|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
Essays, Opinion, & Commentary |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Leadership and Modern Philosophy: A concise analysis, by Frank R. Simoni, STL, MGA (continued)
Some Reflections 1. To understand the consequences of Descartes' philosophy it is necessary to understand what happens to a human mind that follows his subjectivity principle. To help this understanding, let us make a comparison between Descartes' philosophy and the philosophy of Aristotle. Aristotle had placed the mind on the solid ground of Being. According to him, the mind is made to know, that is, to identify itself with the truth. And truth is where the reality of Being is. If something IS, it is true; if it IS NOT, it is not true. Being is ALL THAT IS. What IS, is self-evident as far as being. And this self-evidence is the root of its intelligibility. Everything that IS can be known. Descartes, with his universal doubt, threw away the objectivity of being. Paraphrasing and surmising what he said: "Reality is not WHAT IS because all I know is that I THINK. The ground of truth is not in the self-evidence of WHAT IS, but in my act of thinking. That's the only thing that is self-evident to me." If we ask him: "Thinking about WHAT?" He would answer: "Never mind about WHAT. I can't be sure if there is any 'WHAT' to be known. All I am sure of is that I THINK, and I AM because I THINK, not because I AM. My thinking is my solid ground, and once I have my feet on this solid ground I'll think of some way for making sure that the world around me exists and is real, too." So, according to Aristotle, I think because I am, and my being stands on an intelligent Absolute in which, and toward which, I am relative. According to Descartes, I am because I think, and my being stands on my thinking. I am the only Absolute I will ever know because I am the thinker. Descartes does not come out boldly and declare himself the Absolute. He believes in God, and he knows that he, Descartes, did not make himself, but his belief in God is not an assent of reason confronted with the rational evidence of a "First Cause Uncaused," as Aristotle did. For Descartes, God is not God because that's the way IT IS. God is God because his thinking postulates Him. Thus, Descartes became the prototype of all those philosophers and thinkers who, in one way or another, deny or disregard the existence of the Absolute, and the necessary, universal dependence of all relative beings from IT. 2. There are two aspects to every historical event. One aspect is tangible and it consists of what goes on under our own eyes either as a natural event or as consequences of human choices. In this respect, the world looks at times like the self-destructive "Mission Impossible" box. And the similarity is not too far fetched considering the brevity of our present life experience. We wonder at times how did the world survive so many natural disasters, wars, revolutions, genocides, and philosophies? In reality, death brings this world to an end for each one of us, but the world continues in its course according to the Evolutionary Force that guides it. The other aspect of historical events is intangible and stems from the observation that, in spite of it all, not only have we survived, but we also reached unsuspected goals. There must be, then, an Evolutionary Force independent of us, which is not just a natural selection that operates by chance, but it is an Intelligence that orders non-things to become things and conserves what is useful to its end. On the surface, from a tangible point of view, this changing world of experience is very opaque and complex. Events happen governed by the principle of sufficiency according to which when something has a sufficient reason for happening, it happens. But there is also a deeper and objective aspect of reality. Actually, what happens on the surface is worthless, meaningless, and purposeless without its deeper, absolute source. When Relativism states that there are no objective absolutes in this world, it expresses only one half of the great truth. As Relativism fails to see that it makes an absolute statement to prove that there are no absolutes, so it fails to see the invisible Evolutionary Force, which is the foundation and cause of the changing world. That is where absolutes are rooted, and not on a subjectivity principle. These two aspects of history, the tangible and the intangible, do not represent just a theory. They represent two aspects of one reality; no historical analysis can be objective and complete without taking both of them into perspective. In this case, "perspective" means that the tangible is only an imperfect mirror image of the intangible, the mirror being the human mind whose function and power of representation are relative to the Absolute according to individual endowments and freedom. Nobody doubts today that the pre-Renaissance Church needed reformation. And what happened during the Renaissance is an example of how the Evolutionary Force pays no homage even to ecclesiastical good intentions. The western mind needed to emancipate itself from Church authority in order to exercise its own natural right and responsibility of finding truth and meaning, even at the cost of its own mistakes. Meaning is a personal achievement that cannot be imposed nor regulated by laws and paradigms. 3. Evolution has been described as an upward, expanding spiral. In this context, the Modern Era is comparable to the pre-Socratic period, which gave roots to the Golden Age of Greek philosophy and science. We can see many parallels between the two periods; parallels of Empiricism, Realism, Idealism, Relativism, and Materialism. Among modern philosophies we can spot Democritus in Hobbes, Leibnitz, and Marx; Parmenides in Berkeley and Hegel; and Protagoras in Hume, just to mention a few. The consensus, then, that considers René Descartes, "the father of modern philosophy," could indicate that the Modern Era is a bridge to a higher synthesis; to another Golden Age where all we have learned since the Greeks will be unified again in a greater system of knowledge. This goal, however, cannot be reached until we gain a thorough understanding of all the implications of subjectivity, not only the positive ones, but also the negative. It is not easy to see the negative consequences of the subjectivity principle, especially considering the progress, technology, and prosperity that we have achieved through the freedom of thought and speech that it has generated. This may explain why, for instance, attempts at showing the relationship between the subjectivity principle and antisocial behavior, or inequitable distribution of wealth, are often met with indifference or are rejected as nonsense. Yet, the principles we go by, and the things we do, are inseparable like the two sides of one coin. So, on one hand, progress was made because once freedom of thought was achieved, the mind did what it is supposed to do according to the Evolutionary Force that engenders it; it searched for truth and meaning, not because of what Descartes or the philosophers who followed him thought, but because that is what the mind does. On the other hand, the substitution of objective realism with the subjectivity principle created a state of make-belief that could never deliver objective reality. Furthermore, while the subjectivity principle gave impetus to individual research and a variety of sciences, it also 'absolutized,' as mentioned above, the relative capacities of human intellects, thus leaving them without the rational leadership of absolute principles. History has shown that social order can only prosper if guided by the absolute principles espoused by individuals who freely join their interest in search of their ideal, common good. But, the subjectivity principle fragmented that ideal into individual self-serving purposes. Since there is a relationship of cause and effect between the way we think and the way we act, modern history shows the painful consequences caused by leadership theories conceived in a fragmented society. These theories run the gamut from the Prince of Machiavelli to the Superman of Nietzsche; from the psychological egoism of Thomas Hobbes, to the chaotic life portrayed in the play Huis Clos (No Exit) by Jean Paul Sartre. The effects of the subjectivity principle can be equated to a schizoid state whereby on the surface we operate in a world of apparent objective reality, unaware of its unstable foundation on subjective ideas. It appears objective because it follows the paradigm in which our environment is steeped. It's the way everybody knows how to live. The world of reality, on the other hand, demands that we relate to others in a social order where we give and take in a truly objective, rational, and equitable manner. This demand is alien to a mind indoctrinated in a subjective environment where if I don't take care of myself, nobody else will, and where self-aggrandizement is the rule of the game. Going back to the modern leadership theories mentioned above, their influence permeates our modern age. The Prince's concept of leadership is still visible in many forms. In spite of the democratic ideals espoused in principle by many governments, the social order is still defined and governed in practice by the fierce conquest of a majority vote or by the authority that can muster more political power instead of being governed by a rational consensus. The Superman concept of Nietzsche inspired Nazism, Fascism, and the entire human suffering that autocratic systems are producing. Psychological egoism has engendered and permeated a materialistic concept of life, which values only tangible results that produce financial gain. Personal character and ideals have no place in individual assessments. The mind itself is materialized and subjected to so called 'objective' tests and measurements. And who has not experienced at times the state of mind of Huis Clos in social systems that promise freedom, but offer no entry and no exit? 4. Because it is important that we understand the consequences of the paradigm that the subjectivity principle has handed down to our modern age, let me cite an example from a philosopher who brought the subjectivity principle to one of its drastic conclusions. The British philosopher, David Hume (1711-1766), attended the University of Edinburgh in Scotland, and left at age sixteen without taking a degree. To satisfy his family he started to study law, but never finished because he became enamored with philosophy, which he pursued on his own. Hume's purpose in pursuing philosophy became centered in one purpose alone: to discredit and destroy any proof of logic and scientific truth that traditional philosophy had gathered before him. In fact, he denied the existence of reason itself. He did so without apparently recognizing that he was using his own reason to prove that there is no such thing as reason. Hume's subjective philosophy can be characterized as one of universal skepticism and emotivism. Later in life, he wrote of himself that his mind was in a state of "utter confusion and depression". Yet, his philosophy is still studied, and continues to feed the paradigm we live by through college and university education, while the realism of Aristotle is still regarded by many as an outdated relic of the past, rather than as a guide to find solid principles. Since philosophy provides the conceptual background for the functioning of a society, that is, the principles it goes by, what kind of principles can leaders whose minds have been molded in a defective philosophy have? To repeat, absolutes are not a human creation. Human beings discovered them from the very beginning of rational life, even before the Greeks found a language with which to express them. They discovered them more by intuition than by hard reasoning, when they experienced their own relativity vis-à-vis their inability to control the realities of the world, of WHAT IS, the way IT IS. As rational beings, they not only recognized their dependence on IT, but they also personified IT as a mind superior to theirs, and they regarded IT, in their own ways, as the Absolute. It was this dependence on the Absolute that led them to discover Ethics, that is, a behavior that conforms to rational interpretations of absolute laws. In this frame of mind, all things, but especially human beings, qualify and manifest the Absolute as it surfaces into human consciousness. But what kind of ethics can be derived from a reason that 'absolutizes' only one truth: that there are no absolutes? Yet, this is the major premise of all theoretical conclusions drawn from the subjectivity principle. What is important to reemphasize is that a subjective frame of mind does not change reality or nature's laws; cause and effect continue to function as they always did. It's not the way we think that counts, but the way IT IS. So, eventually, false premises, whether we realize that they are false or not, lead to false conclusions and unintended consequences. History abounds with startling examples of human leadership. To see the correlation between principles and types of leadership all we have to do is compare the principles of leaders who have left an imprint in history; compare, for instance, the principles of Socrates, the Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Martin Luther King, with the principles of Nero, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini. It becomes apparent that it is always the principles that make the leader, not the other way around. Plato has been criticized for advocating that the ideal leader should be a philosopher. Considering the variety into which philosophers have proliferated since Plato, the criticism may be justified. However, it would not be fair to equate individual philosophers with philosophy as a science. To those who search for truth, philosophy is still the only means to search for it. The guarantee that we are on the path of truth will always remain the adoption of principles proved by the experience of the ethical life they cause, tested by the wisdom of the ages. The New Age Earlier we indicated that the modern period of philosophy could be compared to the pre-Golden Age of Greek philosophy. As such, it could be the harbinger of a New Golden Age. There are signs that this is taking place at an unprecedented pace. For one, we have a great advantage over the Greeks. We don't have to rediscover metaphysics, the First Cause Uncaused, and first principles. Much of what was intangible reality for the Greeks has become a rationally tangible fact and matter of experience. It is true that some scientists, in the words of Leon Lederman, an eminent atomic physicist, are still looking for "The God particle," the subatomic particle that, when discovered, would explain the universe and enthrone human reason as the first cause and ruler of all that is. But much more numerous are the scholars and scientists who feel compelled by their own empirical research to see the intangible and permanent side of our evolving world. There are many indications that science is gradually led by its own methods to rediscover that primitive, simple faith of the first humans, enlightened by all the scientific knowledge we have acquired since then. Quantum and Field theorists are leading the way in this direction, notwithstanding their own surprise and reluctance. In Niels Bohr's words, "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." And Erwin Shroedinger, reacting to some of the Quantum Theory puzzles said: "I don't like it and I am sorry I ever had anything to do with it." (in Margaret Wheatley's Leadership and the New Science, 1994, p. 31). Yet, another scientist, Rupert Sheldrake, in applying the Field Theory to biology, describes the tangible effects caused by various fields while the fields themselves are "invisible, intangible, inaudible, tasteless, and odorless,". (ib. p. 50). This description of fields is parallel, if not identical, to the classical philosophy description of nonmaterial or metaphysical substances. This New Age ferment, non-planned, non-directed, yet, very purposeful, is a new evidence of the Evolutionary Force at work. It is really this Force that inspires leaders. As Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955) explained, leaders are like scouts for humanity, pointing to, and embodying the principles and ideals that come from the Evolutionary Force. However, as we have already mentioned, it is very important to keep in mind that it is the ideals that make the leaders, not the leaders the ideals. True leaders know this; in fact, one of the characteristics that distinguish them is that they are ready to surrender their lives rather than their ideals. Principles and ideals, then, are essential to leadership. What enables leaders to see their value is a special vision, a vision capable of seeing evidence of reality beyond the objects of subjective perception. The subjectivity principle is blind to that vision because it chooses instead, in the style of modern logical positivism, to confine itself to subjective perceptions. But, for those who can see, evidence of the intangible aspect of reality is everywhere. We can all make it our own. The essential part that principles and ideals play in providing leadership to the world, places a greater responsibility on educators. We can only educate leaders if we empower students with a sound philosophy and principles. In conclusion, I hope to have thrown some light on the point that, leaders, like philosophers, are molded by, and mold their environment and culture. As educators of future leaders, it is my hope that we will never cease to turn to history for direction and vision of a better future, and to sound philosophy for principles of leadership that can define what leaders should know, and what leaders should do.
Frank R. Simoni was born in Terni, Italy; received his secondary and college education at the headquarters the Society of St. Paul, a religious order, and his STL (equivalent of MA) in Theology from the Pontifical University of St. Anselm, in Rome. He was ordained a priest in 1946, established a branch of his order in the Republic of Ireland, and in 1958 he joined the diocese of Jefferson City, Missouri. He trained as a mental hospital chaplain at Catholic University of America and St. Elizabeths Hospital, Washington, DC, and served as staff chaplain at the Fulton, Missouri, State Hospital. In 1970 he opted for married life. Frank and Patricia, his wife of 31 years had three children, all graduates and happily married. In 1972 Frank graduated with a Master's Degree in Graphoanalysis (MGA) from the International Graphoanalysis Society, Chicago, Illinois. He has taught philosophy at two colleges and for the past six years at National-Louis University, St. Louis, Missouri, campus, where the present essay was read at a faculty meeting. He and Patricia live in St. Peters, MO. He can be reached at: simonfran@charter.net, or, at his Graphoanalysis Web Site: www.thehandwritanalyst.com.
The above essay is Copyright (c) 2002 by Frank R. Simoni; all rights reserved. It is reproduced here by permission of the author. |
|||||||
|
Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book... Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Magazine...
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[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.