Monat: Juli 2020

A Review of “The Righteous Mind” by Jonathan Haidt

Evan GarrettHinterlasse einen Kommentar

Introduction

„The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion“ is the title of Jonathan Haidt’s book summarizing his studies on moral, political, and religious psychology that came out in 2012.

As I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on the current state of evolutionary psychology 8 years after the publishing of this book, I will refrain from speaking directly of its enduring significance and persuasive power in the scientific communities in which it was received. I can only say that from having listened into many discussions of and among such scientists as Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying, Sam Harris, and Steven Pinker that Haidt’s ideas, although having encountered significant opposition from the political arena, found also a good deal of support among many evolutionary biologists and social psychologists.

If you would like, you can continue your research into the impact of this book on its Wikipedia page.

My primary purpose in this review is to document (for myself) and interact with some of the most significant ideas proposed by Haidt in his book. For the record, I really enjoyed the book. Haidt did a good job of appealing to my ‚elephant‘ nature and in doing so helped me overcome any emotional resistance I had to succumbing to the idea that I am an utterly biased creature. I agreed with most everything Haidt had to say, with a few nuances and exceptions here and there.

Significant Ideas

Evolutionary Theories About the Development of Morality are Plausible

Haidt argues that human morality is not at its most basic level, as is commonly believed, an outgrowth of the human capacity for reasoning applied to abstract concepts of fairness and justice, constantly worked out in every day life — as a sort of rationalism, but rather an complex network of innate moral intuitions which worked together to preserve human groups in our evolutionary history. Not only that, but this is a testable theory which can make falsifiable predictions and has explanatory power.

The primary starting point he makes is that, granted evolutionary theory is extremely powerful in explaining many of the features of the human body and genetic makeup, how can we not, then, further proceed to the conclusion that it has also played a significant role in explaining patterns in human psychology?

Culturally and politically speaking, the point Haidt makes here is a controversial one. Although many in the Western world have abandoned theism and particularly abrahamic religions as an overarching worldview that explains the biological features of the creatures as well as human psychology, many are not willing to accept the idea that naturalistic evolution is the primary explanation for human morality. The fear is that the is/ought distinction will be lost on society. I find this fear understandable.

If evolution is predicated upon the success of creatures which best ensure the reproduction of their own blood, doesn’t that mean that the ‚final cause‘ of the moral equipment we’ve developed as humans is sexual reproduction? And if we know that our final cause as humans is sexual reproduction, why not skip over the elaborate societal outworking thereof and skip straight to the rape, murder, theft, and rule over others which would directly guarantee it? Why not practice Eugenics and everything else that follows? What other dangerous conclusions about humanity might this field of research lead us to which could translate to real harm and violence in the real world?

We ought to remember, however, that the is/ought distinction is a real and important distinction, and that we cannot put a stop to scientific investigation or the search for truth simply because people may engage in faulty reasoning based on what we find. If evolutionary theory provides plausible explanations of human morality, in this direction we should go, while remembering that normative morality does not come from the sciences, but from the humanities, and we have yet to and never will find reason to accept a description of what is as a prescription for what should be when the discussion is about morality.

As a Christian who has in any case no issues with evolutionary explanations of humanity and even a fully naturalistic theory of the generation of genetic information within the confines of spacetime, I see evolution as a result rather of God having created a self-creating world. (why perform corrective miracles when it’s possible to do it right the first time?)

I am inclined to believe that God predisposed the physical world, however, with initial conditions which would lead to certain outcomes, and therefore I cannot affirm that evolution, even if its full course were to be limited to a fully naturalistic process, is in itself directed only towards reproduction. I believe that the evolutionary process of biological life had a real aim imposed upon it by God which includes but is not restricted to the propagation of reproductively successful species.

As God’s intention for humanity is to share an intellectual and emotional participation in the morality which constitutes his nature, this has implications for the moral development of his image-bearers and the scope of explanatory power that non-directed or non-influenced processes of evolution can and should play when one adopts a worldview which has implications for the teleology of processes developing human nature.

In conclusion, Haidt and I agree that evolutionary history probably plays a huge role in the development of human morality and psychology. But if he were to claim (and I’m not all too sure that he did), that evolutionary processes were the only thing that had to do with it, I think he would be breaching the bounds of methodological naturalism and entering into philosophical naturalism.

Human Reasoning: an Elephant and a Rider

Throughout human history, we have predominantly defined ourselves as primarily rational creatures who suffer from delusions, temptations, desires, and passions which prevent us from fulfilling our role primarily as rational creatures.

But Haidt disagrees. Based on some very compelling results from research he did in forming the ideas which constitute his book, he concluded that humans are primarily intuitive feelers who strategically justify their feelings with thoughts. Humans start with a moral intuition — which we will get to shortly — and reason from that deep moral intuition to conclusions that can be rationally justified.

Reason, then, takes a secondary role. Our rational minds are like riders on elephants. When the elephant slightly leans to the left, our rider automatically finds ways to justify the left turn. When we deeply feel that something is wrong, we find reasons for it, even if the reasons are very low quality. Haidt recounts a story of having overheard a father and his young son talking in a fast-food restaurant bathroom. The son insisted on asking why he couldn’t poop in the urinal. The father resorted to all sorts of explanations, the rather intelligent son hypothetically wiggling his way out of each one until the end, the father said, exasperated, something to the effect of „well, if you did, we’d all be in trouble!“.

Even as I heard the story, in the midst of laughing I thought to myself, ‚I know it would be wrong to do this, however a clear explanation does not come to mind!‘. I believe the answer is best described as resorting to a general ethical principle of cleanliness and order in our outer lives reflecting the internal order of our own minds. If we put things which we consider ‚unclean‘ in places which we consider ‚clean‘, or in any case cleaner, it would represent a violation of the internal order of our own minds. Try explaining that to your own child, or even more difficult, communicating it in a tweet. This is indeed a moral intuition that we all have innately. People who don’t adhere to it don’t do so randomly, they seem to be either disordered, psychologically undeveloped, or intentionally rebelling against it.

Fascinatingly, in the studies that Haidt and his colleagues conducted, even when voluntary subjects of interviews (specifically intended to appeal to different moral intuitions) could not find any rational justification for their views, they in many cases continued to hold these views strongly even when encountering persuasive arguments against them.

On the face of it, this suggests that as humans tend to hold to specific moral, political, and philosophical stances not primarily on the basis of a concern for what is true and ultimately correct, but because of the emotional and cultural meanings that they associate to them and how they correspond to their deeply held moral intuitions. Is that at all surprising? Does it conflict with your own experience at all?

But, as you noticed above, it was not the case that nobody changes their mind in response to persuasive arguments. Haidt argues that it is possible, but rare, for people to change their minds purely on the basis of arguments. He argues that the best way to convince someone of something is first to gain their empathy with it. When the elephant is already leaning in a certain direction, the rider may have at first been inclined to defend turning the opposite direction due to rational arguments, but will likely in the end be compelled to lean in the direction of the elephant due to the immense influence the elephant has on him.

This is a massive topic to unpack and I won’t be able to do it in a book review. Here are a few thoughts:

I suspect intuitively that the rider and elephant analogy is accurate, though flawed only by omission, in the sense that it captures a certain important glimpse of human behavior, but does not describe all that humans are capable of.

Is it true that rational thought is restricted to the rider and absent in the elephant? Is the elephant pure feeling or is cognition something that, so to speak, ‚runs underneath it all‘? Is there really so much of a distinction between our immediate consciousness and our deep seated consciousness in terms of their inherent nature of makeup? I have no hope of answering these questions fully, as I have only direct evidence from my own consciousness and mediated observations from other people.

From what I gather from my own consciousness, I can absolutely affirm that I tend to want things to be true and also to look for reasons to justify them. I also simply feel better when I read someone that agrees with me than I do when someone disagrees with me. But I can also say that I feel pangs of conviction after some time, that in order to do my full duty to the truth, I should really make an effort to open my mind and heart to those who disagree with me.

I also wonder whether there is room in this picture for the style of consciousness that many religious (and Stoic) teachings encourage and insist upon — a type of living in truth and reason instead of using ideas mainly as justifications for deeper intuitions and feelings. I don’t think that this would be such a historically insisted upon phenomena if it were not supported by the human hardware of psychology.

When I meditate upon truths or realities with a certain determination and intensity, the outward-oriented part of my brain (or the intellect, as some may call it) seems to fill and dominate my mind, and things like love, justice, peace, and primarily joy seem to flood my consciousness like a light shining into darkness. Surely if an illusion, it has been a persistent and life-changing one.

Is this accounted for by Haidt’s theory? Perhaps the ‚hive switch‘, which I will get to later, can account for it. I tend to think that many theories of human consciousness and psychology cannot help but play out like the oft-repeated parable of multiple blind men touching an elephant. These glimpses into the reality of human psychology are extremely valuable and important, but just as the Stoics‘ understanding of human consciousness as a struggle between logos (rationality and order) and passions which the logos could win was itself only a limited glimpse, I believe so also is the elephant and rider picture.

To be clear, I think that Haidt’s postulations about the dominance of ‚the elephant‘ in human’s mind is an apt descriptive account of humans as they commonly operate. But I also don’t believe that it portrays the full spectrum of human capability in terms of interaction with truth an reality. I could be wrong and have misunderstood him on this.

Intuitive Moral Foundations as the Bedrock of Human Moral Reasoning

As I mentioned earlier, Haidt concludes that the best explanation of Human morality is an evolved set of moral intuitions. Why, when the success game in evolution is about reproduction, would moral intuitions develop? The simple answer is that it is actually a very complex endeavor to ensure the reproduction of humans, and operating in groups is almost always more advantageous. As humans learned to operate in groups, over millions of years, the most successful and reproductive groups developed sets of moral intuitions which guided them towards more cohesiveness and team-play in groups. This ultimately allowed them to out-compete other hominids.

These are the five moral intuitions.

  1. Care/Harm (Caring for others and preventing harm to them)
  2. Fairness/Cheating (Resources should be distributed fairly. Cheaters should be punished)
  3. Loyalty/Betrayal (Be loyal to your tribe; you deserve significant consequences for betraying them)
  4. Authority/Subversion (Submit yourself to the established authority)
  5. Sanctity/Degradation (Cleanliness and order in mind, body, and environment)
  6. Liberty/Oppression (every person deserves to be free from oppression of others, and no person should oppress others)

I will not go into much detail about the exact nature of these moral intuitions as they are postulated — for that you’ll need to read Haidt’s book. Most noteworthy is that Haidt believes that the major source of political and religious disagreement is the selective emphasis and de-emphasis of specific moral intuitions in our mental lives, and that it does have some non-determinative genetic component. Indeed, research has shown that there are certain genetic components which can predispose someone in the direction of conservatism or liberalism.

 

Another thing worth shortly mentioning is that Haidt sees the common Left / Right political divide as extremely predictive of which moral intuitions one emphasizes. Liberal political beliefs are extremely predictive of an personal emphasis on only two moral intuitions, while being rather indifferent to the others: 1) Care/Harm,  and 2)  Liberty/Oppression. 

Conservatives, however, tend to focus on all six moral foundations as important values in society. This shouldn’t be too much of a surprise. After all, conservatives are often accused of being overly concerned about ‚what people do in their private lives and with their bodies‘. Perhaps this requires a closer look to better understand. Why is it that conservatives are often so characterized with a concern for how people conduct themselves in their private lives regardless of the fact that much socially aberrant behavior does not directly harm anyone?

Haidt makes it clear in his book that he learned while doing this research that his liberal understanding (or lack thereof) of conservative motives changed significantly when he came to understand that these moral foundations / intuitions were the primary motivation for conservative emphasis on specific political stances which seemed rather intrusive in others‘ lives, whereas his liberalism relied largely upon John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism and the rather sterile principles of Liberty: „actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness“. 

He also described an experience he had living long-term in India as a moral education like nothing he had ever had before in the United States. As a liberal he learned for the first time, in another culture, to embrace all six moral foundations which are more commonly embraced by conservatives in the U.S.

He came to the conclusion that there is genuine value to these six moral foundations and that the real moral world is much ‚thicker and richer‘ than the liberal moral understanding of the world. That evolution has built humans innately for a moral spectrum that goes far beyond just care, harm and liberty, but also sanctity of mind and heart, loyalty to cultural values, fairness and justice, and respect for authority, and any understanding of human nature needs to account for these moral intuitions. 

 

The Hive Switch

Lastly, Haidt reviewed research showing that humans have a specific module in the brain which is in a sense a ’switch‘, that when triggered by specific social circumstances, enacted such oft lauded human behaviors as self sacrifice, wonder, group identity, ‚losing oneself‘, and etc. 

This ‚hive switch‘ as he called it, is named after the behavior that bees are so well known for. Bees live extremely selfless lives and all is done for the sake of the hive. Haidt claims that although humans are primarily primate, there is a built in mechanism in the human mind which makes us also partly bee-like. Humans really are capable of selflessness towards those in their groups. But it doesn’t come naturally and specific conditions must be in place to trigger it.

A number of things have been known to trigger such experiences. Military marching techniques has been known to foster incredible experiences of oneness and self-sacrifice among soldiers. Meditation has been known to trigger wonderful mystical experiences in which humans allegedly have an encounter with a ‚much greater reality‘. Even some drugs are known to trigger experiences like this, which have ended up leading to persistent life-changing moral effects on the lives of those who participated in trials.

Haidt believes that the hive switch can be abused and has been to great degree in societies — the 20th century is full of examples of fascist dictators taking advantage of human groupishness towards heinous and awful ends.  The problem is that, as mentioned earlier, humans can be selfless — but the hive mechanism is purportedly evolved to support group survival, not universal human survival. That means that the hive switch could be triggered to support huge amounts of selflessness towards one’s own group, but out-group members can be simultaneously demonized as ‚the enemy‘. 

I believe that Haidt has touched on something very important about human psyche. I also believe that, again, it could fall prey to a lie of omission if it is considered the full picture of human psychology. 

Philosophical assumptions can determine our conclusions and unintentionally skew reality. If the goal here is simply to explain human behavior with full and unambiguous assumption of philosophical naturalism, the only conclusion that we could possibly come to is that the hive switch is purely oriented towards group survival. As a Christian, however, though I believe that the so-called hive switch is certainly a real phenomena which aided in group survival for humans throughout the process of evolution, I also believe that a theistic intention in the process of evolution would have had ‚experience of the Divine‘ in mind as an additional purpose of the hive switch.  As I believe that the hive switch is a shortcut into a deeper experience of the human intellect (outward oriented imaginative faculties), and that a truly religiously faithful life is characterized by regular pursuit exactly such things, I believe that this mechanism exists to some degree to usher people into deeper experiences with God and love for others. 

Other Reflections

 

The New Atheism’s Core Tenet Rejected

In his book Haidt takes a position in striking contrast to the ’new atheist‘ attitude toward religion at the time the book was released. The common new atheist’s militant perception toward religion as a ‚mind disease‘ which ‚poisons everything‘ advocated the complete eradication of religion in society, citing religious wars, strife, bigotry, and moral stances on marriage, among other things, as reasons that religion was very much bad for culture in society.  

Haidt argues, to the contrary, that religion is an essential component to the evolution of humans, and that communities of shared moral understanding like religion regularly trigger the hive switch and lead to generosity, shared meaning and purpose in life, and well-being. He argues that human psychology is now, whether we like it or not, is built for religious belief and religious communities, and that religion has caused more good in society than the new atheists are willing to admit, as well as far less evil in the past than they recognize. 

That the new atheist vitriol towards religion has toned down in recent years is noticeable. Even many atheists and evolutionary biologist have begun approaching religion more as a ’necessary fiction‘ which is predicated upon the needs of human psychology. 

In the end, this fits fairly well into my picture of the world. My only nuance is that religious belief after all is not a necessary fiction for human psychology but a necessary response to an ever-present Reality.

Nicht auf Eigenes Verständnis Verlassen? (DE)

Evan GarrettHinterlasse einen Kommentar

Sollten wir uns nicht auf unser eigenes Verständnis stützen? Und was bedeutet es, dies nicht zu tun? Dieser Gedanke ist in der Postmoderne von bleibender Relevanz.

Auf Eigenes Verständnis Nicht Verlassen

Es wird oft gesagt, dass wir uns nicht auf unser eigenes Verständnis verlassen sollten. Man könnte annehmen, dass es auch mit gutem Grund so ist. Man kann dies auf die eine oder andere Weise in vielen Denkrichtungen finden: in der Postmoderne, in der Theologie und sogar in der Philosophie und Wissenschaft. Aber was bedeutet das wirklich?

Im Guten wie im Schlechten, jedes Mal, wenn ich das höre, zucke ich ein wenig zusammen. Denn ich weiß nicht, welche Art von Ideen danach kommen werden. Ob ich mich auf etwas vorbereiten muss, das ich offen gesagt für absurd und anti-intellektuell halte, oder ob ich bereit bin, mich durch eine echte Ermahnung zur Weisheit demütigen zu lassen, ist in vielen Fällen nicht klar.

In religiösen Kontexten hört man dies manchmal zur Rechtfertigung von respektvoller, aber aufgeschlossener Demut bis hin zur Rechtfertigung, offensichtlich problematische theologische, philosophische oder moralische Standpunkte nicht in Frage zu stellen. In wissenschaftlichen Kontexten hört man das alles von epistemischer Vorsicht bis hin zur Einführung von Szientismus und positivistischen Philosophien rechtfertigen. In einem kritische Theorie (postmodernen) Kontext wird man alles hören, von Ermahnung zur Bescheidenheit über Ihre Wahrnehmung der Welt und die Behauptungen anderen Menschen, die Dingen erfahren haben, die man noch nie erfährt hat, bis hin zu der Behauptung, dass man kein Recht hat, über die Realität zu sprechen, weil er noch nie unterdrückt worden ist.

In Sekten bedeutet es praktisch immer: „Legen Sie Ihr kritisches Denkvermögen beiseite und lassen Sie mich das Denken für Sie übernehmen“. Und wir alle wissen, wohin das führen kann.

Es handelt sich jedoch um eine interessante Idee, die, wie ich bereits sagte, auf vielfältige Weise vermittelt wird. Im Gespräch zwischen Katholiken und Protestanten sind die Protestanten oft perplex darüber, dass die Katholiken absolut kein Problem damit haben, die Idee der Transsubstantiation zu akzeptieren, weil sie im protestantischen Geist bestenfalls eine Ad-hoc-Metaphysik von Brot und Wein ist und schlimmstenfalls keinen philosophischen Sinn ergibt. Katholiken antworten oft, dass Protestanten zu sehr dazu neigen, alles verstehen zu müssen, bevor sie es akzeptieren, und sich selbst zu Rationalisten formen, anstatt Gott zu vertrauen. Dies ist ein ziemlich zweideutiger Fall. Ist eine Partei schuldig, sich auf ihr eigenes Verständnis zu stützen? Oder tun sie dies beide auf unterschiedliche Weise?

Was ist ‚unser eigenes Verständnis‘?

Unsere eigenen Auffassungen sind fehlbar. Soviel wissen wir hoffentlich alle. Und unsere Vorfahren haben im Laufe der Geschichte offenkundig Dinge geglaubt, von denen wir in unserer privilegierten Fähigkeit, auf ihre Gedanken und Ideen zurückblicken zu können, jetzt sehen können, dass sie offensichtlich falsch waren.

Das Problem, das subjektiven, nicht-wissenden Personen bleibt, ist jedoch, dass unser eigenes Verständnis alles ist, was wir haben. Wir müssen uns darauf verlassen, auch wenn es uns manchmal in die Irre führt. Wie kann ich meinem eigenen Bewusstsein entkommen? Wie kann ich jemals ohne Vernunft und Wissen aus meiner eigenen solipsistischen Erfahrung herauskommen? Das ist nicht möglich. Es kann sich in einem emotionalen Sinn wie etwas anfühlen. Aber es ist nicht die Realität.

Unsere gesamte Erfahrung der Welt wird durch unsere Überzeugungen über die Welt konstruiert, und wir benutzen unsere Vernunft ständig, um Aussagen über die Realität abzuleiten. Sich vom Prozess der Vernunft und des Verstehens zu entfernen, bedeutet, sich von der Realität selbst zu entfernen, insofern als die Menschen Zugang zur Realität haben.

Das bedeutet nicht, dass wir uns bei der Bildung von Überzeugungen immer auf unsere eigene Argumentationskraft oder logische Deduktion verlassen. Ich vertraue meinem eigenen Verständnis ebenso sehr, wenn ich das Wort einer verlässlichen Autorität akzeptiere, wie wenn ich die Implikationen der göttlichen Souveränität selbst sorgfältig ausarbeite und akzeptiere. Nicht anzuerkennen, dass wir unserem eigenen Verständnis vertrauen, wenn wir die Lehre oder die Ideen anderer als zuverlässig erachten, ist eine kritische Nuance, die, wenn sie ignoriert wird, zu einer antiintellektuellen Haltung führen kann, die zunehmend von der Realität abweicht oder jedenfalls nicht mehr auf sie abzielt.

Eine manipulative Unterdrückung kritischen Denkens und Verstehens

Denkt an die Mitglieder einer Sekte, die sich um ihren Anführer scharen. Der Anführer einer Sekte hat viel zu gewinnen, wenn er dieses Argument verwendet, das sogar im Buch der Sprichwörter ausdrücklich unterstützt wird:

 Vertraue auf den HERRN von ganzem Herzen und verlass dich nicht auf deinen Verstand; erkenne Ihn auf allen deinen Wegen, so wird Er deine Pfade ebnen.
Sprichwörter 3: 5-6

Aber das Ziel des Sektenführers ist es, seine eigene Ideologie zu kontrollieren und einem Menschen seine eigene Ideologie aufzuzwingen. Wenn er ihnen sagt, sie sollen sich nicht auf ihr eigenes Verständnis verlassen, meint er damit, dass sie aufhören sollen, kritisch über das, was er sagt, nachzudenken, und es einfach akzeptieren sollen. Es gibt keine Garantie dafür, dass diese Sektenmitglieder zu wahren Überzeugungen gelangen, aber es besteht eine eindeutige Chance, dass sie ausgenutzt und einer Gehirnwäsche unterzogen werden.

Man denke an eine Kirche, die schlecht ausgebildete und verschlossene Ansichten über die Welt hat, was größtenteils auf ein historisches Erbe des Anti-Intellektualismus zurückzuführen ist, der sich weigert, sich mit kritischen Argumenten gegen seine eigenen Ideen auseinanderzusetzen, auch innerhalb des Christentums. Diese Kirche kann insofern gute Absichten haben, als sie wirklich glaubt, dass die anderen Unrecht haben und ihre eigenen Vorstellungen der wirklich beabsichtigten Lehre der Bibel entsprechen. Aber Kirchenmitglieder, für die z.B. wissenschaftliche Beweise oder philosophische Argumente ein starkes Zeugnis gegen diese Ideen ablegen, werden am Ende vielleicht zum Schweigen gebracht, indem sie ermahnt werden, sich nicht auf ihr eigenes Verständnis zu stützen.

Eine Betonung der Demut und die Anerkennung eines fehlbaren Intellekts

In den oben genannten Fällen wird das „Verständnis“, an das wir uns nicht anlehnen sollen, als die gesamte Fähigkeit einer Person behandelt, kritisch zu denken und mit der Realität zu interagieren. Aber es gibt andere Arten der Verwendung dieses Ausdrucks, die, so würde ich sagen, die wahre Bedeutung dieses Ausdrucks erfassen, wie sie im Buch der Sprichwörter und von reifen Menschen, die sich darauf berufen, beabsichtigt ist.

In Sprüche 16:25 wird ein Punkt dargelegt, der praktisch die Voraussetzung für die Idee ist:

Es gibt einen Weg, der einem Menschen richtig erscheint, aber sein Ende ist der Weg in den Tod.

Sprichwörter 16:25

Der Schwerpunkt liegt hier auf Schein versus Sein. Wenn wir zugeben, dass wir getäuscht werden können, nicht nur durch falsche Argumentation, sondern weil auch als Menschen unser Urteilsvermögen durch unsere Leidenschaften, Emotionen und Wünsche getrübt werden kann, erkennen wir, dass wir vorsichtig sein müssen, wenn wir akzeptieren, dass nur das Scheinbare wahr ist, und uns eher darauf verlassen müssen, was der gesamte Umfang unseres Wissens und unserer Fähigkeiten zum kritischen Denken leisten kann. Schein ist nicht gleich Sein. Was wir verstehen, ist nicht immer das, was ist.

Dieses Eingeständnis der Fehlbarkeit ist keineswegs dasselbe wie das Nicht-kritische Hinterfragen der uns vorgelegten Ideen, Doktrinen und Philosophien. Tatsächlich ist es das Gegenteil. Wenn wir erkennen, dass unser Verständnis fehlbar ist und dass uns Dinge vernünftig erscheinen können, die in der Tat falsch und unklug sind, müssen wir einfach Fragen stellen.

Immerhin haben Menschen Dinge „beweisen“ können, die offensichtlich nicht stimmten, z.B. dass Bewegung unmöglich war und dass „kein Mensch jemals zweimal in denselben Fluss tritt„. An dieser Stelle müssen wir demütig anerkennen, dass unsere Logik, auch wenn wir uns auf sie verlassen müssen, falsch sein kann. Vor allem, wenn wir uns in tiefe Details vertiefen und anfangen, logische Schlussfolgerungen aus Prämissen zu ziehen.

Was ist wirklich gemeint, und wie es manchmal missbraucht wird

Der Aufruf, sich nicht auf unser eigenes Verständnis zu stützen, lässt sich am besten als demütige Anerkennung unserer eigenen Fehlbarkeit als Menschen verstehen. Die Anerkennung unserer eigenen Fehlbarkeit rechtfertigt jedoch nicht, Ideenquellen, die sich selbst noch nicht als zuverlässig erwiesen haben, Autorität zuzuweisen.

Dieses Argument wird oft benutzt, um das Vertrauen einer Person in ihre eigene Fähigkeit zu untergraben, zwischen wahr und falsch zu unterscheiden, sei es im Stil einer moralischen „Kafka-Falle“ oder auf andere Weise, um das Gewicht der epistemischen Autorität von den eigenen kognitiven Fähigkeiten einer Person auf diejenigen zu verlagern, die sie ausnutzen würden.

Und wir müssen erkennen, dass, obwohl solche auf menschlicher Fehlbarkeit beruhenden Appelle an die Autorität oft im Zusammenhang mit emotionaler oder kultureller Manipulation gemacht werden, wir mutig genug sein müssen, um zuzugeben, dass unsere eigene Unfähigkeit, die Welt perfekt zu verstehen, per Definition keine andere Person, Organisation oder Bewegung ausmacht, die über eine solche Fähigkeit verfügt.

Die Beglaubigung der Autorität

Bitte beachten Sie, dass ich keineswegs gegen das Konzept des Vertrauens in eine zuverlässige Autorität an sich argumentiere. Dies wäre in Wirklichkeit absurd. Denken Sie an Ihr Vertrauen in die Etiketten im Supermarkt und in den allgemeinen Konsens der Wissenschaftler in den meisten Fragen. Denken Sie an das Vertrauen, das Sie einer Historikerin entgegenbringen, wenn sie Ihnen bestimmte historisch entdeckte Aspekte der elisabethanischen Periode in Großbritannien erzählt. Denken Sie auch daran, wie sehr Sie sich darauf verlassen könnten, wenn es Gott wirklich gäbe und er Ihnen eine bestimmte Wahrheit offenbart hätte (vorausgesetzt, Sie hätten sie richtig verstanden). All diese Dinge bilden ein vernünftiges Vertrauen in die Autorität, das Sie akzeptieren, weil sich die Quellen der Autorität als zuverlässig erwiesen haben.

Die Autorität muss jedoch, wie die meisten anderen Dinge, die wir zuerst in Frage stellen würden, bevor wir glauben, zuerst sich selbst verifizieren oder ihre eigenen Referenzen vorlegen. Darauf müssen wir bestehen, denn es gibt in der Tat keinerlei Garantie dafür, dass man mit der Wahrheit in Berührung gekommen ist, indem man die Behauptungen einer ungeprüften Autorität akzeptiert.

Sobald wir jedoch die Wahrhaftigkeit einer Autorität festgestellt haben, können wir uns frei fühlen, den Behauptungen der Autorität berechtigterweise Glauben zu schenken, solange die Behauptungen im Zusammenhang mit der letztendlichen epistemischen Grundlage stehen, die die Autorität hat.

Dann, selbst wenn wir auf Beweise gegen das stoßen, was die Autorität behauptet hat, können wir, solange die Stärke der Beweise nicht die Beweise für die Wahrhaftigkeit der Autorität selbst verdrängt, weiterhin frei fühlen, den ursprünglichen Behauptungen Glauben zu schenken.

Dies ist in der Tat das klassische Verständnis von Glauben.

Schlussfolgerung

Ich möchte dem Leser raten, sich der menschlichen Fähigkeit zur Selbsttäuschung sowie der extremen Grenzen unserer Möglichkeiten, die Welt vollständig zu kennen, bewusst zu sein.

In einem sehr realen Sinn sollten wir uns nicht auf unseren Verstand verlassen, wenn mit unserem Verstand gemeint ist, „wie uns die Dinge erscheinen“, oder „unsere ungeprüften ersten Eindrücke“, oder „wie wir über die ganze Sache fühlen“. Es zahlt sich sicherlich aus, ein gesundes Misstrauen gegenüber dem eigenen Verstand zu haben.

Jonathan Haidt beschreibt in seinem Buch „The Righteous Mind“, dass die psychologische Forschung gezeigt hat, dass der Mensch der Typ ist, der sich zuerst in Schlussfolgerungen „hineinfühlt“ und dann sein Gehirn in erster Linie als „Pressesprecher“ benutzt, um seine Schlussfolgerungen rational zu rechtfertigen. Obwohl ich glaube, dass der Mensch zu mehr in der Lage ist, ist dieses glaukonische Menschenbild in jedem Fall eine beschreibende Darstellung, die ihre Berechtigung hat.

Ich möchte dem Leser aber auch raten, vorsichtig zu sein, wenn er einer Bewegung, Organisation, Person oder Beziehung begegnet, die ihn dazu ermutigt, sich im umfassenderen Sinne „nicht auf sein eigenes Verständnis zu verlassen“, und die Fragen und kritisches Denken unterdrückt. Wenn man in solcher Gesellschaft bleibt, wird man vielleicht feststellen, sich in eine sehr falsche Richtung begeben zu haben.

On Leaning on Our Own Understanding (EN)

Evan Garrett2 Kommentare

Should we not lean on our own understanding? And what does it mean not to do so? This idea has enduring relevance in a post-modern age.

Lean Not On Your Own Understanding

It is often said that we should not rely on our own understanding. One could assume it’s also with good reason. You can find this in one way or another stated in many strains of thought: postmodernism, theology, and even philosophy and science. But what does it really mean?

For better or for worse, every time I hear this I cringe to some degree. For I don’t know what kind of ideas are going to come afterward. Whether I need to brace myself for something I consider frankly absurd and anti-intellectual or be prepared to be humbled by a genuine admonishment to wisdom is in almost every case not clear.

In religious contexts, you’ll sometimes hear this used to justify anything from respectful, yet open-minded humility all the way to the justification of not questioning obviously problematic theological, philosophical, or moral stances. In scientific contexts, you’ll hear it justifying anything from epistemic caution all the way to introducing scientism and positivistic philosophies. In a critical theory (post-modern) context, you will hear anything from being humble about your perception of the world and others, not having had their own experience, to the claim that you have no right to speak about reality because you have never been oppressed.

In cults, it virtually always means, „put your critical thinking faculties aside and let me do the thinking for you.“ And we all know where that can go.

It is, however, an interesting idea, which, as I said before, has been communicated in many ways. In the conversation between Catholics and Protestants, Protestants are often perplexed that Catholics have absolutely no problem accepting the idea of transubstantiation because, in the Protestant mind, it is at best an ad-hoc metaphysic of bread and wine, and at worst makes no philosophical sense. Catholics often reply that Protestants lean too much towards needing to understand everything before they accept it, fashioning themselves into rationalists rather than trusting God. This is a rather ambiguous case. Is one party guilty of leaning on their own understanding? Or are they both doing so in different ways?

What Is ‚Our Own Understanding‘?

Our own understandings are fallible. This much we all hopefully know. And our ancestors are known manifestly throughout history to have believed things which we, in our privileged ability to look back upon their thoughts and ideas, can see now were obviously false.

The problem that remains to subjective, non-omniscient persons, however, is that our own understanding is all that we have. We must rely on it, even if it sometimes misleads us. How can I escape my own consciousness? How can I ever get outside my own solipsistic experience without reason and knowledge? It’s not possible. It may feel like something in an emotional sense. But it is not reality.

Our entire experience of the world is constructed by our beliefs about the world, and we use our reason constantly to derive propositions about reality. Departing from the process of reason and understanding is departing from reality itself, inasmuch as humans have access to reality.

That doesn’t mean we always rely on our own powers of reasoning or logical deduction to form beliefs. I trust my own understanding just as much when I accept the word of a reliable authority as when I carefully work out the implications of divine sovereignty myself and accept them. Failure to recognize that we are trusting our own understanding in deeming the teaching or ideas of others as reliable is a critical nuance which when ignored can lead to an anti-intellectual attitude, which increasingly departs from reality, or in any case is no longer aimed at it.

A Manipulative Suppression of Critical Thinking and Understanding

Consider the members of a cult, rallied around their leader. The leader of the cult has much to gain in using this argument, which even finds explicit support in the book of Proverbs:

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Proverbs 3 5-6

But the cult leader’s aim is to control and force his own ideology upon a person. When he tells them not to rely on their own understanding, what he means is to stop critically thinking about what he is saying and simply accept it. There is no guarantee of reaching true beliefs for these cult members, but there is a definite chance that they will be exploited and brainwashed.

Consider a church which has ill-formed and closed-minded views about the world largely due to a historical inheritance of anti-intellectualism, which refuses to engage with critical arguments against its own ideas, even within Christianity. Said church may have good intentions in that they truly believe that the others are wrong and their own ideas are correspondent to the truly intended teaching of the Bible. But for those church members for whom, for example, scientific evidence or philosophical arguments bear a powerful witness against these ideas, they may end up being bullied into silence by being admonished not to lean on their own understanding.

An Emphasis on Humility and a Recognition of a Fallible Intellect

In the above cases, the ‚understanding‘ which we are not to lean on is treated as the entire capacity of a person to think critically and interact with reality. But there are other ways in which the phrase is used, which I would argue capture the real meaning of this phrase as it is intended in the book of Proverbs and by mature people who invoke it.

In Proverbs 16:25, a point which is virtually the precondition to the idea is spelled out:

There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death.

Proverbs 16:25

The focus here is upon seeming versus being. When we admit that we are capable of being deceived, not only by false argumentation, but because also as humans our judgment is capable is being clouded by our passions, emotions, and desires, we come to recognize that we must be careful about accepting what only seems to be true, and rely rather on what the entire scope of our knowledge and critical thinking abilities can deliver. Seeming does not equal being. What we understand is not always what is.

This admission of fallibility is not at all the same thing as not critically asking questions of ideas, doctrines, and philosophies presented to us. In fact, it is the opposite. When we recognize that our understanding is fallible, and that things can seem reasonable to us which are indeed false and unwise, we simply must ask questions.

After all, humans have been able to ‚prove‘ things which were obviously not true, for example that movement was impossible and that ’no man ever steps in the same river twice‘. This is where we must humbly recognize that our logic, although we must rely upon it, can be wrong. Especially when we get into deep details and begin making logical deductions from premises.

What is Really Meant, And How it is Sometimes Abused

The call to lean not on our own understanding is best understood as a humble recognition of our own fallibility as humans. Recognizing our own fallibility, however, does not justify assigning authority to sources of ideas which themselves are not yet demonstrated to be reliable.

This argument is often used to undermine a person’s trust in their own ability to judge true from false, whether in a moral ‚kafka trap‘ style, or otherwise, in order to shift the weight of epistemic authority away from a person’s own cognitive faculties and onto those who would exploit them.

And we must recognize that although such appeals to authority based on human fallibility are often made in the context of emotional or cultural manipulation, we must be courageous enough to admit that our own inability to perfectly understand the world does not by definition spell out any other person, organization, or movement having such an ability.

The Credentials of Authority

Please note that I am not by any means arguing against the concept of trusting a reliable authority in itself. This would be in reality absurd. Think of your trust in the labels at the supermarket, and in the general consensus of scientists on most matters. Think of the trust you have in a historian when she tells you certain historically discovered aspects of the Elizabethan period in Britain. Think also, that if God really did exist and he had revealed some specific truth to you (provided you had properly understood it), how much you could rely on that. All of these things constitute a reasonable trust in authority which you accept because the sources of authority have shown themselves to be reliable.

Authority, however, just like most other things we would first question before we believe, must first verify itself or provide its own credentials. On this we must insist, for indeed there is no guarantee whatsoever that one has come in contact with the truth by accepting the claims of an unverified authority.

Once we have established the veracity of an authority, however, we may feel free to justifiably believe the claims the authority makes, as long as the claims are made in connection with the ultimate epistemic foundation that the authority has.

Then, even when we run into evidence against what the authority has claimed, as long as the strength of the evidence does not displace the evidence for the veracity of the authority itself, we may continue to feel free believing the original claims.

This is, indeed, the classical understanding of faith.

Conclusion

I would advise the reader to be very weary of the human capacity for self-deception, as well as the extreme limits placed upon our capabilities to have full knowledge of the world. In a very real sense we should not rely on our understanding, if what is meant by our understanding is „the way things seem to us“, or „our unverified first impressions“, or „how we’re feeling about the whole thing“. It certainly pays to have a healthy suspicion of your own mind. Jonathan Haidt, in his book „The Righteous Mind“ describes that psychological research has shown humans to be the type to first ‚feel‘ their way into conclusions, and then use their brains primarily as a ‚press secretary‘ to justify their conclusion rationally. Although I think humans are capable of more than that, this Glauconian picture of humanity is in any case a descriptive account which has merit.

I would also suggest the reader to be cautious however, when encountering any movement, organization, person, or any relationship which encourages you to in the fuller sense, „not rely on your own understanding“, and which suppresses questions and critical thought. You may find, in keeping such company, that you are headed in a very wrong direction.

Can you Rate Intellectual Honesty? (EN)

Evan GarrettHinterlasse einen Kommentar

Is it possible to provide a rating from 1-5 of how intellectually honest you are with regard to a specific issue?

Here’s a small 5 point system I put together. Maybe it captures a limited picture of what it looks like.

  1. (Worst) Completely indifferent to reality; doesn’t really have a thought-out stance, but still takes a position; bases most stances on emotion, or even worse, monetary compensation, recognition, personal or political power.

  2. Utterly uninterested in what the other side has to actually say, never for a moment considered the possibility that they could be right, bases decisions on a few impactful observations in their own life and never considers any other sort of information.

  3. Has shallowly considered what could be best described as partially faithful caricatures of the other side(s) on a specific point. Sometimes listens to people from the other side but has defenses up and is ready to mock, rarely (but sometimes) really asks the question if they may actually have a point.

  4. Tries to legitimately listen to the other sides and empathize with their points and the information they refer to justify their points. Allows self to be bothered sometimes that some of their points may be correct. Occasionally listens directly to the other sides through debates or reading their articles/books and tries to imagine their points as faithfully as possible. Perhaps could do a little better to best understand their position by spending more time reading their writings and honestly and introspectively working through the implications of their arguments.

  5. (Best) Extremely self-doubtful and aware of the self-deceiving bias that humans regularly and joyfully engage in. Seeks an awareness of what the actual question is that is being asked and clarifies the assumptions behind the question. Insists on defining words. Makes painstaking efforts to pursue all sides of a position as deeply as is necessary to have a real understanding of it. Regularly listens to and attempts to empathize with all sides of the issue, while also spending personal time contemplating the real content and implications of the claims the different sides make. Never mocks the beliefs of any party, in person, privately, or with friends. Strives not to engage in emotion-driven belief formation. Seeks the truth dispassionately.