Note: This essay continues what has been said in the [ART=59]Definition Essay[/ART] and in the [ART=60]Plus Essay[/ART]. See Terms A1_List for a list of definitions of the main terms used in this essay.
There are gems to be found in ancient lore if we know how to look. But we cannot expect perfection from our ancestors any more than from ourselves. If we are to preserve values of the past, it is only fair to place ideas of bygone times in the context of their day and to sort their thoughts so we can keep the best and set aside the rest.
The same holds for people of modern times. We are smart to appreciate constructive contributions of contemporaries and even smarter to avoid blunders that are destructive. Most people do a some of both.
An approach that uses affirmative commonsense to acknowledge verities while, at the same time, noting and excluding errors is referred to herein as a 'candid sorting mentality' or simple 'sorting mentality'. A candid sorting mentality is evenhanded. It adequately uses the basic requirements of sound rational thinking as guidelines in sifting and choosing values. Candid sorting mentality is affirmative rational thinking in action.
Candid sorting applies the basic requirements of sound rational thinking as criteria for sifting and assessing values of the past as well as values of the present. It is Affirmative Rationality in action. Candid sorting mentality aims to play fair and avoid totalitarian manipulation.
A candid sorting mentality examines specific statements and reasons for their for their worth proposition by proposition rather than passing sweeping judgments on the character and motivation of individuals. This way we can embrace the good ideas of creative thinkers and avoid the not-so-good ideas they man have picked up along the way. This is commonsense. Many excellent philosophers inadvertently make mistakes. These mistakes do not invalidate their good ideas. If we sort that which is worth keeping from the blunders, we honor the philosopher in question by preserving their good ideas and letting their blunders fade away.
Take Aristotle for example. Finding mistakes in writing attributed to Aristotle, does not justify rejecting everything Aristotle said. In the same manner, praising Aristotle's brilliant discoveries does not imply that he was always correct. The candid sorting approach seeks to appreciate the power of Aristotle's great discoveries while aiming to avoid the blotches. Candid appraisers try to avoid over generalizations whereas less prudent evaluators fly by on sweeping over-generalizations.
The tendency to reject the whole of Aristotle because he made some blunders has occurred in well-known writers for a long time. A few of the many examples are:
Martin Luther(1483-1546) said Aristotle was an "...urchin who must be put in the pig-sty or donkey's stable." [B45p27]
Peter Ramus (1515-1572) gained his reputation as a university student defending his master's thesis: "All that Aristotle said is false." [R61p100]
Giordano Bruno (1548-1600) complained that he hade to cope "...with the three-headed hellhound of Aristotle, Ptolemy and dogma." [B54p245]
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), in discussing, his four main fallacies, said, "Idols of the theater...are the philosophical systems of the past which are nothing better than stage plays representing unreal worlds of man's creation. In general there are three types of false philosophy. First is sophistical (eg. Aristotle who corrupted natural philosophy with his dialectic). Second is empirical (eg. chemists...) Third is superstition (eg. Pythagoreans, Platonists) ..." [R80p327].
Even today these fashionable overgeneralizations about Aristotle still continue. [See Aristotle Essay]
Instead of lumping philosophers ideas into piles of all or none, we do better if we sort thoughts that are worthwhile from those that are handicaps.
Not all western discourse is as totalitarian as the above examples concerning Aristotle. In western literature, even handed evaluation been more prevalent than negative aspersions but affirmative rational assessment is often less noticed because it sounds normal.
The idea of sorting values worth preserving from those which should be set aside is an aspect of civilization that is common but needs to be defended more overtly as a philosophical method.
Candid sorting is one of those things that virtually everybody does to some degree. Cicero expressed the sorting point of view when he said.
"It seems folly therefore, either to refuse to follow the good ideas of any author, merely because I was offended by some fault in his work, or to follow the mistakes of a writer who had attracted me by some correct precept." [Cicero]
In studying Cicero, we soon discover Cicero did not always follow his own advice. At times he expresses affirmative rational insights and at other times he revels in spurious disputes. However, it would be foolish to refuse to follow the good ideas of Cicero simply because we are offended by some his faults.
We have excellent reasons to call Aristotle and Cicero affirmative rational thinkers even though both made serious blunders in their theories and tactics. Calling them predominately affirmative rational philosophers gives them their place in the sun without implying that every sentence they uttered was equally grand.
Affirmative rationality, as defined in this particular study, refers to intellectual judgment and reasoning that is adequately firm in commitment to basic requirements of sound rational thinking. Affirmative reasoning, develops reliable and wise principles while avoiding the worst dangers of absolutism and subjectivism. [See Chapters 12 and 13].
The affirmative rational point of view emphasizes that we humans are limited in our knowledge. We can, on occasion, claim resolute or virtual certainty but that is not the same as absolute certainty. The term 'affirmative rationality' as defined, emphasized both the limits and possibilities of human knowledge. Our knowledge does not have to be perfect in order to be useful. [See Gap, Chapter 21 and Certainty, Chapter 22]
By stressing a firm commitment to right reason as we sort what values to embrace, we can avoid haggling over absolutes. However, we can claim to be firm in our commitments when we have good solid reason to believe we are close enough to authentic values to manage the affair of the moment. That is all we really need. Recognizing our own limits, we are at all times stay open to improvements.
Candid sorting mentality seeks to avoid the extremes of ontological absolutism and ideological subjectivism.
Cicero is usually good for a quote and he does not fail us in this case. In De Officius he wrote,
"In this category [the learning of truth] ... one must avoid two faults: first, we should not take things that have not been ascertained for things that have, and rashly assent to them. Anyone who wants to avoid that fault (as everyone indeed should) will take time and care when he ponders any matter. The second fault is that some men bestow excessive devotion and effort upon matters that are both abstruse and difficult, and unnecessary." [Cicero]
The Port Royal logic of 1662 (the logic Ben Franklin studied as a boy) makes somewhat the same point,
"This difficulty [certainty] leads men into two opposing errors: the one, the error of believing too readily on the slightest rumor; the other of foolishly refusing to believe the best attested things if these offend the prejudice. ... There is a stupid simplicity which believes the least credible; but there is also a stupid presumptuousness which condemns as false anything which passes beyond the narrow limits of the mind." [Antoine Arnauld (1597–1619)]
Isaac Watts in his 1724 popular book on Logic or the Right use of Reason, praises the third way and deplores extremes. He wrote,
"The dogmatists is sure of everything and the skeptic believes nothing." [Isaac Watts]
Bolingbroke, the English Lord Henry St. John, who John Adams and Thomas Jefferson read over and again, said in 1727,
"Between all extremes there is a certain middle point, which men of genius perceive, and to which men of honor adhere in private and public life." [R225v1p219] [Bolingbroke]
Through history there are countless references to the dangers of extremes and the need for moderation. 'Candid' and Affirmative', as used herein, are terms that expresses this middle ground. Affirmative rational thinking is firm in its commitment to basic requirements of sound rational thinking. It avoids irresolute and mediocre tendencies that can be associated equivocation and mystification.
Candid sorting mentality implies a strong commitment to the known rules of right reason and a continuing effort to develop through self correction. A sorting mentality also sorts its own roots and and makes root improvements.
Candid sorting and affirmative rational thinking are not rare in modern society. My friends all fit in this category. I have many friends.
The intricately developed affirmative logic of western civilization is a valuable heritage. That some mistakes have been made along the way does not mean we must reject the well formed central ideas of classical rational traditions. By sorting values of the past we can continue to preserve the good ideas that help improve civilization.
Candid sorting mentality is not a new idea. It is not unusual. This is the way most people are in their real self most of the time. We normally don't put our affirmative rational commitments in words because they are simply assumed. The term 'sorting mentality' in this sense expresses an attitude of fair play and good will.
Last update: 2008 Feb 20.
Previous
~ ~ Start
~ ~ Resources
~ ~ Next
7761 page views
© Virginia Vallee