|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
Dr. Adler's Briefing Room - 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Many of Dr. Adler's books are available through The Radical Academy Bookstore. Books
by Mortimer J.
Adler
The Center for the Study of The Great Ideas Click Here for New & Used College Textbooks at Discount Prices Click
Here for College Education Information & Study
Resources
Bookstore
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Index:
Religious leaders are always preaching the virtue of humility to us. It is supposed to be wrong to push ourselves forward or to think too much about ourselves and about what we have coming. But is this really a virtue? Shouldn't an adult have a realistic sense of his qualities and attainments, and not be ashamed to claim whatever rewards rightfully belong to him? Dr, Adler responds: The different evaluations placed on pride and humility by classical antiquity and by the Judaeo-Christian religions afford an instructive example of the difference between philosophical and religious ethics. Aristotle, in his famous work on ethics, says that the noblest type of human being is the magnanimous, or "great souled," man. Such a man is justifiably proud of the virtues of character and mind that he possesses. He is secure in his own proper self-esteem and self-respect. The magnanimous man welcomes honor as "the prize of virtue," provided it is rightly bestowed by men who are worthy to judge virtue. He despises the good opinion of inferior men -- popular acclaim or "fame." In this view, justifiable pride is a virtue and undue self deprecation is a vice. Vanity and humility are, for Aristotle, the two extreme vices opposed to the virtue of magnanimous pride. A vain man wants more honor than he deserves. A humble man does not think enough of himself; he seeks less honor than he deserves, or none at all. Hence the humble man is just as odious and ridiculous as the vain man. He lacks proper self-respect, which, for Aristotle, is essential to a noble human life. Now, if we turn to the Bible and to Christian moral teachings, everything seems to be turned upside down. Pride, self esteem, self-sufficiency -- these are the worst sins. Humility, a sense of unworthiness, and dependence -- these are the supreme virtues. The Psalms teach that we are to trust in God alone as the eternal rock and security. The Gospels teach that "the poor in spirit" -- not those who are justifiably proud of their own worth -- are the blessed among men. Jesus preaches that men should avoid honors and privileges, even the title of teacher. The highest model for the Christian is the servant or slave, not the lord or master. The Christian does not seek high place or honor. "Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." This preaching is concretely exemplified in Jesus' washing the disciples' feet. The Biblical view does not deprecate human virtue, but it ascribes it, like all good things, to God. It is always God that is magnified or glorified, not one's self or one's virtues. The Song of Mary, the "Magnificent" in the Gospel of Luke, is a model of the Biblical attitude. So, likewise, is the Jewish memorial service, which glorifies God, not the dead person or his virtues. In the Biblical view, only God is good or great. The modern writer who most vividly expresses the Christian idea of humility is Feodor Dostoyevsky. His novels try to show the redemptive value of humility and self-sacrificing love. The modern writer who most cogently opposes Christian humility is Friedrich Nietzsche. He considers Christian ethics a subversive revolution which turned things upside down, a "slave morality" which expresses the revenge of the weak and lowly against the strong and great. Thomas Aquinas attempts to reconcile the virtues of magnanimity and humility. He holds that a Christian rightly practices magnanimity when he considers himself "worthy of great things" because of the virtues he possesses -- as a gift of God. The "great things" are perfect works of virtue, in fulfillment of the nature which God has bestowed on man. Similarly, the Christian practices humility when he considers him self unworthy because of weaknesses inherent in his nature, or his failure to fulfill God's gifts. Humility leads him to honor and esteem others as better than himself insofar as they embody the God-given virtues.
Question: Is there such a thing as knowledge, or is everything a matter of opinion? Our picture of the world and our way of life has changed so much in the last fifty years that I wonder whether we can have certain knowledge about anything. Isn't most of our so-called knowledge really opinion? Dr. Adler: Most of us know what an opinion is. We recognize that our opinions are beliefs that others need not share. We are used to having those who disagree with us say, "Well, that is only your opinion" (or "your opinion"). Even when we advance an opinion on very good grounds, we usually feel some doubt about it. "I have good reason to believe so," we say, "but I wouldn't swear to it." Here, then, are three characteristics of opinions: (1) they express probabilities rather than certainties; (2) they are subject to doubt; and (3) reasonable men can differ about which of two conflicting opinions is sounder. There is a perennial skepticism which holds that everything is a matter of opinion. The extreme skeptic reduces even such things as mathematics and science to opinion. He points out, for example, that a system of geometry rests on arbitrary assumptions. Other assumptions can be made and other systems of geometry developed. Experimental science at it's best, the skeptic maintains, consists of highly probable generalizations, not indubitable certainties. In contrast with such skepticism is the view of the ancient Greek philosophers. Plato and Aristotle think that there are some matters about which men can have genuine knowledge. In the very nature of things, some things are necessary and cannot be otherwise. For example, by the very nature of wholes and parts, it is necessary that the whole should always be greater than any of its parts. This is something we know for certain. On the other hand, there is nothing in the natures of gentlemen and blondes that makes it necessary for gentlemen always to prefer blondes, and so this is only a matter of opinion. The difference between knowledge and opinion can also be expressed in psychological terms. When we are asked, "Do gentlemen prefer blondes?" or "Will the Republicans win the 2000 election?", we must make up our own mind. Nothing about the matter in question compels us to answer Yes or No. But when we are asked whether the whole is greater than any of its parts, we have no choice about the answer. If we put our mind to thinking about the relation of whole and part, we can think about the relation in only one way. The object we are thinking about makes up our mind for us. This gives us a very clear criterion for telling whether what we assert is knowledge or opinion. It is knowledge when the object that we are thinking about compels us to think of it in a certain way. What we think then is not our personal opinion. But when the object of our thought leaves us free to make up our mind about it, one way or the other, then what we think is only an opinion -- our personal opinion, voluntarily formed. Here other rational persons can differ with us. On this understanding of the difference between knowledge and opinion, we must admit that most of our assertions are opinion. But we should also realize that opinions differ in their soundness. Some are based on considerable evidence or reasons which, while not conclusive, make them highly probable. Others are ill-founded, and others have no foundation at all but are simply willful prejudices on our part. This leaves open the question whether history, mathematics, experimental science, and speculative philosophy should be classified as knowledge or opinion. As we have seen, the extreme skeptic would say that they are all opinion, though he might recognize that they have much more weight than mere personal opinions or private prejudices. The opposite view, which I would defend, is that we can have knowledge in the fields of mathematics and philosophy, and highly probable opinion in the fields of experimental science and history.
Question: I find it hard to define what truth is. Some of my friends say that truth is what most people think is so. But that does not make sense to me, because sometimes the majority is wrong. Even what everyone thinks is so may not be the truth. There must be some better definition of truth. What is it? Dr. Adler: You are quite right to feel dissatisfied. Your friends did not arrive at a definition of truth, but at one of the signs of truth. In certain cases the fact that the majority holds something to be true is an indication that it is probably true. But this is only one of the signs of truth, and by no means the best one. And it does not answer your question or Pilate's --"What is truth?" It may help you to understand the nature of truth to consider what is involved in telling a lie. If a man tells a woman "I love you" when he does not, he is telling a lie. When a child who has raided the cookie jar tells his mother "I didn't", he is lying. Lying consists in saying the opposite of what you know, think, or feel. It is distinct from honest error, such as that of the umpire who calls a man "out" when he is "safe", or vice versa. Josiah Royce, a great American philosopher at the beginning of this century, defined a liar as a man who willfully misplaces his ontological predicates; that is, a man who says "is" when he means "is not", or "is not" when he means "is". Royce's definition of a liar leads us quickly to the most famous of all philosophical definitions of truth. It was given by Plato and Aristotle almost twenty-five centuries ago; it has been repeated in various ways ever since, and seldom been improved upon. Plato and Aristotle say that the opinions we hold are true when they assert that that which is, is, or that that which is not, is not; and that our opinions are false when they assert that that which is, is not, or that that which is not, is. When the "is" in a statement we make agrees with the way things are, then our statement is true, and its truth consists in its corresponding to the existent facts of nature and reality. When we think that something exists or has happened which does not exist or did not happen, then we are mistaken and what we think is false. So, as you see, truth is very easy to define, and the definition is not very hard to understand. Perhaps impatient Pilate would have waited for the answer if he had known that it could be given so briefly. But maybe he was thinking of another question, "How can we tell whether a statement is true or false?" This, by the way, is the question you and your friends ended up by answering. To this question there are three main types of answer. The first insists that some statements are self-evidently true, such as, "The whole is greater than the part." Such statements reveal their truth to us directly by the fact that we find it impossible to think the opposite of them. When we understand what a whole is and what a part is, we cannot think that a part is greater than the whole to which it belongs. That is how we know immediately the truth of the statement that the whole is greater than any of its parts. Another type of answer says that the truth of statements can be tested by our experience or observations. If a man says that it did not rain in Chicago a single day last month, we can check the truth of his statement by looking up the official weather records. Or we can stick a foot into a swimming pool to see if the water is as warm as a friend says it is. Similarly, a scientific generalization is considered true only as long as no contrary facts are observed. The third type of answer has to do with statements that are neither self-evidently true nor capable of being checked by direct appeal to observed facts. It may be a question of a person's character, what type of product is most desirable for certain purposes, or whether the favorite will win the next race. Here it is permissible to count noses and to find the consensus of a group of people or of the experts. That an opinion is held by a majority can be taken as a sign that it has some probability of being true. This third answer was the one your friend arrived at. But the fact that it expressed the consensus of the group does not make it the right answer to the question, "What is truth?" Nor does it give the full answer to the question, "How can we tell whether a statement is true?" Defining truth is easy; knowing whether a particular statement is true is much harder; and pursuing the truth is most difficult of all.
Question: In our society we place a great value on attaining material goods. We tend to judge people by their material success. But the moralists and the saints are always preaching against materialism and the pleasure of the senses. What is materialism, and why is it supposed to be bad? Dr. Adler: Men have adopted three basic attitudes toward material goods and satisfactions. The first is asceticism -- the total rejection of material goods and sensual satisfactions. Some ethical and religious thinkers hold that the material world is of no importance or, worse, a vicious hindrance to the attainment of spiritual perfection. This is a pervasive and perennial attitude. It has been the dominant ideal of Hindu religion and ethics. While it is not central in the Western religions, it has played an important part there, too. The second attitude is materialism or sensualism -- the avid pursuit of worldly possessions and physical pleasures as the basic human goods. This is also a pervasive and perennial attitude. In its crudest form, it makes money the be-all and end-all of life. We find expressions of it in the flip cynicism of the popular song "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend" and in the familiar adage "Eat, drink, and be merry, because tomorrow we die." It is interesting to observe that no great book and no great moral philosopher ever taught this doctrine. The people who preach and practice it probably do not have the time or inclination to write books. The third attitude affirms the value of both physical and spiritual goods. According to this view such physical goods as wealth, health, food, and sexual pleasure are genuinely good and should not be denied. But, it is maintained, they should be subordinated to spiritual goods -- knowledge, justice, love -- for the total well-being of the person and the welfare of the community. Of all three attitudes, this middle one is the most difficult to practice. The ascetic way is hard at first, but, once mastery of the will has been attained, it becomes comparatively easy. The ascetic simply says No to the world and the flesh, and in time unsatisfied desires wither away. The materialist or sensualist simply says Yes to whatever gratifies his senses or fills his pocketbook. Like the ascetic, he is a specialist and does not have the problem of welding the physical and spiritual goods into a unified harmony. The man who follows the middle way has this problem all the time. It is his constant care and concern to keep the two kinds of goods in the proper order and proportion. Nevertheless, there is some reason to believe that most of us, if we thought about it, would choose the middle way. But most of us are unable or unwilling to exercise the attention and care that it requires. We tend to forget the proper use and end of the material goods we pursue. First, we buy a car for simple transportation purposes. Then it becomes an item of prestige and conspicuous consumption. Next, one car is not enough -- we must have at least two or three. Finally, we become devoted to the automobile almost as if it were an end in itself. We have become possessed by our possession. It is using us, instead of we it. The realization that evil lies in the attachment to material goods, not in the goods themselves, is expressed in our philosophic and religious tradition. Aristotle distinguishes between legitimate wealth-getting, which provides us with the means we need in order to lead a good human life, and the piling up of wealth for wealth's sake. The Bible asserts the goodness of the material world, as created by God for man. It inveighs against the corruption of soul that often accompanies great wealth, but not against wealth itself. The rich young man in the Gospels is at fault not because he is rich, but be cause he is such a slave to his wealth and comfort that he cannot give it up to follow after the spirit and the truth.
Question: Mathematics and philosophy are twins born of logic; and mathematics is the elder for this reason, "as mathematics is the description of true universal possibilities, philosophy is man's true relation to those possibilities described." Inevitably, philosophy, as a guide to human conduct, will fall back on mathematical modeling of the "universal scheme of things." The reason current moral philosophies are in such disarray is because mathematics is also in disarray and rudderless. Why should the man-on-the-street follow an obscurely substantiated "Golden Rule" when the physical world around him is described as essentially chaotic and competitive a la "survival of the fittest"? The ethical path has no imperative other than, "it is not a crime until you are caught." The question begs an answer; "How can that which is logically derived, be so consistently wrong -- is logic, itself, wrong?" Dr. Adler: The philosophers of the seventeenth century, misled by their addiction to episteme, looked upon mathematics as the perfect achievement of knowledge, and tried to "perfect" philosophy by mathematicizing it. The effect upon philosophy was the frustration of trying to achieve a precision of terminology and a rigor of demonstration that are appropriate in mathematics, but inappropriate in philosophy as an attempt to answer questions about reality -- about that which is and happens in the world or about what ought to be done and sought. Mathematical method can play no role in ethics.
Question: Courage is a much-praised virtue, but just what it is is not too clear. We usually associate it with fearlessness, but isn't it inhuman and abnormal to be without fear? And we usually think of the man of action when we think of courage -- of the soldier, the big-game hunter, the mountain climber, the race-track driver. But isn't there such a thing as moral courage, which is far superior to physical daring and recklessness? What is courage? Dr. Adler: Another name for courage is fortitude. As the word "fortitude" suggests, courage consists in having the strength to hold fast against danger, pain, and stress. We sometimes distinguish between physical and moral courage, according to the character of the pain or stress under which the individual does not yield. Men who risk bodily injury or death in war or in peacetime exhibit physical courage. Moral courage is shown by men who uphold religious or political convictions that result in social ostracism or personal unpleasantness for them. Courage need not be obvious. It is manifested by scientists, artists, and scholars who accomplish their work only by unflagging patience and perseverance. It is found in the everyday life of ordinary men who carry on against odds and fulfill their duties, no matter what the temptation to despair and surrender. This everyday hero is no more apparent to the naked eye than Kierkegaard's Knight of Infinite Faith, who looks like a tax collector and dresses like a bourgeois. The present-day knight may wear a fedora, have a paunch, and reside in the suburbs. The late Charles Peguy said that the true adventurers of the twentieth century are the fathers of families. Courage should not be confused with recklessness or fool hardiness. Nor should it be confused with fearlessness. To be courageous is to have the strength to overcome fear. A man without fear may "appear" to act courageously, but he does not *really* have the virtue of courage. There is no virtue in doing what comes naturally, without effort. Courage involves conquering fear. It involves a respect for hardships and dangers together with an unflinching will to endure them for a good cause. Drunks who rush thoughtlessly into danger are not courageous. Many great thinkers regard the courageous man as one who succeeds in avoiding the equally wrong extremes of foolhardiness and cowardice. Aristotle points our that courage consists in having the right amount of fear, neither too much nor too little. It calls for a sound judgment about risks or perils, or, as Epictetus says, a combination of confidence and caution. And Spinoza remarks that "flight at the proper time, just as well as fighting, is to be reckoned as showing strength of mind," that is, courage. The same virtue that moves a man to avoid danger in one case impels him to meet it in another. The great moralists who discuss courage never treat it as a virtue in isolation from other virtues. In their view, courage is found only in men who are also temperate, just, and prudent or wise. Their reason for this is that taking risks or bearing hardships must be done for the right purpose. They would not call a gangster a courageous man simply because he takes calculated risks or remains cool in the face of danger. Since he is overcoming his fears to achieve an evil, not a good, result, he exhibits not courage but a counterfeit of it. The man who acts courageously is one who faces dangers and endures hardships because he *rightly* values certain things as more important than others. His courage is not mere brute strength nor disdain for his skin and his comfort. While he values his life, an unbroken body, and peace, he places a higher value on other goods, such as the welfare of his country or his family, his moral integrity, or the ideals to which he is devoted.
|
|||||||
|
The Adler Archive Index |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, & 2002-03 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.