The BIG problem: Unity of knowledge

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

The BIG problem: Unity of Knowledge

“The state of society is one in which the members have suffered amputation from the trunk, and strut about so many walking monsters—a good finger, a neck, a stomach, an elbow, but never a man.”—Emerson

Critical Thinkers, such as Emerson, must create shock and awe with a new and colorful view of reality because the Critical Thinker ‘sees’ a truth to which others are blind. Most citizens think that things are grand because the wheels of commerce keep churning and the enemy is kept at bay.

Such thinkers as Emerson, at the dawn of the “American Renaissance”, recognized that society was darting about hither and yon without rhyme or reason. Vocational specialization was in the ascendancy and American Universities were failing in their responsibilities.

The European Renaissance of the Enlightenment and the American Renaissance of Emerson’s era, beginning in the 1880s, shared a common problem—traditional religion with God as a common social value, was failing to provide the bond that both new awakenings required.

The Enlightenment was first to shatter any pretense of a common bond under the umbrella of Christianity. Both periods brought forth a new god—knowledge and discovery. These periods indicated that common values were needed but the common values of knowledge and discover achieved only individualism without cement that binds individuals. Synthesis and common values were trampled in a drive for independent thinking dedicated toward a pursuit of knowledge.

A need for synthesis became apparent and several attempts were created to meet that need. The Great Books program championed by R. M. Hutchins was one of these attempts for a unity of knowledge that could serve as cement for intellectual endeavors.

Hutchins noted that “If any common program is impossible, if there is no such thing as an education that everybody must have, then we must admit that any community is impossible.” Hutchins surmised that unity of knowledge is a bridge over an abyss of social morality and stated that “We see now that we need more learning, more real learning, for everybody.”

“What makes a conversation great rather than little?” Asks author Ernest Becker in his book “Beyond Alienation”; “it asks the big questions…instead we ask the little questions, the questions that keep our daily work going in its prescribed ruts, the questions that look out for tomorrow by automatically following the routine of the day, by accepting uncritically the world as we find it, and by not caring too strongly what we are really doing in it, or are supposed to be doing.”

2

Is the Unity of Knowledge the prerequisite for a Unity of Society? That may be so, but how should this goal be acheived? It can be acheived through the delegation of greater powers to government. Should government be given greater powers to so strictly regulate education? I think not. Do we really want a Unity of Knowledge? Would this not eliminate diversity as we know it?

3

silly, ethnic diversity is the true diversity we strive for! As long as we have that we have what kind of diversity is Most important!

4

Is the Unity of Knowledge the prerequisite for a Unity of Society? That may be so, but how should this goal be acheived? It can be acheived through the delegation of greater powers to government. Should government be given greater powers to so strictly regulate education? I think not. Do we really want a Unity of Knowledge? Would this not eliminate diversity as we know it?

This is not Becker’s message. He says that science has provided us a comprehensive knowledge of human nature that indicates that we are not innately the horrible creatures that Hobbes speculated we to be. It is the societies that we structure that make us do the things we do. We need a new secular morality that must be based upon scientific knowledge but is also acceptable to most people. We need an ideal that all people can rally about. We need a unity of knowledge that can be kept up to date and that can represent the shared pool of understanding whereby we can reason together to attempt to reach our ideal.

Becker thinks that the population needs to be educated in light of this ideal and this knowledge so that we can reasonably dialogue together in an effort to create a society that will make it possible to continually approximate this idea.

Government would not be the force guiding this effort but the citizens who share this pool of common knowledge would be the controlling factor. Becker thinks that the university needs to be modified to provide the type of knowledge needed for this effort.

I think that Becker’s synthesis of the problem is correct but I disagree with his solution. The universities will not be modified to teach this knowledge but the people must recognize the nature of the issue and those that are qualified must take up the effort to become post-schooling scholars who study the knowledge required after their school days are over.

In such a manner we could slowly develop a small part of the working citizens into intellectual elites who can help in raising the intellectual sophistication of the nation in an effort to guide the society into developing a society conducive to reaching the ideal described.

5

Any idea what this “new secular morality that must be based upon scientific knowledge but is also acceptable to most people” might be? What will be the status of the dissident in this society society based on scientific knowledge? Do we not overestimate the power of science in promoting it as the cohesive force for the entire society excluding a small minority?

6

Becker lays out a rational for action but no action toward accomplishing this has been undertaken.

If I had the ability I would draw a cartoon character with an Arnold Schwarzenegger-like upper torso supported on two thin, spindly, and varicose veined legs. This cartoon character would represent humanity as I visualize the human species.

The strong upper torso represents our strong aptitude for scientific achievement and the supporting legs represent our weak and wobbly moral rationality that is failing to provide the foundation needed by humanity.

The book “Beyond Alienation” by Ernest Becker attempts to clarify the nature of the human problem and to provide a solution for this problem. If humanity is to resolve this problem it must find a way to instruct itself wisely in the matter of social morality. Humanity must develop a synthesis of knowledge that can serve as a reasoned basis for constructing a moral rationality. We need to develop a means whereby secular moral philosophy becomes the central consideration for learning.

Moral philosophy teaches the hierarchy of values. The moral philosophy Becker speaks of recognizes that knowledge is never absolute and therefore must not remain static but must be dynamic reflecting the constant discovery initiated by science. Knowledge is that which helps to promote human welfare in the here and now.

Pragmatism is a self-consistent philosophy that honors the idea that what humans value that which is relative to what is satisfying. This did not mean just the satisfaction of human appetite but there is recognition that humans are rational creatures; meaning that a value is judged so only when it is chosen in a critical mode of careful examination. “And it is the community of men, in free and open inquiry and exchange, who formulate the ideal values.”

Dewey’s pragmatism was dedicated to the task of reconstruction. Education was considered to be “the supreme human interest” wherein all philosophical problems come to a head. Dewey’s pragmatism failed because it was a call to action without a standard for action. Education must be progressive and must have a strong critical content.

The big question then is what can philosophy tell education to do? “What truths is man to pursue for the sake of man? What should we learn about man and society, knowledge that would show us, by clear and compelling logic, how to act and how to choose in our person and social life?”

Becker thinks that we must transform the university from its present vocational education institution into one leading the transformation of society. It is in this solution that I differ with Becker. I do not think that higher education will ever change its role of preparing students to become productive workers and avid consumers—at least until after the revolution.

I think that in the United States there is a great intellectual asset that goes unused. Most adults engage in little or no critical intellectual efforts directed at self-actualizing self-learning after their schooling is finished. If a small percentage of our adults would focus some small part of their intellectual energies toward self-actualizing self-learning during the period between the end of their formal education and mid-life they could be prepared to focus serious time and intellectual focus upon creating an intellectual elite that could make up a critical intellectual element dedicated toward the regeneration of our society.