|
Definitions
Right at the outset, before getting into any particular philosophy, we have to be prepared to agree on meanings for basic terms. Otherwise there can be no meaning, for understandings that are not shared cannot be the basis for actions that are shared ... For the Sense’07 campaign the following definitions apply. They are not new or different meanings for the basic words used in the campaign – rather they are definitions which attempt to convey the specific meanings that are intended. They are also intended to enable rational, evidence based assessment of the proposed philosophy – in ‘real’ terms… terms that do apply to us... as we actually are - connected temporary bearers of consciousness, connected beings with the potential for individually experienced lives, for individually experienced happiness… Philosophy Politics Good Flourish Meaning
Perception ∞ Awareness ∞ Consciousness ∞ Rationality ∞ Fact ∞ Knowledge ∞ Truth Society ∞ Culture ∞ Civilisation Ethics ∞ Morals ∞ Goals ∞ Purpose ∞ Values Practicality ∞ Pragmatism {practical}
An appropriate place to start defining Sense terms is with the basis of the whole campaign - Philosophy. What is it? Isn't it just waffle about waffle? Is there Truth? Is there Meaning? What are Truth and Meaning ... isn't it all just subjective?
According to the on-line Encarta Dictionary, Philosophy is "The branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom [8/’07] "; Another source defines Philosophy as "The use of reason in understanding such things as the nature of reality and existence, the use and limits of knowledge and the principles that govern and influence moral judgment" [Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary 8/’07].
For 'sensible' politics, a useful definition might be something like: Philosophy The processes by which we develop Meaning, and construct ['discover'] Truth in terms that are open to all. Since 'meaning' must be shared to be any use (or to be meaningful !), we all do philosophise. At least on a day-by-day and issue-by-issue basis, everyone around you expects you to behave 'reasonably' - which you can't do without forming understandings of our 'world' that are consistent with other peoples' understandings, i.e. without forming and adapting your own personal philosophies in terms the rest of us can live with. Simply, If you consider yourself as being 'sane', you must consider yourself as being a philosopher. This political philosophy differs from your (or anyone else's) personal philosophy only by not being based around establishing individually held Truth - political philosophy is about establishing public Truth - it remains up to each of us to develop our own understandings, our own truths. The success of the political philosophy can only be measured by how appropriate it is for us as a group ...
Politics The processes by which we organise and govern ourselves and the principles that guide or cause these processes. [At least those processes which are amenable to rationality and therefore to principle – including all Public politics, i.e. all politics that must be publicly justifiable.]
Good [at least for Human Politics] Only that which promotes Life, its sustenance and its enjoyment – specifically that which promotes human consciousness or human flourishing (recognising our interdependency with all other Life…)
[Similar to Aristotle’s “eudemonism”, defined in the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary as “a theory that the highest ethical goal is happiness and personal well-being”. There is a vital difference, though – Sense Philosophy only claims that the basic (or ‘highest’) goal of human politics is human flourishing, rather than the more difficult (and unnecessary) claim that human happiness has some absolute value in some absolute ethical sphere].
Flourish to be strong and healthy or to grow well… See also http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9033186/eudaemonism
Meaning For this political philosophy, 'meaning' is used as in 1., 2. and 4. below, taken from the on-line American Heritage Dictionary
1. Something that is conveyed or signified; sense or significance.
2. Something that one wishes to convey, especially by language: The writer's meaning was obscured by his convoluted prose.
3. An interpreted goal, intent, or end: "The central meaning of his pontificate is to restore papal authority" (Conor Cruise O'Brien).
4. Inner significance: "But who can comprehend the meaning of the voice of the city?" (O. Henry).
In 'sensible' political terms, 'meaning' will be taken as something like 'Significance for Human Purpose' or 'contribution to the understanding of Human Purpose'. See section on Purpose, Values etc.
Perception ∞ Awareness ∞ Consciousness ∞ Rationality ∞ Fact ∞ Knowledge ∞ TruthPerception is the basis of all consciousness, and does necessarily require [see, e.g., Hofstadter (1980), p251], in addition to eyes, ears etc., that the subject doing the perceiving sorts sensations (and all incoming data, whether recognised or not) and categorises the objects that make up the world that the subject feels is external to him or herself. Thus perception induces duality…the separation of ‘Everything’ into ‘Things’, into parts which (thankfully) obscure the Whole, and allow us ‘head space’ in which to exist… Consciousness [see Hofstadter (1980)] is likely to be an emergent property of layers of semi-independent and non-rational brain processes (involving neurons acting on, and simultaneously being acted on by, neurons etc.) and probably requires some self-perception, some internalised notions of the self, as an individual and as an agent to allow ‘awareness’ of others and development of meaningful, useful relations with the world… For the purposes of a philosophy designed to enable conscious human development,
On the other hand, things like Fact, Knowledge and Truth are only relevant to conscious beings who can appreciate them… they come ‘above’ or ‘after’ basic perception and awareness, in the sense that they depend completely on those ‘basics’ and on the ability –Rationality – to combine and distinguish them. As Singer points out, we use rationality all the time – we couldn’t function at even the most basic level without the appreciation of cause and effect and other skills that allows rational thought.
For this political philosophy, it will hopefully be helpful to differentiate them as follows: Fact is what can be verified directly, Knowledge is what explains and connects collections of facts in terms of each other and Truth is what ‘makes sense of’ Knowledge’ in terms ‘closer’ or ‘more useful to’ to the holders of the Knowledge. Rationality is what allows us to ‘see’ these connections.
The distinction between Truth and Knowledge is similar to that between Knowledge and Fact – Truth takes Knowledge to a ‘deeper level’, explaining Knowledge in terms deeper than the facts which make it, in terms not only of other facts, but also in terms of the experience of the holders of the Knowledge – i.e., Truth ‘humanises’ Knowledge. It is in this gulf between Truth and Knowledge that much of our politics is played out, and it is therefore essential that voters make the effort to differentiate them.
Effectively Truth is a Vector – an entity with direction as well as quantity – the direction being ‘onwards’…to security, growth, development of consciousness – towards ‘Flourishing’. Society ∞ Culture ∞ Civilisation The definition of ‘culture’ is problematic and often is something wishy-washy like “the beliefs, customs, practices, and social behaviour of a particular nation or people” [Encarta Online]. The Encyclopædia Britannica Online. [14 Aug 2007 <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9109857] says that what has been termed the classic definition of culture was provided by the 19th-century English anthropologist Edward Burnett Tylor in 1871: “Culture . . . is that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom, and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”
Despite the above, for this philosophy Culture will be taken as ‘all the ways people deal with the fundamental human paradox – that we can only exist ‘in’ and ‘through’ each other, that autonomous existence is a mirage (though a beautiful, very useful and so, so desirable one!), that no individual can exist alone, in his own terms…’ So a particular Culture is the particular sets of ways that its members use to reconcile the fundamental paradox of human life - the necessity of the impossible: personal, private, individual existence - in others’ terms!
Society and Civilisation emerge from Culture and for the present purpose - politics, organising ourselves - are defined as institutionalisations of Culture – i.e. ways of maintaining culture so we “know what to do…”.
Society includes the visible, personal institutions like social groups, dress styles, the mores, codes and any of the myriad things we can copy from each other, what we gossip about ...
Civilisation institutionalises Culture philosophically – explains and develops Culture – sets ‘things’ up so Culture is deeper rooted than would be allowed by mere imitation of currently popular or admirable people or ideas. Civilisation is what broadens and deepens Culture to deal with new or different challenges to Society as they arise. As the level of Civilisation rises or improves, Society’s beliefs, customs, morals and rules will better reflect human reality and Culture will expand to include better ways of reconciling that fundamental human paradox: Personal, Private existence – in Others’ terms.
Interestingly, using these definitions of culture and civilisation, it is apparent that Indigenous Australian civilisation was the greatest civilisation ever. This claim is made not just because of its longevity (surely a great indicator of the relative success of any civilisation) but more importantly also because of its success in providing its members with ways of expressing themselves [living their lives] individually that suited group sustainability. It is apparent from scholars as diverse as the great Stanner, Deborah Bird Rose and Tony Swain that Aboriginal society afforded anyone who wanted to work for it opportunity to be a 'boss' of something, while affording no-one the opportunity to be the boss of everything. [A clear indicator of breakdown of traditional processes is the emergence of 'big bosses' like Galarrwuy Yunipingu and the equally appaling Noel Pearson. Another is the rise of family as the almost single way of establishing one's 'Aboriginality' rather than it being just one of several (clan, birth-place, mother's, father's dreamings etc. ]
Ethics ∞ Morals ∞ Goals ∞ Purpose ∞ ValuesFor this philosophy, an individual's “Morals” are the codes and values he actually uses to decide whether something is ‘right or wrong’ and a society's morals are those which are expected to be displayed by a typical citizen.
Ethics is the study, examination, assessment and development of morals and moral systems. One’s morals are one’s own, but – to be meaningful and justifiable - those morals must be based on ethics – rationally defensible principles. Morals that come from religious books or revelations or from faith in a god (or any guru) and that cannot be defended rationally are not enough to found a sustainable Civilisation on… Civilisation requires open, honest, rational, evidence-based assessment of our shared situation – because that situation changes in ways we may never understand. This requires us to be as open to each other and the world as possible – not ideologically bound, not own-culture bound. As Peter Singer explains in “The President of Good and Evil” (Text, 2004), open, rational discussion is the only way in which all voices have a chance to be heard, while making it possible to distinguish what anyone is saying…
[There's a brief review of the book at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/30/1083224569232.html ]
Since Ethics is about distinguishing right from wrong, it must exist in a broad framework – right or wrong for what? [Assuming there is no absolute moral scheme which exists independently of or outside our own consciousness.] There must be reasons – which we can be conscious of and can agree - for something to be ethically correct or not, for there to be meaningful ways of deciding between alternatives. There must be shared ‘preferences’ – a hierarchy of desires [ i.e. a Value System] - and these preferences must be rationally explicable so they can be assessed, justified publicly and worked for. The only way we can have a consistent moral scheme is to have goals – goals shared across society against which we can judge rightness. From, and only from, these shared Goals (or Objectives or Aims) we can derive a Value System that we can all use to assess public decision making, that is 'meaningful'.
The only meaningful Goals for a member of an on-going group are those which accord with Purpose that's shared across the group over time. The only sensible purpose for such a group has to involve improving life for its members - most directly done [over time] by improving the potential of life available to the group as a whole... Hence the only 'sensible' definition of 'Good' must be in terms of raising the potential of human life, in terms of 'flourishing'...
Practicality ∞ Pragmatism
Being 'practical' involves looking for ways in which to apply and amend our theories of what we should do... being 'practical' requires honest and honourable behaviour. ['Honourable' meaning 'Loving' and 'Truthful'.] Being Practical is the only way 'forward', the only way we can learn to behave more meaningfully - because all effort made without principle will not lead anywhere except to a babble of incoherent blame-shifting. We can only learn from our mistakes by being honest - particularly with ourselves. On the other hand, being 'pragmatic' involves 'going with the flow', judging issues on immediately expected consequences, rather than longer-term ones [like politicians who decide policy on the basis of opinion polls in marginal electorates], or on personal rather than on broader consequences. A clear example of 'Australian Pragmatism' is how we [as a Nation] seem to feel that we have to 'stick with the big boys' - as we have done in accepting that we have to follow the U.S. in its wrong-headed and possibly disastrous 'War Of Terror', rather than doing the 'right' or 'decent' thing.
John Howard prides himself on his pragmatism - indeed has managed to instutionalise it to the extent where it appears that the title of any of the current cabinet ministers should be (e.g.) "Minister assisting the Prime Minister in getting re-elected, with special responsibility for blame shifting on the Environment" or similar. Mr Howard's 1995 manifesto, "The Australia I Believe In" promises that he will not act outside the pragmatic interests of the public... It is not coincidence that the ALP have chosen a 'Howard Lite' as leader - their central committees recognise that - when voting - the typical Aussie lies somewhere between a 'Howard' and a 'Howard Lite' - the ALP has sought to reassure Australians that they too will ignore Principle in favour of economic or material gain ... Please note that our irrational nature easily accomodates people who - in their own day-to-day lives - are relatively good, genuine, decent, competent etc. voting for policies which many know instinctively are bad - i.e. policies that go against the principles of fairness we claim to support or policies that risk decreasing the levels of security our children may enjoy. Australians have been voting for parties who clearly - even to the young - behave at a very low standard of integrity - people seem to even enjoy proving over and over again that politicians are untrustworthy ... can it be that we are so pragmatic that we encourage our leaders to behave much worse than we ourselves woud dare, in our own personal, everyday lives? It is precisely because the parties lie to us - by telling us what they know (from polling and the analysis of past results) we want to hear - that they cannot lead us. Because liars cannot represent themselves, they cannot represent us - because they tell us only what they think we want to hear, their words are worthless...
Pragmatism is literally the abandonment of principle, and is betrayal of Reason and therefore a betrayal of consciousness, of what sets us apart from less conscious species. It is a reversion to Hobbes' classic description of uncivilised life: "nasty, mean, brutish and short". The imprisonment of children, the maddening of their fathers, the drowning of their mothers, the bombing of innocents, the lining up behind 'the biggest bully in the yard' are all evidence of a decline in the level of civilisation we maintain. Why do you think this is so? ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ ∞ |
