Dr. Carson is Professor of American History at Grove City College, Pennsylvania. Among his earlier writings in THE FREEMAN were his series on The Fateful Turn and The American Tradition, both of which are now available as books.
It is not difficult for most of us to understand the desire to reform things. On the surface, at least, there is so much that is not the way it should be; or, if that formulation be not acceptable, there is so much that is not the way we would have it be. Many people do not behave in ways that are pleasing to us. They fritter away their time, occupy themselves with amusements that are in reality anesthetics, prefer the dulling to the ennobling experience, act irresponsibly, waste their talents, and fail to devote themselves to the improvement of themselves and others.
Nor does the world appear to be perfectly ordered. Notice how unequally the resources for human living are distributed on the earth. Here is a drought while there is a flood; here is abundance, even surplus, while there is scarcity, even hunger; here the land is fertile while there it is arid. It seems that there is much injustice on this planet. Children who are born of poor parents have not the advantages of those born of rich ones. Men whose land is infertile eke out a bare existence by the sweat of their brow, while those more favorably situated live in the lap of luxury. Men die at an early age before their promise has been fulfilled. There is suffering, deprivation, disease, hunger, malnutrition, disfiguration, malformation of bodies, and so on through all the variants of things to which flesh is heir.
Surely, many will say, things are not as they should be. Why not set them aright? Why not remake man and society more in keeping with our vision of them? Why not introduce those reforms which will most likely lead to an improved world in which to live? More specifically, why not use the power of government to accomplish these ends?
At its deepest, the reform impetus has been animated by such questions and visions as are formulated above. It is understandable, I say, for men to think in this manner, for them to want to pool their power and accomplish such apparently worth-while ends. Some would go so far as to say that it is natural for men to think this way. But this last statement should not be accepted. The historical record will not support the view that the urge to reform, in this all-embracing fashion, is natural, unless we believe that most men at most times have been unnatural. The fact is that this reformist view is almost entirely restricted to the last hundred years or so, and probably only became more generally accepted in the last twenty to forty years.
Most men have not believed that it was possible to alter, fundamentally, man, society, or the universe, or that it would be desirable to do so if it could be done. True, peoples have dabbled in magic, prayed for supernatural intervention in the course of things, and occasionally used government for ameliorative purposes. But these have had some specific and very limited object, quite different from the objective of remaking everything to accord with human vision.
Whose Reality?
The major obstacle to unlimited reformism is reality itself. Historically, the major obstacle to the rise and triumph of a reformist bent has been the conceptions which men had of reality. There is no need to mask the fact that the conceptions which men have had of reality may not have been valid. It should be noted, too, that the special competence of historians of ideas extends only to an account of the ideas which men have held, not to the accuracy, validity, or truth of the ideas. How, then, can a historian do a work which has as its subject The Flight from Reality? Unless he means that many men no longer have any conception of reality, has he not entered the realm of philosophy for the validation of the thesis?
Actually, however, all work proceeds upon some conception of reality, implicit or explicit, just as do all statements which purport to contain truth. The difference in this case is that the issue of what constitutes reality cannot be evaded or simply assumed; it must be articulated in order to validate the thesis.
In setting forth a conception of reality, however, I have no intention of giving one that I have constructed. In fact, I have not constructed one, nor have I felt it desirable to do so. The work has been done already, with many variations and in great detail. There is a great tradition of philosophy to which all those in Western civilization are heirs. A conception of reality is embedded in our language, informs our thought, is elaborated in our institutions, is implicit in our customs, and can be found in books in our libraries. The fact that a new conception of reality has been developed in the last century or so does pose problems of validating the older conception. Even so, I accept as valid some of the central insights of the Western tradition of philosophy and present them as an adequate conception of reality for my purposes.
Histories of philosophy usually devote much of their space to differences in philosophies. This is as it should be. The student needs to know how Plato differs from Aristotle, how Augustine differs from Thomas Aquinas, and how David Hume differs from Thomas Hobbes. These differences are sometimes great, and they are important. The focus upon the differences, however, may result in losing sight of what these and other philosophers have in common.
The Western Tradition
There is a central tradition of Western philosophy, a central insight, quest for, and belief about reality which transcends the differences of such diverse men as Thales, Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Descartes, Spinoza, Hobbes, and Kant. They all belong, to a greater or lesser extent, to the major tradition in Western philosophy. The tradition may be called by a variety of names—Platonic-Aristotelian, rationalism, essentialism, realism (in the Medieval sense)—but to be a philosopher in the West has usually meant to belong to it. There have from time to time been dissenters from it such as the Greek sophists and materialists, but from the perspective of a long history these have been but rivulets meandering into deserts where they dried up. (Perhaps the figure is not quite right, for in the recent past there has been a revival of sophistry in relativism and of materialism in mechanistic and atomistic doctrines, but that is a story that can be deferred for later discussion.)
The central insight of the Western tradition of philosophy is that there is an enduring, even an eternal, reality. Indeed, "the real" came to be defined in philosophy as that which is fixed and unchanging. In the main, philosophers have been bent upon making systematic accounts of the universe, of matter, and of life, upon discovering from whence things came and where they were going, upon finding the common denominator which would bring unity out of diversity, upon locating the primal stuff of the universe, and upon describing the cohesive principle that orders reality. The history of philosophy in the West is traced from the appearance of efforts to do these things.
Enduring Values
Permanence is not obviously the most prominent feature of reality. On the contrary, it is quite likely that the untutored eye would discover not unity but diversity, not order but disarray, not system but chaos, not purpose but randomness, not fixity but change. To the senses, each thing is different from every other thing. All things are changing, if not perceptibly, then, over any considerable period of time. Decay sets in rather rapidly for all material things, that is, for all that comes to the senses.
One of the earliest philosophers, Heraclitus, perceived the fluctuating character of all things and proceeded to erect a philosophy around the permanence of flux. A thoroughgoing philosophy of flux, however, tends to disintegrate the very world which men discoursed about long before there was formal philosophy. "If everything is in a state of change, the names which we give them become misleading, for as soon as we label something we seem to give it a `nature’ which is lasting. But if nothing endures, all such labels are a vain and childish attempt to arrest the passage of time, to grasp at fleeting shadows…."¹
An Ordered Universe
It should be clear, then, that long before the Greek philosophers men had perceived an order in the world, that they had incarnated these conceptions in language which included class names and ways of referring to an ordered reality. Philosophers did not simply create a vision of reality; they worked with one that was already implied in the culture which they had received. Much of philosophy has been concerned with bringing to consciousness that which is implied in language. This is not to say, as some have, that philosophers have been simply playing with words. On the contrary, they have been concerned to delve into a reality for which the received words of their culture stand. The mainstream of Western philosophy has been deeply rooted in culture and tradition. It has been to a considerable extent the unraveling of such truth as was bound up in language. (Anyone who holds that his language does not embrace truth, is not descriptive for truth, must first construct a new language by which to convey any truths which he perceives.)
Quite possibly, the philosophical quest arose out of the disparity between the inherited cultural vision of reality and the world brought to men by their senses. What we do know is that the early philosophers focused their attention upon the distinction between appearance and reality. As one writer says, "Whatever else may be said about early Greek philosophy, it is safe to maintain that from its very origins it made a distinction between the world as it appears to man and the world as it really is."² The central view for Western philosophy is that of Plato, that there is an underlying reality which is eternal, that change, decay, disorder—the world of appearances—is an illusion insofar as it appears to be that which is real.
Ultimate Reality
The real, then, is that which endures, or is eternal. But what endures? There have been many ways of approaching the answer to this question. It may be noted, too, that an adequate answer accounts for both reality and appearances. There is an answer which antedates philosophy but which has subsequently been embedded in most philosophies. In its monotheistic form, it is the view that God is the real, that he is the everlasting, the unchanging, the enduring, the eternal. He is the creator; all things come from him; that which does not have its end and culmination in him is illusory and unreal. This view was an article of faith long before it was the subject of rational proofs. Efforts at proving it have not succeeded for very long or for very many in changing the fact that it is Faith’s answer to the riddle of the universe. Philosophy proceeds discursively; the above view leaps from appearance to reality, not troubling to make the necessary steps.
From a rigorously theistic point of view, metaphysics has usually been concerned with an intermediate realm between the physical world of appearances and the ultimate reality which is God. In short, metaphysics has been the study pursued by those seeking to discover and describe that which gives order, structure, and form to the universe. Metaphysicians have held that the universe is ordered, that reality is structured, that there is a fixity beneath the appearance of flux.
Traditional Western philosophers have held that the underlying reality is made up of essences. These essences have been called by a variety of names, and these different names involve some differences of character. But they all refer to permanent features of reality. Essence has been conceived as idea, as form, as potentiality, as law, or as spirit. For some, the essence is that from which all things derive, to others that toward which all things move. Essences may usually be conceived of as absolutes, and they serve the role of principles.
To pursue metaphysical thought any further would involve us in particular systems. These are complicated and vary considerably from one thinker to another. Undoubtedly, the most fertile systems for Western thought were those set forth by Plato and Aristotle. Some hold that virtually all directions taken by thinkers were at least implied by Plato. It is doubtful that philosophic thought is cumulative in a significant way. There are still thinkers who accept Aristotle or Aquinas as their masters. But over the centuries there was an unfolding and elaboration (though not necessarily progressive) of the premises and assumptions of essentialism which was important.
Central Insights
The search for the permanent resulted in the discovery of an impressive body of laws, the setting forth of conditions within which human life is lived, and an understanding of the structured nature of reality. There were gains and losses of knowledge over the centuries, depending upon the particular focus upon reality, the aptitude of the searchers, and the breadth of the approach. A few of these gains should be set forth as the central insights of Western thought.
Perhaps the central one of these, built upon the premise of an enduring reality, is that there is an order in the universe. At the physical level, much of this order is available to or can be confirmed by experience. There are predictable regularities all around. The seasons of the year follow one another in predictable fashion, and, having completed their cycle, they recur. Seeds taken from a plant reproduce that plant, other things being equal. Animals go through a cycle of life: birth, growth, maturity, death. "Then there are also the regular changes in the positions of the heavenly bodies, beginning with the sun and the moon and after them the planets. The regular sequence… of the tides…, of eclipses of the sun and moon, were observed at a very early date."3
This same sort of regularity or order can be found in other realms, too. The order that has long enamored philosophers, since the time of the Pythagoreans, is that in mathematics. H. D. F. Kitto gives an experience of his which must parallel that of early mathematicians, and which awakens a sense of the marvelous character of mathematics:
… It occurred to me to wonder what was the difference between the square of a number and the product of its next-door neighbours. 10 x 10 proved to be 100, and 11 x 9 = 99—one less. It was interesting to find that 6 x 6 and 7 x 5 was just the same, and with growing excitement I discovered, and algebraically proved, the law that this product must always be one less than the square.
The next step was to consider the behavior of next-door neighbors but one, and it was with great delight that I disclosed to myself a whole system of numerical behavior…. With increasing wonder I worked out the series 10 x 10—100; 9 x 11 = 99; 8 x 12 = 96; 7 x 13 = 91… and found that the differences were, successively, 1, 3, 5, 7… the odd-number series.
He draws the conclusion:
Then I knew how the Pythagoreans felt when they made these same discoveries…. Did Heraclitus declare that everything is always changing? Here are things that do not change, entities that are eternal, free from the flesh that corrupts, independent of the imperfect senses, perfectly apprehensible through the mind.4
The Physical Linked with Mathematical Order
When and as men discovered that these two kinds of orders—the physical and mathematical—were linked together in a reality that could be discovered and described, their sense of wonder and awe sometimes surpassed the bounds of language to capture. There have been many discoveries of this remarkable linkage, but none was more exuberant than Johannes Kepler in reporting them:
… Having perceived the first glimmer of dawn eighteen months ago, the light of day three months ago, but only a few days ago the plain sun of a most wonderful vision—nothing shall now hold me back. Yes, I give myself up to holy raving. I mockingly defy all mortals with this open confession: I have robbed the golden vessels of the Egyptians to make out of them a tabernacle for my God, far from the frontiers of Egypt. If you forgive me, I shall rejoice. If you are angry, I shall bear it. Behold, I have cast the dice, and I am writing a book either for my contemporaries, or for posterity. It is all the same to me. It may wait a hundred years for a reader, since God has also waited six thousand years for a witness….5
One of the considerable joys of the study of history is to visit with those in the past who have lifted the veil to peer from time into eternity, who have experienced the enduring harmony behind the cacophony of passing events, who have renewed in themselves an age-old vision of order.
This vision of order has not been restricted to the physical and mathematical, nor to a union of these, of course. It has been extended to the ethical realm to embrace the relations among men, to human nature, to laws, standards, and principles for living and life.
The Use of Reason
A second insight which went along with this vision of an order in the universe was the view that this order is rational. That is, we can come to a knowledge of this universe by the use of reason. (This does not rule out the possibility that knowledge may come by the more direct mystic experience. But knowledge acquired by the mystic experience is private, not public.) Two methods, with many variations, were developed for using reason to acquire knowledge. One of these is associated with Plato. It is the dialectical method, personified for us by Socrates and called also the Socratic method. The dialectic is used to arrive at clear and consistent ideas. Ideas are opposed against ideas; each statement is examined minutely for inconsistencies; it is held up beside opposing views.
This method assumes that ideas are innate, that the truth is already embedded in the mind and needs only to be called forth. Involved in the calling forth is the clarification which results from the removal of contradictions. This is a priori reasoning, for the truth is there before the examination of ideas takes place. A priori is also used to refer to deductive reasoning, but it should be noted that deduction is only a method for reasoning to particulars once the universal or principle is known. Since true knowledge to Plato is of ideas—universals, principles, standards—it cannot be arrived at by deduction but rather by the dialectic.
The other method for arriving at truth by reason may be called the Aristotelian. It is the inductive method; in its extended and elaborated form we know it as the scientific method. The procedure is to reason from the particular to the general or universal. Aristotle provided for this method in his metaphysics by maintaining that form is joined to matter in actuality. To put it another way, the particular articulation of matter, such as shape, is given to it by pre-existing form. The forms are eternal, or they derive from or partake of the enduring. It follows, then, that one might gain a knowledge of the universal order by a study of particulars, by the classification of them according to common traits, by the codification of regularities, and by the description of the laws which may be induced from many instances. Of course, the reduction of this method to a simply stated formula did not occur until the modern era.
The Objective Nature of Reality
A third insight is that this rational order in the universe is objective. To put it more deeply, there is a reality which exists independently of human knowledge of it. Reality is something we come to know because it exists, not something which comes into existence when we take cognizance of it. The following, which Boas affirms of Plato, could be said with equal validity of virtually every philosopher in the Western tradition: Plato believed "that the nature of things is whatever it is independently of our knowledge of it. He is far from being a subjectivist in his metaphysics. We discover natures; we do not produce them either by our powers of observation or by our methods of inquiry."6
Now, rationalists have usually held that knowledge of objective reality is possible because there is a congruity between mind and reality. The relationship can be simply stated in this way: reality is ultimately rational; man is a rational being; therefore, man can know reality. But the important point here is objectivity. The objectivity of the universe makes possible public truth about it, that is, truth which transcends any subjective view about it. Opinions may differ because men are prone to err, but one opinion is not as good as another, nor does the number of men who hold a particular view affect its validity, so long as there is an objective reality to which truth pertains.
Cause and Effect
A fourth insight of the Western tradition of philosophy is that cause and effect operate in the universe and are inseparably linked together. As this insight applies to human action it means this: a given act will have a given effect, other things being equal. That is, if one plants corn, corn stalks will come up, provided the conditions are right, of course. If the corn is not weeded, weeds will choke out the corn and reduce the harvest. In short, there are predictable and even inevitable consequences which follow from any line of behavior.
Given the insights discussed above, the relationship between cause and effect can be rationally explained. There is an order in the universe; it is an order in which effect follows cause; that is the nature of things. Since the universe is objective, the effect of an action is not altered by the intent of the actor. It happened that I set out and cultivated some tomato plants. My intention was to have red or pink tomatoes, but the plants were the kind that produced tomatoes that were yellow when ripe. Hence, the tomatoes were yellow ones. Of course, Everyman acts upon the premise that effect follows cause in simple matters, else he is accounted a fool by his neighbors and will most certainly have to be taken care of by others. But cause and effect are more difficult to discern in complex and subtle matters, and, as we shall see, a great many people have been led away from this insight. The insight has it that effect follows cause regardless of the complexity of the phenomena or the subtlety of the operation.
The Fixed Nature of Things and Social Implications Thereof
A fifth insight is that everything has a nature, that this nature is fixed and immutable. Indeed, as I have already suggested, this was the central premise upon which the philosophical quest was based. The quest for the nature of things led to or made possible many of the other insights. The point is repeated here so that the implications may be drawn from it in a particular direction. This work is primarily a social study. Truths about the physical and metaphysical universe are tangential to it and bear upon it only as they have been brought to bear upon it, or as the universe is one, and social relations are an integral part of it. At any rate, the social implications are of greatest concern here, and we will now focus upon them.
Virtually the whole of Western philosophy through the eighteenth century of our era has been essentialist. The quest for and elaboration of the nature of things is writ large in the pages of its history. From our vantage point, this search and quest culminated in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, though some of the implications have continued to be drawn out. There have always been social applications which could be and to some extent were made of the resultant knowledge. But never was it done on such a scale and with such effect as in the Ages of Reason and Enlightenment. Thus, it will be appropriate from every angle to focus upon this most recent time for drawing out the social applications of the doctrines about the nature of things.
The Laws of Nature
In this last age of philosophy before ideology began its takeover of thought, social thought proceeded from a conception of the nature of the universe and of man. The fundamental character of the universe, to thinkers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was its lawfulness. The visible universe was sustained by underlying laws. This was no new insight, but it was given new conclusive proofs by Galileo, Kepler, Leibniz, and Newton. Everywhere thinkers looked, they saw regularity and proportion—the balance of the seasons, the plenitude of life, the variety of scenery, the predictability of the operation of the universe. The planets moved with predictability in their orbits; the earth made its rotation each day, its revolution each year. All things had their seasons, cycles, and natures. Law pervaded reality, and extended outward to touch every relationship and thing.
Man has a nature, these thinkers saw, is participant in a lawful order, has a predetermined place in the scheme of things. There are many ways to look at human nature. The distinguishing feature which has usually been focused upon is the rationality of man. He alone of all creation is a thinker by nature, capable of acting after having taken thought, rather than acting upon instinct; capable of knowing the universe of cause and effect, of law and order, and making calculations in terms of this knowledge; capable of knowing himself and what is appropriate to him. Man also has a discernible physical nature: he is bifurcated, bipedal, mammalian, has a certain form toward which he moves, and when he has arrived at it may be called mature. He is subject to the laws of the universe and of his own nature.
Voltaire put it this way: "It would be very singular that all nature and all the stars should obey eternal laws, and that there should be one little animal five feet tall which, despite these laws, could always act as suited its own caprice."7 This may be taken to mean, in part, that man is a limited being, limited in that he must act in conformity with physical laws in order to attain his ends, limited by the fact that he is mortal to a relatively short life, limited by his residence in time and place, and so on.
The Nature of Man
Eighteenth century thinkers were more apt than not to be optimists; therefore, they were more likely to put emphasis upon possibilities suggested by human nature. The true nature of man was revealed in the mature and fulfilled individual, in the man who had fully developed his powers of reasoning, in the virtuous man who exemplified the virtues of Morality, Justice, and Piety. Above all, human nature was fulfilled and made manifest in a life of order, proportion, and harmony in imitation of the Divine order.8
Thinkers saw, too, that there is a natural order for human relations, that there is in the nature of things an implicit social order. They found it by looking into the nature of things. Just as men and the universe have a nature, so do political relations, economic relations, social relations, and so on. Some conceive of human institutions as infinitely variable, of constitutions as arbitrary creations, of laws as products of the imagination. Not so the thinkers of the eighteenth century. Indeed, theirs was no new insight. Aristotle had seen that every government must be either of the nature of a monarchy, an aristocracy, or a democracy. These forms can be combined or mixed, as was done in the case of the American Republic, but no other forms can be made. That is just the way things are.
The Nature of Government
There are natural laws for the relations among men and nations. These laws are antecedent to and take precedence over all of man’s attempts to make laws. As Montesquieu declared, "Laws in their broadest sense are the necessary relations which are derived from the nature of things…. Before there were any enacted laws, just relations were possible. To say that there is nothing just or unjust excepting that which positive laws command or forbid is like saying that before one has drawn a circle, all of its radii were not equal."9
Locke’s doctrine of natural rights—the right to life, liberty, and property—was founded in the nature of man and the universe. As one writer describes Locke’s position: "There are natural rights of man which existed before all foundations of social and political organizations; and in view of these the real function and purpose of the state consists in admitting such rights into its order and in preserving and guaranteeing them thereby."¹º
The marvel of all this, at least to social thinkers in the eighteenth century, was that an examination of the nature of government tended to indicate that it was suited to perform just those functions, and only those functions, which would maintain life, liberty, and property. That is, if government used force to punish aggressors, a function to which its nature is suited, then liberty would prevail. Governments need not concern themselves with other interventions, for natural law will operate best and most efficiently in the absence of government action. Thus, the physiocrats and Adam Smith showed that economic behavior is governed by laws which derive from human nature and the nature of the universe, that these laws do not need to be enforced by governments, and that great harm will result if governments act in contravention of them. Just so, systems of natural morality were set forth, natural education, and so forth. As these ideas were implemented in Great Britain, the United States, and elsewhere, freedom replaced compulsion in numerous activities and the area where voluntary activity had free play was greatly extended.
Man Defies Nature at His Own Risk and Peril
A sixth, and final, insight of Western thinkers has to do with creativity. In the deepest sense, men do not create, according to this tradition. Men can only reproduce, discover, represent, imitate, copy, and report. Reality is not plastic, to be shaped as human beings will. It is absolute, fixed, immutable. Deep sanctions against presumptive efforts at human interference have been embodied in myths, preserved in scriptures, and set forth in treatises. Man is neither god nor demigod, and creativity is in the province of the gods, as pagans would have it, or the province of God.
A jaded and presumptuous generation of men have found this limitation intolerable. The study of history reveals that men who had no thought of creating out of the void, as it were, found great joy in what was possible for them to do. Who would surpass Kepler’s exhilaration at discovering laws in the universe? Who can write better music than Mozart’s imitation of the harmony and order that underlies nature? Has there been nobler sculpture than Michelangelo’s representation of Moses? Thinkers were exuberant, not inhibited, who discovered laws of human relations, and bade men to live in accord with them. The pessimism, malaise of spirit, and joylessness of contemporary would-be creators may be proof enough of the futility of such presumption. In the Western tradition of thought, reality exists; man learns to live in harmony with it or suffers the consequences of his failure.
The next article in this series will concern "Cutting Loose from Reality."
—FOOTNOTES—
1 George Boas, Rationalism in Greek Philosophy (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1961), p. 8.
2 Ibid., p. 1.
3 Ibid., p. 5.
4 H. D. F. Kitto, The Greeks (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1951), pp. 19192.
5 Quoted in Arthur Koestler, The Sleepwalkers (New York: Macmillan, 1959), pp. 393-94.
6 Boas, op. cit., p. 141.
7 Quoted in Ernst Cassirer, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment (Boston: Beacon Press, copyright Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 251.
8 See Basil Willey, The Eighteenth Century Background (New York: Columbia University Press, 1950), pp. 7173.
9 Quoted in Cassirer, op. cit., p. 243.
¹0 Ibid. p. 250.