 |
 |
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