A post-rational theory of truth for a post-liberal world

I recently read Yoram Hazony's book, Conservatism: A Rediscovery. While I disagree with the author's "National Conservatism" model for government and I question some of his history and theory, it was a book full of food for thought. There are some items that were not core aspects of the book but are worthy of some analysis. One of these items is Hazony's comments on epistemology, or how to identify truth. Remember that much of the book was a diatribe against rationalism and rationalists like John Locke that attempt to use reason to determine truth. (Hazony mistakenly and repeatedly accuses Locke of relying on "reason alone.") Given Hazony's fervent stance against rationalism, how does he propose that we determine what is true and good? Here is a quote from the book (my own transcript taken from the audiobook):

We can say that a scheme of ideas is true and that it describes reality if it permits us to recognize the most significant causes operative in a given domain, and to take reliable action with respect to them. But since different schemes of ideas are reliable in different ways and to different degrees, it is most accurate to say that one scheme is truer than another and improved over another if it better permits us to recognize these causes and to take reliable action with respect to them. How does an improved scheme of ideas appear and establish itself? A realistic view must take the following considerations into account. First, the human mind has the capacity to detect movement toward a truer or improved scheme of ideas and principles. When comparing one scheme of ideas to another, I am able to judge which brings me closer to the truth; and, when considering a proposed repair to an existing scheme I can judge whether this repair will constitute an improvement or not. This judgement is expressed by sensations of attraction and exhilaration when I have a truer scheme before me, and by sensations of aversion and anger when I consider a scheme that is further from the truth. Of course, some are more able in this than others, and even those that excel at such judgements are mistaken at times. Nevertheless, the general human capacity to detect movement toward a truer scheme of ideas is the basis for any discussion of truth. 

Hazony basically takes the epistemological position at the furthest possible distance from rationalism, lest he be contaminated by its liberal stench. He suggests that we should judge truth not by examining the arguments logically, but by consulting our feelings, specifically attraction/exhilaration versus aversion/anger. This position is so extremely not rational that I would have to classify it as actively irrational. But more than that, it's exactly the second Un-Truth from the Un-Wisdom of Misoponos from Jonathan Haidt's book The Coddling of the American Mind! You can read the Misoponos allegory here, taken from the book. I'll give a short excerpt, cutting out some great commentary. You really should read the whole thing in the book or at the link.

Misoponos sat silently with his eyes closed for about two minutes. Finally, he opened his eyes and spoke.

“This fountain is the Spring of Koalemos. Koalemos was a Greek god of wisdom who is not as well-known today as Athena, who gets far too much press, in my opinion. But Koalemos has some really good stuff, too, if you ask me. Which you just did. So let me tell you. I will give you three cups of wisdom.”

He filled a small alabaster cup from the water bowl and handed it to us.

We both drank from it and handed it back.

“This is the first truth,” he said: “What doesn’t kill you makes you weaker. So avoid pain, avoid discomfort, avoid all potentially bad experiences.”

... Misoponos filled the cup again. We drank it. “Second,” he continued: “Always trust your feelings. Never question them.”

... Misoponos refilled the cup, and we drank again. “Third: Life is a battle between good people and evil people.” ...

*****

There is no Misoponos, and we didn’t really travel to Greece to discover these three terrible ideas. We didn’t have to. You can find them on college campuses, in high schools, and in many homes. These untruths are rarely taught explicitly; rather, they are conveyed to young people by the rules, practices, and norms that are imposed on them, often with the best of intentions.

Always trust your feelings. Never question them. Haidt attributes this un-wisdom mostly to the left on college campuses, but now of course the post-liberal right has now taken the same position in its zeal to fight back, and will only make the situation worse.

When I brought up Hazony's theory of truth at home, my wife and children commented on the apparent similarity between his idea of consulting your emotions and what the scriptures teach about seeking for inspiration and listening for the still small voice of the Holy Ghost. As it is put in Doctrine and Covenants 8:2-3, 

"Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart. Now, behold, this is the spirit of revelation."

 Note two big differences here. 

  1. To seek revelation and listen for the whisperings of the Holy Ghost is to humbly and patiently seek divine answers from outside, not to double down on reactive emotions from the inside. The idea of following the anger inside of you could not be further removed from heeding the promptings of the still small voice.
  2. We are told to seek answers in our mind and heart. This explicitly gives a role to reason and thought. Religion, truth, and revelation need not be irrational.
And one more take. Hazony's theory of truth could be called "Twitter Epistemology":
  • Does that snarky tweet about Donald Trump make you angry? That's because you are right and they are wrong! Send that angry response now!
  • Does that snarky tweet about Joe Biden feel attractive because it puts Joe Biden in his place and you don't like Joe Biden? That means you are right, and Joe Biden is the enemy! Send another even snarkier tweet, now! Doesn't that feel exhilarating! That means you are right!
Given Hazony's oddly positive take on tribalism in his book, I wonder if his goal really was to amplify tribal conflict in order to bring about his own agenda. I am filled with an indignant righteous anger at the thought, meaning of course that I'm right and he's wrong. Hold on while I send out a snarky tweet.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Leo Strauss's infamous "esoteric" reading of John Locke

Making sure we don't learn the lessons of history

The response to my concerns about the "How to talk to a Mormon" video