The curious history of freethinking
My minders at the 成人论坛 would like me to make my posts a bit snappier and whackier – a bit more bloglike in short. I shall do my best, but I'm afraid I may not succeed. After all they have also tagged me as ‘philosopher’, which implies taking care to look at everything in the round. And that takes time. If it’s not the way things work in the blogosphere, then something will have to give.
That is why I have been insisting on the difference between holding an opinion and thinking things through. Comments on this distinction are still coming in (very interesting too), and I shall return to it, as incisively as possible, in a later post.
But first I need to discharge an old promise by explaining a little of the history ‘freethinking’, and the part Bishop Berkeley played in its downfall. If I’m right, the story points to a paradox in the idea of freethinking – a paradox that has not lost its capacity to trip people up.
The words ‘free-thinking’ and ‘free-thinker’ entered the English language at the end of the seventeenth century, as sneering labels for outlandish atheists. But they were soon adopted as a badge of pride by thinkers we would now call ‘deists’ – thinkers who rejected the specific doctrines of Christianity, but retained a generalised belief in a deity.
The conceit of the self-styled ‘free-thinkers’ was effectively exploded in 1732, when the Irish philosopher and Anglican clergyman George Berkeley published a satire on them called Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher.
The butt of Berkeley’s humour is an aging 'man of fashion called Alciphron, one of those who ‘fancy themselves Free-thinkers’, and like proclaiming their devotion to ‘Truth’ and ‘Liberty’.
‘Take my word for it,’ says Alciphron: a human being is no more than ‘a piece of Clockwork or Machine’, and – ‘take my word for it’ – ‘conscience is a whim and morality a prejudice.’ His friend (we must take his word for it) even has a conclusive disproof of the existence of God, though he cannot now quite remember how it goes.
‘Take my word for it’, says Alciphron: but as his words descend into bluster, he clings to his special privilege as a ‘Free-thinker’:
Above all the Sects upon earth it is the peculiar privilege of ours, not to be tied down by any Principles. While other Philosophers profess a servile adherence to certain Tenets, ours assert a noble freedom, differing not only one from another, but very often the same Man from himself. Which method of proceeding, beside other advantages, hath this annexed to it, that we are of all Men the hardest to confute.
‘Take my word for it’, says Alciphron: ridicule is the most potent weapon of free-thinking. But it turns out that the last laugh is on him. His freethinking has nothing of the noble freedom of the courageous warrior for truth, but only the base freedom of the coward and the self-infatuated fool.
So far so Berkeley.
His story suggests that freethinking can mean two very different things. First there is the effort to free ourselves from the constraints of cliché, prejudice, vanity and convention: a fine thing, but not so easy. And secondly, there is the refusal to respect the constraints of logic, rationality, and evidence, which is considerably easier. The second kind of freethinking involves freedom of a kind, but it has nothing in common with thinking.
Very thought provoking indeed. This evokes for me the differences between analytical and continental philosophy, especially your final comment. It would seem that the line could be drawn easily, as you do, between denying the laws of convention and the laws of logic. But I see more conflict in Alciphron - in rejecting social powers, ideals and principles (of whatever kind) the subject is to be set free, free to think, and yes we might comment that in this process he rejects too much (and becomes happy to contradict himself etc). But what is it to think? If we embrace only logic and attempt through philosophy to move away from any beliefs, feelings, prejudices etc, we argue for non-thinking.
Without beliefs we have no reason to accept any argument as true - that is to say that valid arguments require true or false premises to be believed, and while we might get this wrong, if we approach an argument from a sterile point of view we are ceasing to care about the truth of the premises as a given (it has to happen somewhere in the regress).
So I would disagree with Alciphron that denying beliefs sets us free. While it is important for philosophy to destroy beliefs, it is certainly the case that they are superceded - new beliefs are formed out of this process. My question would be: While we cannot throw away beliefs and just keep logic and rigorous thinking, can it be worthwhile to throw away logic and retain our powers to act and interpret?
Jonathan Ree wrote:
“First there is the effort to free ourselves from the constraints of cliché, prejudice, vanity and convention: a fine thing, but not so easy. And secondly, there is the refusal to respect the constraints of logic, rationality, and evidence, which is considerably easier. The second kind of freethinking involves freedom of a kind, but it has nothing in common with thinking.”
An imaginary conversation sparked by your blog….
“I’m not sure this distinction is as straightforward as you suggest.”
“You don’t?”
“No. Is it possible to free myself from all my prejudices? Do we each, as individuals, not suffer from a kind of blind spot in understanding ourselves, our limits and our thoughts? Am I transparent to myself in a way that would allow me to free myself from my prejudices? Do I not need other people to help me see myself? But as soon as need others - to free myself from my own prejudices - then do I not subject my own self understanding to the contingencies of my encounters and exchanges with others?”
“And your point is?”
“That this idea that I should aim to free myself from my prejudices may be misguided.”
“But then are you saying I should just accept my prejudices and that should be the end of the matter?”
“No, far from it. Becoming aware of your prejudices is not the same as being liberated from them. To free yourself from your prejudices would imply that that your prejudices would play no role in your actions, utterances and behaviour, that if you were to make sense of your actions, utterances and so on you would not have recourse to a prejudice on your part.”
“I’m not sure I follow.”
“Think about it like this: if I have a prejudice but do not know to what extent my own thoughts, actions and behaviours are informed by it do I need to be considerably more critical of my own self-understanding and subject my own certainties to more critical scrutiny?”
“Probably. But then how would you live? Who can be vigilant in that way?”
“My point exactly.”
“So I just accept I have prejudices and leave it at that?”
“No. Perhaps we can start thinking of prejudices – often inherited through parents, local communities and so on, as part of your life-world, as part of your living context.”
“And what would that do?”
“There are all kinds of things out of my control, including the prejudices that surround me. Rather than try and remove them, marginalise them and remain vigilant against their return perhaps I can simply not respond to them, not allow them the significance I used to. My parents might be racist and utter racist views. I don’t have to become racist because it is in my environment, do I? I can accept that it is there but by not reacting to it, refuse to give it weight or significance? I can free myself from it by simply accepting it is there, part of life, but I don’t need to signify it further by responding to it.”
“Not sure.”
“Well, it’s just a thought.”
Your blog about Freethinking is great.
You have my sympathies with regard to your Homo Economicus editors.
We are all skewed this way and that. Berkeley had his own prejudices; he was a staunch anti materialist and a devout man. Maybe prejudices are not all negative influences -when constrained by method- some, are catalysts for progress, he went on to create Idealism among other things.
Constrained by method, I suppose its the paradox. At some point in our thinking (madness) we must ascertain its truth. So we hold forth the methods of Logic, Rational and Evidence as its Judge Jury and potential Executioner. Logic; yes a very useful thing, after all without it we wouldn't be blogging, so no logic no blogic. However, it is incomplete so we should not hold onto to it too tightly. Rationale, the process by which we make real our assumptions thus giving Evidence of Truth. So we can write down an equation and email the observatory and say "Look at these cordinates you will see a new planet." Sure enough they look and sure enough they see, evidence of rationale. So you can be free to think but expect it to be challenged if you try to make it a reality. Can an irrational concept be made real?
I'm concerned with other things. What course this discourse? Where is all this science going? Is it guided or just misguided? If the perfect AI agent were created and let loose on the stock market, what would that actually mean for Humanity? How about two of them? We speak in so many languages, all trying to say what I suspect are the same simple things. We have learnt much in our efforts to state with singular purpose, with clarity, these simple things. Is no one tired of searching?
Yes it can.
free thinking' free brain; free mind; free will; free soul; free spirit?
Where do they all fit in? or are they not related at all?
I think you'll find there is a pretty large group of 'freethinkers' on this planet already, who claim they have liberated their minds (they don't necessarily believe in souls, or spirits) and are uniplaning or freethinking.
Who are they - why the Buddhists of course!
they of course take the phrase 'free thinking' to an even more sublime level and as far as they are concerned out of the quagmire of normal human free thinking.
they do suggest than any form of human thinking without the use of meditative practices remains held back or ensnared with what we have 'picked up' or inherited - as nadim suggests; prejudices and biases and all the other daily emotions that mould our personalities.
They also support the view as do other spiritual philosphers that we all live in a world of illusion.
So whether you are a plumber or a philosopher (none spiritual) or just a very good person - a humanist perhaps we still have our views of life influenced by 'the continual chattering of the monkeys' including all those foibles of human emotions.
To the Buddhists and other spiritual philosophers the true 'free thinker' is just that :
he/she who has disconnected themselves from thinking all together - well at least about the turmoils and intricacies of this planet.
Sylvia Browne the well known American spiritualist suggest that planet earth is the densest planet in the universe (in terms of being enlightened that is) and we are all here to 'work out our own s...t!
Buddhists and other spiritual philosphers too? - yes of course - they are showing us the way and working there s...t out in a quicker way than others - that's all.
So given for the sake of the above treatise - our world is really an illusion of our mind and the minds of many others, were does that leave non-spiritual philosphy?
Well I would suggest perhaps going around and around and around and around in an ever increasing or decreasing circle of delusionary thinking.
A means of passing away the time for us in those moments of our lives we suddenly are entrapped by feelings of 'what shall I do know - I'm feeling somewhat bored with things'
But leading to true enlightenment - Never!
I think this poem from Wendell Berry (Sabbaths 2005) puts in a nutshell the importance of thinking carefully:
If we have become a people incapable
of thought, then the brute thought
of mere power and mere greed
will think for us.
If we have become incapable
of denying ourselves anything,
then all that we have
will be taken from us.
If we have no compassion,
we will suffer alone, we will suffer
alone the destruction of ourselves.
These are merely the laws of the world
as known by Shakespeare:
When we cease from human thought,
a low and effective cunning
stirs in the most inhuman minds.
Why is it that bible tours are allowed at the british museum ?
Would anyone like to join me in doing a few atheist tours ?
atheist tours jason - now there's an interesting thought - can you give us a taste of the tour perhaps - what would be some of the highlights?
Visit the greek philosophers, the age of enlightenment room.
Walk through a few civilisations saying 'these guys worshipped ra, these guys had a cow cult, these worshipped the sun'
?
Oh sorry Jason thought you had something really enlightening - those guys just were in kindergarten practicing for the big thing!
I'm talking about cosmic proportions here not worldy thungs!!
Fitz, the other stuff is reserved for the inner circle.
"Curiouser and curiouser."
Are they going to callously cut me out, thought Alice?
They're taking me for tours round the British Museum.
Is there really something cosmic we're going on to?
"Oh, hell, missed it."
I'm struggling here; the media used to record blogs is the technology of the temporary, fast, transcient, subject to screen size, point, click and a scroll bar. Printing blogs off to read them feels wrong, but so does sitting at the PC reading the screen. At the screen the continuity of arguments and thoughts gets lost; making the discussion and appreciation of concepts and ideas awkward and hard to follow. Whilst the concept is great how can it really be made to work? "Snappier and whackier" may grab a minute or two of attention, but, in the end devalues discussion by encourageing the snapshot, sound bite, pixel byte and "moving on....." approach to thinking.
Yes, Peter #2, writing a little helps you read better.
Jason:
I agree it is not a good medium.
Ideas:
Page reads itself back to the reciever or the writer could append a soundfile to the Opinion.
Voice Over Internet Protocols and scheduled debating -time zones dependent.
The author of any blog could provide usefull links to the concepts they are using -Not sure whether this is a sort of advertising though? So I tend not to do it.
Otherwise you just have to hope people can follow the gaps ... between concepts. That they explain these concepts in a way that allows such bridging. But the real problem is the reducability of an idea, that ideas operate on many levels. Some of these levels will be within all of consciousness others won't -this is why the bridging occurs.
re prejudice
im hopelssly prejudiced that today is saturday, just as the buddeist is prejudiced that his way of freeing up his brain is the best and only valid way of freethinking
there is thinking
whether its free or not, well my thinking is free, yours is prejudiced, and his is plain wrong.
we could argue about this for eternity, situated as we are in our individual dunghills of prejudice and unfree thinking.
thge big qestion is, not whether the thinking is free or enchained, but whether it is helpful. whether, in the real world, it works.
by their works ye shall know them, as the man said.
mike
It is unfortunate but I dont think historically blogs have been written by those with a gift in making the most of our beautiful language or the time needed to craft well thought out and interesting texts. Maybe this is why they are are snappy and whacky in style. How refreshing it would be not to have compromise on artisitic integrity. Just because it's a web log, does it have to suffer because of the 'bloglike' style that has become characteristic and recognisable of this genre? I hope you continue to write comprehensively and fulfillingly, for the reader at least.