Tractate 18 : Why Now? (continued)

36. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) & John Stuart Mill (1806-1873):Utilitarianism
Another major philosophical movement of the 19th century was that of Utilitarianism. This movement originated in Great Britain. Its key figures were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Bentham and Mill founded their principles upon a foundation of utility. Both Bentham and Mill used the "utility" of an idea as a guide to its intrinsic merit. For instance, Bentham based his "moral theory" upon a simple calculus. What are the consequences of certain types of behavior? What are the positives, and what are the negatives? Those actions that extend human happiness - as opposed to those which prevent human unhappiness - are deemed the most utilitarian. Because a society consists of individuals, those actions which increase the happiness of the greatest number is considered to be the most beneficial. However, this did not mean that there should exist a "tyranny of the majority." Every individual has the right to choose their own lifestyle, as well as possessing freedom of thought and action. The state could only legitimately intervene in curtailing this freedom if the freedom of other individuals was threatened.

John Stuart Mill was born fifty eight years after Bentham. Mill focused much of his work upon creating a completely moral foundation for utilitarianism. As a starting point, Mill stated that "…everyone can agree that the consequences of human actions contribute importantly to their moral value" and that "…actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure." But how do we know what the consequences of our actions will be? How can we be expected to be mindful of all the possible effects of our choices? Mill understood that "pure" or "idealistic" utilitarianism was unrealistic. Hence, he proposed a secondary form of utilitarianism. A set of moral rules, decided upon collectively, would provide a reasonable (but always revisable) guide to our moral decisions. However, Mill was mindful of the abuses of state power. In his book On Liberty, he clearly states that "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

37. Fredrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
Like Kierkegaard, Nietzsche was also deeply concerned with the plight of the individual within a social setting. How are we to act? Are we to be part of the herd, or can we live independently? How can we act in an authentic manner? Civilization - according to Nietzsche - was guilty of indoctrination. Habits and customs are substituted for true individualistic independence. We surrender our autonomy for the comforts of slogans and propaganda. Nietzsche rejected traditional values - both social and religious – and was committed to restoring the deep and passionate instincts of our nature. We can be heroic, but only if we unburden ourselves of tradition and habit. We attach ourselves to organized religions, according to Nietzsche, because we have become cowards. Values, codes of behavior, morality: these are illusions. We have no certainties, and the belief that we do or could acquire them is a cage we choose to live inside. Because of his austere and nihilistic outlook, many consider Nietzsche to be outside the realm of proper philosophy. Also, unlike many of his contemporaries and predecessors, Nietzsche didn’t follow a strict methodology. In many ways, he was a poetic philosopher.

38. Logic and Mathematical Foundations: Logical Positivism
Early in the 20th century, logic and mathematics began to gain prominence within the field of philosophy. Unlike before, logic and mathematics now took a central - rather than a peripheral - position within the study of philosophical questions. The work of Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) in these areas was instrumental in laying the foundation for the current direction in philosophy.

In the early 1920’s, soon after World War I, a number of philosophers and mathematicians began focusing on the study of logic to resolve philosophical problems. The purity of their approach had enormous repercussions. Because their methodology depended on purely logical tautologies (an extension of Russell’s "formal system"), they rejected metaphysical speculation. What the "formal system" couldn’t synthesize, it rejected. This rejection characterizes philosophy in the 20th century. But logical positivism, because it depended on empirical data, was very seductive. Like science, it offered philosophy a chance to move beyond the never-ending debates that dominated its history, and to make "progress" in our knowledge. Logical positivism was powerful because it seemed to offer an objective response to the then prevalent subjectivity. At the heart of this "objective response" was the concept of "verifiability." This "verifiability" followed the logical structure of:

  • A statement is based upon a proposition.
  • A proposition can be verified or rejected.
  • If the statement can be verified, it is meaningful.
  • If the statement cannot be verified, it is meaningless.

This strict methodology was a complete rejection of the existing methodology of metaphysics. Metaphysics draws some of its inspiration from abstract speculation. We make educated guesses. We make observations. We formulate a hypothesis to demonstrate a "truth." The principle of "verifiability" is almost entirely absent from metaphysics. But why should this absence be seen as a negative? Why should only empirically provable propositions – which only occupy a small portion of our perceptions – be seen as the only propositions that possess value? Within the system of logical positivism, religion is considered meaningless: it cannot be verified empirically, as are most epistemology propositions and moral values. The only thing that is left is mathematics and natural science.

39. Karl Popper (1902-1994)
An interesting rejection of the purity of logical positivism was put forward by Karl Popper. Unlike the greatest proponents of logical positivism, Popper believed that even verificationism – the foundation of logical positivism - was itself an illusion. According to Popper, even a scientific fact isn’t absolute. It is a hypothesis only. A scientific hypothesis is true only until it can be proved false. By continually applying the principle of "falsifiabilty", we gradually attain a more accurate picture of reality.

40. Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)
Analytic philosophy took many forms. The logical positivism of philosophers such as Bertrand Russell and A.J. Ayer (1910-1989) was quickly succeeded by another variation: the analysis of language. This movement began with Ludwig Wittgenstein. Unlike the logical positivists, Wittgenstein felt that most philosophical problems were not genuine problems at all. They resulted from a confusion of language. Like Russell and Ayer, Wittgenstein held that mathematical logic was the surest means of understanding reality. But Wittgenstein applied this form of logic to the use of language. Only true statements (empirically provable observations of reality) are valid. When we’ve attained a completely comprehensive list of these "true statements", we will then have a complete understanding of reality. Much of the confusion we have about truth and reality, according to Wittgenstein, is due to our poor understanding of language. The absence of precision in how we formulate statements is the problem, for these distort our perceptions of reality. But are subjective statements – statements that cannot be verified empirically – worthless? Initially, Wittgenstein said that they were, but he later changed his opinion. After abandoning philosophy for more than a decade, Wittgenstein began to doubt the validity of his earlier position. In fact, Wittgenstein declared that the very value of language is its innate subjectivity. Rather than setting an unrealistic goal for the empirical certainty of individual statements or propositions, we should regard language as a flexible tool of communication and meaning. We use "language games" to communicate with each other. The terminology and methods we employ – when speaking with someone who shares a particular interest – are appropriate for that context. They may seem meaningless or trivial to someone who doesn’t share that interest, but they are still valuable within a narrow context.