I pray that everyone is safe 🙌. I recently discovered that emojis can be inserted in blog posts! These are only some discoveries that I made during this global pandemic... I pray that everyone is safe and sound. Ameen.
Alhamdulillah (all praise to God), after much brooding, I finally understood the crux of this book. It actually stems from these two schools of thoughts: Socrates's and Plato's.
To put it simply, Socrates believes in the societal well being through the establishment of an ethical system that is built upon human reason [1]. To arrive at that ethical system, Socrates would questioned and challenged people what true ethics actually is. When the assumption of ethics that people held are challenged, Socrates had instilled doubt; to which this book claims the Westerners' lack. This lack of doubt and attention towards the societal well being are the main causes for the degradation of the Western civilization.
On the other hand, the philosophy expounded by Plato attempts to answer what true ethics, or basically the truth of everything, is. According to Plato, everything has an ideal or form in another world that is unchanging. This is termed as the Theory of Forms [2][3]. Since there indeed exists a form or a true answer to the questions raised by Socrates in his dialogues with the people, little doubt is left. So, people just need to think critically, and use all the five senses (vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch), what is the closest ideal version or the closest form of something in this world is. Using the five senses also means taking reality (of this world) into account. As such, this book argues that the West is obsessed with finding the forms of this world through efficiency and professional methodology (employment of technocrats); and views reflection (arising from doubt) as inefficient and the well being of society as secondary (I will argue later why despite thought and the use of five senses, well being of society is not primary). As such, the opening of this book argues that Plato's philosophy has put less emphasize on humanism that his mentor, Socrates, has preached. I, however, humbly disagrees.
Plato did say to take into account reality. The reality is that majority of Westerners value individual freedom more than societal well being. In other words, the West views individual freedom as the form of ethics, and that translates as the reality of this world. Thus it is not that Plato's philosophy is wrong, but it is the people's thought process and the use of five senses that had led to the assumption that individual freedom is the form of ethics. This belief is so ingrained in Westerners so much so that there is no doubt about it. Yes, despite this issue, the conclusion to the problem is still lack of doubt, similar to what Saul (2013) have said in this book. Yet again, I will also show one crucial point from the philosophy of Plato that the book did not highlight.
Saul (2013) had given countless real life examples where efficiency and professional methodology fails to solve a particular problem. He asserts that the current system that we have, politics, education, finance, economy, basically almost everything, are in shambles. The author pinpointed the source of the structural problems to the lack of humanism; where its foundation was built excessively on the Theory of Forms, the discouragement of doubt to permeate, and the inconsequential of societal well-being .
I feel that I need to tackle one particular system or two, in particular education, in particular social science, in particular finance and economics. These are two fields of study that I am familiar with. But this requires, God willing, another blog post for it will be quite lengthy.
Remember before I said that Saul (2013) had missed one important point about Plato's philosophy? That point is the form exists in another world that is unchanging and constant. So frankly, there is no perfect solution for this world. That world i.e. another world that Plato expounded, as to my belief, should be the afterlife. Plato himself was not able to arrive at that conclusion because his philosophical thinking, even Socrates's, does not take religion into consideration. They did not acknowledge, or was not able to arrive at the deduction, that there exists a Supreme Being that is All Knowledgeable.
By extension, try reflecting on this phrase:
Like most religions, reason presents itself as the solution to the problems it has created.Saul (2013) had written this phrase in the opening vignette in Part I Argument of his book. Reading this statement in passing, one would think that the author views religion in askance for religion is the one who had created these problems in the first place and without shame, claims that it has the solutions.
Yet, notice that Saul (2013) said most religions. Meaning, one can also interpret that the author believes that there exists few religions that can provide answers to mitigate problems that these few religions did not create. Or perhaps Saul (2013) is simply being neutral? I would like to assume that he is in the former category.
In my humble opinion, we should combine doubt, the theory of forms, and religion (or ideas that you can get from it) to arrive at a solution that balances between societal well being and individual well being. When problems of each unit of society (individual/family) is addressed, consequently, the problems of society as a whole will be addressed too. In addition, one cannot be complacent but must constantly evaluate from time to time (stemming from the virtue of doubt), whether the solution presented before, is still practical for the present and future. It is worth emphasizing that ideas from religion is quintessential as human has limit to his/her thinking capacity. Thus, it is only reasonable to deduce that there exists a Supreme Being that is All Knowledgeable, constant, unchanging, and never dies. Plato indirectly said so in his theory of forms.
Before I end this post, I would like to address the other crucial point that the book did not highlight, or probably even consider. Our thought process should be guided by our heart. Sounds corny, I know. But ponder on this example:
You have only $10 and you come across a homeless mother with a child crying out of hunger. Nearby, there's a food stall that sells food for exactly $10. You are hungry yourself. But if your thought process is guided by your heart, there is a very high possibility that you will buy the food for the child instead of you eating it yourself.
Thus in religion, one's thought process is guided by the heart or "eye of the soul" where in Malay we termed it as "matahati". Perhaps, the deduction that individual freedom is the form of ethics comes from the disregarding of matahati.
It is important to be mentioned here that our matahati needs to be guided too. And that guidance can only come from the All Knowledgeable.
Main source:
Saul, J. R. (2013). Voltaire's B*st*rds: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
Saul, J. R. (2013). Voltaire's B*st*rds: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
