In the last post I noted the following virtues that John Dewey thought accompany intelligent action:
- Being conscientious or being interested in finding out what the actual good of a certain situation is
- Maintaining a bias toward fairness and objectivity when judging and evaluating conflicting values and opinions
- Seeking the good of a situation in a community of inquiry if possible
- Being emotionally sensitive and especially sympathetic to the values and feelings of those in the situation
- Carefully reflecting upon the relevant aspects of the situation
- Exercising one’s imagination to see new possibilities and have a sense of the situation as a whole
- Being willing to change our beliefs in light of consequences and learn from the past
We have been looking at how we can use these virtues of intelligent action to intelligently deal with tragic conflict or an unavoidable conflict of momentous values and/or obligations in which some values and/or obligations are sacrificed causing suffering. In this post I will take a look at the third and fourth virtues on the list; the next two post will cover the remaining three.
Community of Inquiry
The intelligent habit of maintaining a bias toward objectivity leads right to the habit of seeking the good of a situation with others whenever possible. This is crucial since conflict takes place in a social context. This context of conflict, especially when it entails conflicts between groups, classes, nations, races, and institutions, is bound to very complex. People’s backgrounds, personalities, and interests will most likely play an important role, as will economic, political, and sociological factors. The question arises: How can someone interested in reducing the consequences of tragic conflicts expect to avoid these factors in his or her own life? One good answer can be found in the notion of a community of inquiry. Cornelius Castoriadis, in his book Philosophy, Politics, Autonomy (Oxford) notes that the phrase ‘not to be wise alone’ is found in Sophocles’ tragedy Antigone (v. 707-9). According to him the phrase expresses the fundamental maxim of democratic politics:
“Antigone addresses itself to the problem of political action in terms which acquire their acute relevance in the democratic framework more than in any other. It exhibits the uncertainty pervading the field, it sketches the impurity of motives, it exposes the inconclusive character of the reasoning upon which we base our decisions. It shows that hubris has nothing to do with the transgression of definite norms, that it can take the form of the adamant will to apply norms, disguise itself behind noble and worthy motivations, be they rational or pious. With its denunciation of the mono phronein,it formulates the fundamental maxim of democratic politics.” (120).
One might say that “not to be wise alone” is also a maxim of intelligence. It arises when we recognize the complexity of the social context of conflict and especially tragic conflict. The hope is that by considering many other perspectives we can correct some of the myopias that inevitably arise despite our best intentions.
If one is to enter into intelligent social inquiry one must develop certain sensitivities. Dewey notes that “the only guarantee of impartial, disinterested inquiry is the social sensitiveness of the inquirer to the needs and problems of those with whom he is associated” (The Middle Works, Vol. 12, p. 165). And one aspect of this social sensitivity is emotional. Now some may think that intelligent action, like so many traditional philosophical views of reason, might seek to divorce itself as far as possible from emotion. But this is not the case. Indeed, Dewey claims that the “separation of warm emotion and cool intelligence is the great moral tragedy” (MW, Vol. 14, p. 177). But how are intelligence and emotion joined? Well, intelligent action is joined to emotion once moral inquiry occurs. For intelligence tries to mediate situations of conflict that include values that are momentous to those involved. Intelligent action is also joined with emotion insofar as conscientious action implies an emotional interest in discovering the most inclusive good of a situation. There is, however, a more important way emotional sensitivity is joined to intelligence. Consider this passage:
“As the only effective thought is one fused by emotion into a dominant interest, so the only truly general, the reasonable as distinct from the merely shrewd or clever thought, is the generous thought. Sympathy widens our interest in consequences and leads us to take into account such results as affect the welfare of others; it aids us to count and weigh these consequences as counting for as much as those which touch our own honor, purse, or power.” (MW, Vol. 5, p. 303)
Dewey defines sympathy as the reproduction of the experience of another accompanied by the recognition of the fact that it is his experience (The Early Works, Vol. 2, p. 285). Without this reproduction and recognition we have a hard time getting beyond our own subjective perceptions. We get caught up in our purposes and claims and fail to humble ourselves long enough to hear other people’s views. Sympathy also enables us to perceive the consequences of our judgments more comprehensively. If we only count and weigh the consequences of decisions according to our welfare then most likely we will have a skewed version of the situation. But with sympathy we can hope to gain a more accurate assessment of our actions. Indeed, “sympathy is the sole means by which persons come within the range of our life” (EW, Vol. 2, p. 285). Sympathetic people have the capacity to bring other people within the range of their lives—not just their intellect or ideas—and by doing so they are able to react in ways that are far more comprehensive. Such a capacity is crucial if one is going to make a sincere attempt to understand other people’s perspectives and react to the aftermath of tragic decision in ways that are responsible.
Go here for part five.