The agenda
To bring about the Renaissance that is so urgently required we need:
To rethink everything we do and take for granted from first principles; to rethink everything in the light of everything else; and to re-structure where necessary, which is much but not all of the time
Emphatically, we don’t need to start the world afresh with a blank slate – pursue a scorched earth policy and begin with devastation. There is much in the modern world both natural and made by us that is precious and must be conserved and nurtured.
As the basis of all this we need:
To frame a worldview, a body of understanding, and a moral philosophy, that will serve the real needs of all humanity and of our fellow creatures for all time
Then we need to apply this worldview to all aspects of life: to the infrastructure of society – governance, the economy, the law; and to day-to-day practice – what we actually do (and why).
Inevitably it is all quite complicated so to keep things on track it seems a good idea to try to spell out what needs to be thought about and acted upon in the form of an Agenda. The result may still seem quite complicated but as Albert Einstein (1879-1955) said (more or less):
“Ideas should be expressed as simply as possible but no simpler”
So here an attempt to spell out what we need to think about and do. I developed the core ideas more fully in The Great Re-Think, published in 2021 by Pari. But that was five years ago and after more thinking and many a conversation I have refined the thoughts somewhat, and this is the latest version. I would like it to remain more or less stable but I also hope others will contribute so that the overall thesis reflects the deepest convictions and aspirations of humanity – or at least of the better angels of our nature as outlined in Part I. So this is work in progress. But then, all thinking – all philosophy, science, metaphysics and indeed religion – should be seen as work in progress. That’s what makes life interesting, and is part of what “progress” ought to mean.
Anyway, after much thought and conversation I suggest that we might usefully break the Agenda into 15 Themes, arranged in five Tiers. Each theme is divided into a minimum number of Subjects, some but not all of which roughly correspond to standard academic disciplines; and each Subject can then give rise to an indefinite number of Topics, each of which may lend itself to endless discussion. Thus:
AN AGENDA FOR THE RENAISSANCE: FIFTEEN THEMES in FIVE TIERS
Tier I: THE GOAL
Tier II: THE BEDROCK PRINCIPLES
1: Morality (Moral Philosophy)
2: Ecology
Tier III: THE INFRASTRUCTURE
4: Governance
5: The Economy
6: The Law
Tier IV: PRACTICALITIES
7: Appropriate Technology
8: Enlightened Agriculture
9: Enlightened Cookery
Tier V: MINDSET
10: Humanity and the Cosmos
11: Morality
12: Science
13: Metaphysics
14: The Arts
15: A Different Kind of Education
SUMMARY: THE THESIS IN A NUTSHELL
Thus the Agenda is structured like a Christmas tree. The fairy at the top is our Goal: what we are trying to achieve. The roots are the Bedrock Principles that inform and guide the whole endeavour. The large branches are the individual Themes: Goal, Principles, Infrastructure, Practicalities and Mindset; and the smaller branches are the Subjects – economics, governance, science etc. Then from the branches we can hang a potential infinity of Topics, some of great moment (like the parcels containing matching Rolex watches or, more realistically, socks) interspersed with baubles (including all the trivia that make life worth living).
One objection to this Agenda is that it is too “reductionist” (at least according to one of the meanings of reductionism). For by dividing up the whole task in this way we seem to fall into the deep trap of siloed thinking – many different groups of thinkers and doers divided into separate camps, with little or no cooperation or understanding between them. Siloed thinking is alas the norm.
For example: Few of the most influential politicians have any proper grasp of science – and still less of the philosophy of science. Science aspires to show us how wondrous life and the Universe really are; and “high” technology – technology that is informed by science, and depends upon science, like, say, modern vaccines and computers – can, when judiciously applied, improve the quality of human life beyond the dreams of our ancestors, and contribute in many ways to the conservation and wellbeing of our fellow creatures. But it is vital too to appreciate the limitations of science. Science is not, as some still suppose, the royal road absolute truth or to omniscience; and high tech can never lead us to omnipotence. The philosophy of science is needed to restrain excessive faith in its insights and to curb unreflective technophilia — and we need to recognize too that all big ideas are rooted in the end in ideas of a metaphysical nature. But metaphysics in the modern age has all but disappeared from standard educational curricula. It needs to be restored.
Thus we find people in positions of influence who really do believe that science translated into high tech really can solve all our problems. The extreme technophiles include people like Tony Benn who really did want the world to be a better place with fair shares for all, and for example put enormous faith in nuclear power as the source of cheap (!) and virtually inexhaustible energy. The technophilic optimists also evidently include Jacob Rees-Mogg who has a mansion and a vintage Bentley and a few other cars and six children but assures us that high tech will soon find solutions to all the problems that can and do arise from such profligacy. Neither Benn nor Rees-Mogg had or have any serious background in science, and still less in the phil of sci. Margaret Thatcher by contrast did have a background in science – chemistry at Oxford in the mid-1940s – but tended as many scientists unfortunately do to think of science more or less purely as a source of high tech rather than of wonder – an attitude that breeds arrogance rather than humility. Also, crucially, as a pioneer neoliberal, she saw high tech mainly or purely as a means of competing for profit in the global market.
In sharp contrast to any of the above, but with even more unfortunate results, Donald Trump and the Far Right in general, with zero knowledge and little or no sensibility, are content to ignore or override even the most rigorous and robust science if it clashes with their own ideology or ambitions. So it is that Trump dismisses the idea of climate change caused by global warming, in turn caused by burning too much fossil fuel, as “fake news”, even as the forest fires rage in his favoured state of California, and bite into Los Angeles. Those who follow the Trumpish line and seek to put an end to R & D in renewable energy, who in Britain include some newly appointed and euphoric Reform councillors, are guilty not simply of a crime against humanity but a crime against Life.
So it is that science is often applied at great expense to develop technologies for purposes that are frivolous or intentionally destructive (“more bang to the dollar”) – and is often neglected when it could be of great use, or even suppressed when its findings clash with some favoured ideology or the ambitions of the super-rich. No wonder the world is in a mess.
Similarly, economics tends to be taught simply as an exercize in money. But it is much more than that. In truth the economy is —
the medium and the matrix by which and within which we translate our aspirations into actuality
— and so economics should never be taught except in the context of the Goal and the Bedrock principles.
The point is, then, that although we need for the purposes of discussion and research to divide the task before us into discrete subject areas, we also need to meet the second half of the requirement –
“to re-think everything in the light of everything else”
Overall, too, we need to relate the grandest and most high-fallutin’ ideas, of science and metaphysics, refined by the sensibilities of the arts, to the practicalities of life, including or especially the crafts and science of farming and growing. All the rest, including politics and economics, is what builders call “infill”. But modern, standard education has been topped and tailed. It focuses on the infill but fails adequately to discuss the purpose of the whole endeavour, and the principles in which it is rooted; and treats the essential practicalities of life not as a part of general and universal understanding but as specialist skills, to be studied at best in apprenticeships, and without reference to the metaphysical context of all human thought and action.
In future blogs I want to put flesh on all of these bones – starting next time with a general account of the Goal and the Principles. The rest can be discussed in random order.
I regard the Renaissance as a serious endeavour. None more so. To rescue the world from the threatening meltdown, and from the ravages of actual and would-be autocrats and mountebanks, we really do need the Renaissance; and the Renaissance must be led and driven by us, People-at-Large, Ordinary Joes and Jos. So please join the discussion!
Share this article:
Leave a Reply