Critics argue that liberal societies have led to the abandonment of traditional values such as religion, family and community, leading to a decline in social cohesion and moral frameworks. Individualism has led to an increase in narcissism and selfishness, suppressing empathy and concern for the common good.
Liberals have responded in kind, calling conservatives authoritarians who threaten democracy. Both positions are predictable: moralism turns debate into a witch hunt; debates into headline-grabbing diatribes. By contrast, Joe Rogan epitomizes thoughtful exchange.
I hadn’t thought of this, University of Moral and Courage And a fresh approach to the controversy. Rogan has garnered a huge audience for his long-form podcast interviews and has been called one of the most listened-to media personalities on the planet. Rogan is opinionated and sometimes unpleasant, but he is different. He doesn’t just focus on traditional newsmakers, but interviews people from different fields and with different perspectives, and he is often willing to admit that he may be wrong. Rogan was a staunch anti-vaccination advocate during the coronavirus crisis. Yet, during the interview and on air, he fact-checked himself and admitted that he was wrong. The debate became a productive one.
Many pre-modern Western legal traditions applied principles with considerable foresight, prudence, and consideration to particular situations. Aristotle’s concept of “phronesis” (practical wisdom) is an example of an approach that has been influential in these traditions for centuries. Rules of law are “thick,” rich in context, deeply rooted in culture and tradition, and nuanced in application. In many cases, especially in the natural law tradition, these rules were understood to be grounded in an inherent moral order in the universe. [*]
The upheaval caused by the Scientific Revolution of the 17th century made rules “thin,” abstract, and universal, detached from their cultural and traditional context: life became a problem to be regulated, not a mystery to be respected.
As a historian of science today puts it, “Laws are high-minded rules that see through a telescope; regulations are myopic, detail-focused rules that see through a microscope.” The excess of regulation in everyday life can encourage uniform control and, instead of promoting and protecting moral values, rules can replace them.
Aristotle’s concept of practical wisdom has parallels with the approach taken in dealing with religious traditions. Sacred texts such as the Bible gain their contemporary meaning and relevance from centuries of debate and interpretation. In Judaism, this includes the Midrash, the Talmud, and the oral Torah. Christianity engages in various forms of biblical scholarship and interpretation. Rich commentary traditions across all religions around the world constantly reexamine and reinterpret sacred texts in light of changing circumstances and new insights. (Fundamentalists and constitutional “fundamentalists” take note!)
Today’s major issues are like plants that, when cut off from their roots, will wither, weaken and eventually die. They attract attention and stir emotions, but because they are divorced from core values and principles, they are “thin,” unproductive and serve to further divide our people.
For example, debates over immigration policy, while acknowledging the value of economic opportunity and national identity, have focused primarily on border control procedures. Debates over abortion have often focused on legal technicalities and medical procedures, and fallen into political rhetoric that devalues the sanctity of life. More serious debate may not solve the problem, but it can facilitate it. One A more thoughtful public debate that avoids demonising and blaming differences.
A theologian known for his erudition and wit described a prominent scientist as “hilariously ignorant of how often he simplifies complex issues to cartoonish proportions.” The scholar acknowledged that we are all prone to “moments of selfishness and self-deception.” But when such tendencies trivialize important issues, it’s only natural to say, “Enough is enough!”
“When trying to win over an enemy or a skeptic, it’s best not to stop with some predictable regularity to tell the other person that you consider them an idiotic fool or a heartless barbarian. It may be considered rude to say something they don’t know.”
Rudeness has become the new normal, shallowness has become the new brazenness as debates gain traction. It’s tiresome. This is a new opportunity to learn from the past, not just because it’s a good idea, but because it’s useful. As the saying goes, “When the student is ready, the teacher comes.” Aristotle could bring back common sense with practical wisdom.
[*] Due to the diversity of legal systems across cultures and eras, this description does not universally apply to all “earlier” laws.
Notes and reading
“Rules are not sacred. Principles are sacred.” – Nelson Mandela quote Mandela’s Way: Life Lessons By Richard Stengel (2010) — 12 Lessons on Life and Leadership.
University of Moral and Courage – Founder Irshad Manji He is a renowned author, educator, and advocate known for teaching people around the world to engage productively with divisive issues.
Playing Phronesis – Steve Schwartze Philosophy and rhetoricVol. 32 (1999), 78-95. JSTOR. Schwarze was a professor in the Department of Communication Studies at the University of Montana.
The fragility of goodness – Martha Nussbaum (2001), Chapter 10. Nussbaum is internationally known for her work in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, feminist philosophy, and political philosophy.
Politics: A New Translation – A comprehensive introduction and detailed notes by C.D. C. Reeve (2013), volumes 2 and 3. Reeve is Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“Laws are rules seen through a telescope…” in Rules: A Short History of How We Live – Lorraine Daston (2023). Daston is an American historian of science and visiting professor at the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago.
A learned and resourceful theologian… David Bentley Hart, “Leaves in the Wind” (Substack – July 1, 2023). Hart is a philosopher, scholar of religion, author, cultural critic, and currently a collaborator at the University of Notre Dame. His latest work, recently published, is All things are full of the divine: the mysteries of the mind and life. The scientist referred to here is evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson, and the study in question is Consilience: the unity of knowledge (1999). Hart respects Wilson’s contributions to interdisciplinary dialogue but criticizes his reductionist approach to human experience and culture.
Approximately 2 + 2 = 5: https://williamgreen.substack.com/about – revision
Source: 2 + 2 = 5 – williamgreen.substack.com
