I boarded my usual end-of-year flight yesterday at Boston’s Logan airport. The ticket by itself was unconventional. It simply stated: “Destination at the pilot’s discretion.” That by itself was intriguing. The pilot was determined to disrupt the normalcy of flying. Why should we know where we are headed and why should we recall the future?
As I boarded the plane, I heard a voice asking: “Walter, what did you mean when you wrote in your 1873 book Lombard Street that the amount of cash in hand relative to the credit extended could cause even a bystander to tremble?” The voice was none other than that of Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad, the famous Mu’tazilism scholar.
Bagehot took up the challenge and as he was taking his own seat he simply replied, “The unconscious imitation is a molding force in our social evolutionary process which brings together the threads of Enlightenment and the quest for freedom, justice, and reason to form dogmas that are used to support and justify totalitarianism, illiberalism, and fiat money. The latter in its own evolutionary process from paper money to digital currencies molds the ingredients of an anti-Kantian society that disrupts the march to our inner understanding and our march to liberty”.
Without a doubt, this was destined to be another end-of-the-year flight that would teach me great lessons for the forthcoming year of 2019. “Walter,” another voice said, “how then should we relate the life of the mind to the life of the state?” The familiar voice was none other than Arthur Schlesinger’s. That was a fair question and made me wonder if in the Imperial Capital the life of the mind nowadays played the role of the critic (as Socrates would have envisioned it), the role of the tutor (as Aristotle would have had it), or the role of the philosopher (as Plato would have dreamed it).
“None of the above,” a voice from the plane’s speakers said. Obviously – like in previous years – the pilot was eavesdropping. “The renewal of the mind is a prerequisite for the renewal of the society. A mind that fails in its mission of renewal will inevitably lead society to its demise, and that is how Bagehot’s book on Physics and Politics should be understood.”
“Whoever that voice is, it is right. Mindless administrations subscribe to fear-mongering and enslave the mind to a state of illiberalism where rational thought is ostracized for the sake of expediency to power.” “Who is this?” I asked the passenger sitting next to me. “Welcome to the personification of what she made known as the banality of evil. The voice is none other than Hannah Arendt,” my fellow passenger said.
“The founding of the United States of America was the culmination of the rise of the political men of letters. Here was a new nation established on an idea and by intellectuals; it represents in an exceptional sense the union of mind and state” Schlesinger added, and my mind went to the fact that men such as Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jay, Madison, Adams and almost three-fifths of those who were members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were the leading scholarly voices of the day, capable at the same time of the most realistic political maneuvering and also of the most recondite intellectual analysis.
“Intellect and responsibility marched together at the end of the 18th century America and that was the ingredient that made America great,” Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad stated, and he continued helping us to see in a better perspective that when that ingredient is corrupted then destiny is interrupted as fundamentalism takes over and minds are polluted. “Let’s not forget that our own destiny and trajectory in the sciences, literature, politics, and culture were interrupted when sclerotic ideology prevailed that limited the role of reason in favor of revelation,” Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad added.
“So, what’s the difference between ideas and ideology?” I asked. “Let me take this up,” Hannah Arendt replied, to continue educating me that “ideas are particular insights, while ideologies are ideas crystallized into universal systems. The former discover the truth. The latter manufacture the truth to fit into their preconceptions. The former thrive in the debate between the agrarian laissez-faire of Jefferson and the industrial mercantilism of Hamilton because they are anchored into Lockean principles of natural rights, individual liberty, private property, and thoughtful sovereignty. While continental Europe tended toward the politics of ideology, the United States tended toward the politics of ideas. Against the tender-minded assumptions of monism, the US – as William James, one of America’s greatest philosophers has pointed out – raised the tower of tough-minded pluralism. When ideologies prevail, then towers of dogmas are produced. Ideas produce revolutions that create structures and uplift societies to higher standards, like the American Revolution. Ideologies produce revolutions like the French and Russian Revolutions.”
“That’s a fascinating insight,” Solzhenitsyn proclaimed to summarize for us the difference: “The revolutionary generation in America disengaged themselves from ideological slavery without, at the same time, rejecting in the slightest the notion of the intimate connection between the person of ideas and the world of power. The divorce of ideas from power produces an illiberal society whose members end up fighting among themselves like in America’s Civil War. The reunification produce great powers and we saw that again in the US during the 20th century, with some exceptions of course. When intellectuals retreat, societies internalize their pains and Plato replaces Aristotle rather than supplementing him. Social imagination shifts from the education of statemen and thoughtful citizens to the design of utopias while entertainment inflicts pain and amuses society to a brainless slow death.”
“Realists need to learn from the romantics, but the latter also need to learn from the former, otherwise a phenomenon known as the degradation of democracy will prevail where the opposition monolithically opposes and the idea of a loyal opposition becomes a stranger in the arena of politics,” Hegel added, and he continued: “Furthermore, freedom is the highest realization of law in the universe. The ‘noumenal’ world of the intellect most of the time loyally opposes the “phenomenal” world of the senses, and that constructive opposition defines freedom, as Kant taught us. The wholeness of life’s experience transcends the realities of space and time, so that when the mind captures that transcendence the ideas of wholeness, unity, and rationality will lead to mind renewal. Out of that renewal and the seed’s death in the ground, life flourishes in the fruits we enjoy.”
“Ladies and gentlemen, this has been another fascinating end-of-year conversation and I thank you for flying with me one more year. We will be landing in the Eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea which has a lot to teach us in the upcoming year. As you prepare for landing I know that your minds may be preoccupied with ideas and ideologies, however allow me humbly to suggest that we cannot lose sight of the undercurrents in the years 1637, 1797, 1819, 1837, 1857, 1884, 1901, 1907, 1929, 1934 – I am sure that I do not need to remind you of the most recent years like 1974, 1987, 1997, 2008/’09 – and while you are recalling those undercurrents you may want to contemplate any relationship to the years 1648, 1783, 1814, 1919, 1941, 1989.”
Happy New Year!
Ideas and Ideology and the Disruption of the Disruptors: A Conversation Among Walter Bagehot, Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad, Arthur Schlesinger, Hannah Arendt, Alexander Solzhenitsyn, and Friedrich Hegel
Author : John E. Charalambakis
Date : December 27, 2018
I boarded my usual end-of-year flight yesterday at Boston’s Logan airport. The ticket by itself was unconventional. It simply stated: “Destination at the pilot’s discretion.” That by itself was intriguing. The pilot was determined to disrupt the normalcy of flying. Why should we know where we are headed and why should we recall the future?
As I boarded the plane, I heard a voice asking: “Walter, what did you mean when you wrote in your 1873 book Lombard Street that the amount of cash in hand relative to the credit extended could cause even a bystander to tremble?” The voice was none other than that of Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad, the famous Mu’tazilism scholar.
Bagehot took up the challenge and as he was taking his own seat he simply replied, “The unconscious imitation is a molding force in our social evolutionary process which brings together the threads of Enlightenment and the quest for freedom, justice, and reason to form dogmas that are used to support and justify totalitarianism, illiberalism, and fiat money. The latter in its own evolutionary process from paper money to digital currencies molds the ingredients of an anti-Kantian society that disrupts the march to our inner understanding and our march to liberty”.
Without a doubt, this was destined to be another end-of-the-year flight that would teach me great lessons for the forthcoming year of 2019. “Walter,” another voice said, “how then should we relate the life of the mind to the life of the state?” The familiar voice was none other than Arthur Schlesinger’s. That was a fair question and made me wonder if in the Imperial Capital the life of the mind nowadays played the role of the critic (as Socrates would have envisioned it), the role of the tutor (as Aristotle would have had it), or the role of the philosopher (as Plato would have dreamed it).
“None of the above,” a voice from the plane’s speakers said. Obviously – like in previous years – the pilot was eavesdropping. “The renewal of the mind is a prerequisite for the renewal of the society. A mind that fails in its mission of renewal will inevitably lead society to its demise, and that is how Bagehot’s book on Physics and Politics should be understood.”
“Whoever that voice is, it is right. Mindless administrations subscribe to fear-mongering and enslave the mind to a state of illiberalism where rational thought is ostracized for the sake of expediency to power.” “Who is this?” I asked the passenger sitting next to me. “Welcome to the personification of what she made known as the banality of evil. The voice is none other than Hannah Arendt,” my fellow passenger said.
“The founding of the United States of America was the culmination of the rise of the political men of letters. Here was a new nation established on an idea and by intellectuals; it represents in an exceptional sense the union of mind and state” Schlesinger added, and my mind went to the fact that men such as Franklin, Jefferson, Hamilton, Jay, Madison, Adams and almost three-fifths of those who were members of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were the leading scholarly voices of the day, capable at the same time of the most realistic political maneuvering and also of the most recondite intellectual analysis.
“Intellect and responsibility marched together at the end of the 18th century America and that was the ingredient that made America great,” Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad stated, and he continued helping us to see in a better perspective that when that ingredient is corrupted then destiny is interrupted as fundamentalism takes over and minds are polluted. “Let’s not forget that our own destiny and trajectory in the sciences, literature, politics, and culture were interrupted when sclerotic ideology prevailed that limited the role of reason in favor of revelation,” Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad added.
“So, what’s the difference between ideas and ideology?” I asked. “Let me take this up,” Hannah Arendt replied, to continue educating me that “ideas are particular insights, while ideologies are ideas crystallized into universal systems. The former discover the truth. The latter manufacture the truth to fit into their preconceptions. The former thrive in the debate between the agrarian laissez-faire of Jefferson and the industrial mercantilism of Hamilton because they are anchored into Lockean principles of natural rights, individual liberty, private property, and thoughtful sovereignty. While continental Europe tended toward the politics of ideology, the United States tended toward the politics of ideas. Against the tender-minded assumptions of monism, the US – as William James, one of America’s greatest philosophers has pointed out – raised the tower of tough-minded pluralism. When ideologies prevail, then towers of dogmas are produced. Ideas produce revolutions that create structures and uplift societies to higher standards, like the American Revolution. Ideologies produce revolutions like the French and Russian Revolutions.”
“That’s a fascinating insight,” Solzhenitsyn proclaimed to summarize for us the difference: “The revolutionary generation in America disengaged themselves from ideological slavery without, at the same time, rejecting in the slightest the notion of the intimate connection between the person of ideas and the world of power. The divorce of ideas from power produces an illiberal society whose members end up fighting among themselves like in America’s Civil War. The reunification produce great powers and we saw that again in the US during the 20th century, with some exceptions of course. When intellectuals retreat, societies internalize their pains and Plato replaces Aristotle rather than supplementing him. Social imagination shifts from the education of statemen and thoughtful citizens to the design of utopias while entertainment inflicts pain and amuses society to a brainless slow death.”
“Realists need to learn from the romantics, but the latter also need to learn from the former, otherwise a phenomenon known as the degradation of democracy will prevail where the opposition monolithically opposes and the idea of a loyal opposition becomes a stranger in the arena of politics,” Hegel added, and he continued: “Furthermore, freedom is the highest realization of law in the universe. The ‘noumenal’ world of the intellect most of the time loyally opposes the “phenomenal” world of the senses, and that constructive opposition defines freedom, as Kant taught us. The wholeness of life’s experience transcends the realities of space and time, so that when the mind captures that transcendence the ideas of wholeness, unity, and rationality will lead to mind renewal. Out of that renewal and the seed’s death in the ground, life flourishes in the fruits we enjoy.”
“Ladies and gentlemen, this has been another fascinating end-of-year conversation and I thank you for flying with me one more year. We will be landing in the Eastern part of the Mediterranean Sea which has a lot to teach us in the upcoming year. As you prepare for landing I know that your minds may be preoccupied with ideas and ideologies, however allow me humbly to suggest that we cannot lose sight of the undercurrents in the years 1637, 1797, 1819, 1837, 1857, 1884, 1901, 1907, 1929, 1934 – I am sure that I do not need to remind you of the most recent years like 1974, 1987, 1997, 2008/’09 – and while you are recalling those undercurrents you may want to contemplate any relationship to the years 1648, 1783, 1814, 1919, 1941, 1989.”
Happy New Year!