 |
 |
Nick, You first have to answer the age old problem of what is the good, what is wisdom? This is a very tall order. Everyone thinks they are wise and good. On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 7:23 PM, Nicholas Maxwell < [log in to unmask]> wrote: > I have been reading the discussion about what we stand for and how it > relates to pragmatism, at present going on in the "d" list, with great > interest. The basic task of FoW - I think we all agree - is to try to get > into the public arena the idea that there is an urgent need to transform > universities so that they take, as their basic aim, to help humanity make > progress towards as good a world as possible. There are two very different > difficulties. > (1) How do we get a hearing for this idea? > (2) What is the idea, exactly, in the first place, and what are the > arguments in support of it? > > In so far as we act as individuals, we don't have to agree about (2). But > in so far as we act as a group - and I am not sure we have got as far as > that yet - we do need to reach some kind of agreement about (2). How can we > hope to get a hearing for an idea if we are not sure what the idea is in the > first place? > > What we need, perhaps, is a "working agreement", something we agree to for > the purposes of action even if we have reservations about this or that > aspect of it. What we require, I think, is a minimal message which most of > us can go along with for the purposes of action - and this needs to be > combined with lively discussion about further details about which we > disagree. We certainly don't want to go the way of political parties in > suppressing dissent in the interest of unity. > > In my "From Knowledge to Wisdom" I put forward two arguments for the urgent > need for what Karl calls "an intellectual revolution in academia", (a) one > that appeals to "problem-solving rationality" and (b) one that appeals to > "aim-oriented rationality". I think (b) may well be much more contentious > than (a). [I was aware of this when writing the book, and that is why I > distinguished the two arguments and put (a) before (b).] > > Perhaps we could make something like (a) our "working agreement". It might > be summarized like this:- > > If the fundamental aim of academia is to help promote human welfare, then > the basic problems academia seeks to help solve are *problems of living*. > If these are to be tackled rationally (that is, in such a way as to give the > best chances of success), then priority needs to be given to (1) > articulating, and trying to improve the articulation of, our problems of > living, and (2 Proposing and critically assessing possible solutions, > possible actions. Tackling problems of knowledge and technological know-how > needs to be done in a subordinate way, emerging out of, and feeding back > into, the basic intellectual activity of tackling problems of living. > Academia today does not do this: instead, it gives priority to the pursuit > of knowledge. This has all sorts of inevitable undesirable, even > disastrous consequences. It means academia provides technological > innovations which have made possible almost all of our current global > problems - from global warming to population growth, rapid extinction of > species and the lethal character of modern war - without paying much > attention to helping humanity learn how to deal with these problems. > Academia today betrays both reason and humanity. > > The formulation could be improved. But ignore that; its the content that > is my concern. If we could agree to take something along those lines - > capable of being stated clearly in a paragraph - as what we take as our > "working agreement", then we would have a basis for acting as a group. As > long as we don't have that, we don't have such a basis. We can act as > individuals, but not coherently as a group. > > I must quickly add that it seems to me changes are happening in academia in > the direction we hope for, largely in response to the perceived gravity of > our global problems, especially global warming. It is the natural and > technological sciences which are changing, not so much social inquiry and > the humanities (where the most dramatic changes are needed). I cannot help > but feel that we, potentially, have much to contribute to help nudge the > changes that are going on into fruitful directions, but we are not - as a > group at least - at present doing much nudging. > > Could we take something like the above as our "working agreement"? If not, > what could we take to be our "working agreement"? How do we go about > formulating, and agreeing to, our "working agreement"? Or is it all too > difficult to attempt? > > Best wishes, > > Nick >