral authority, natural law, etc. However, modern
science influenced ethical considerations in a profound way, especially the
social sciences: Anthropology, Psychology, Sociology and Linguistics.
The 20th century also saw a proliferation of ideologies and philosophical developments. In logic, great new minds emerged such as Saul Kripe and Willard Van Orman Quine. They were influenced by the work of Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russell.
Pragmatism emerged following Charles Sanders Peirce, William James and John Dewey. It has profoundly shaped American public education. With Dewey, Pragmatism became Darwin's theory of natural selection applied to educational philosophy.
Idealism insists that our notions of good and evil, as well
as everything that we see or sense in the material world, are mental concepts
with no objective existence. The
existence of things depends on their being perceived in the mind. Idealism draws off Plato’s Forms and was further developed in the writings of George Berkeley.
Nietzsche’s views on power and German heroism fed Nazi propaganda during the Third
Reich. The theme that the supreme leader is a law unto himself encouraged
Hitler in his efforts to restore the glory of the Aryan race, a myth his
propagandists had successfully planted in the German youth through
indoctrination. Nietzsche’s ideas are found throughout Hitler's public
utterances.
Wittgenstein said language is incapable of perfect
communication. All language only approximates the object being described or
discussed. By this reasoning, statements about good, evil and beauty don’t represent simple
propositions, so a statement such as “Murder is evil” is impossible to verify
using logic and math.
Logical Positivists, drawing off Wittgenstein’s Tractatus, are only concerned about
“atomic” facts that represent things that can be verified and studied using
strict logic and mathematical analysis. Most Logical Positivists are atheists
or agnostics and sadly, many ended their own lives.
Heidegger believed the individual’s moral duty is to face
one’s non-existence, what he called “negation”. Life involves a dread of death.
Heidegger believed that authentic being is possible only when individual faces
death honestly.
Anscombe believed that Bentham’s utilitarian ethics and
Christianity are incompatible. She held to the validity of Natural Law. She
believed that the Judeo-Christian concepts of good and evil are meaningless in
post-Christian societies. She urged moving ethical discussion forward by using
the concepts of justice and injustice. As with C.S. Lewis, who she
debated in 1948 at the Oxford Socrates Club, Anscombe agreed that Christian catch words pose an obstacle to
philosophical discussion. Lewis had written about the need to jettison such
words in his Christian Apologetics. Anscombe proposed a similar way
forward. She recommended discarding the words “good” and “evil” in favor of the
words “justice” and “injustice.”
Rawls thought experiment is designed to establish a social
contract or constitution based on ignorance of one’s position or status in that
society. He hoped to minimize wealth differences by using the difference
principle, the most widely discussed principle of distributive justice in the past half century.
No comments:
Post a Comment