co-po-mo China
Please read for some accessible journalism on the practical interface of politics with philosophy that is found at http://scienceline.org/2008/08/08/policy-soltis-pr... , entitled "Why China’s Environmental Future May Depend on Reclaiming Some of Its Past [:] China is trying to modify its value system in a way that is scientifically sound and reflects its philosophical traditions." The piece relates to the "constructive postmodern" approach some of you might have noticed me referring to (eg at http://www.greenparty.ca/en/node/4513 ), which has been active ahead of political Greens.
Some also might have noticed my sighing about Canadian non-intellectualism (a minimal improvement over American anti-intellectualism) regarding public policy & politics. While France could be something of a Western exemplar, much more interesting is China:
"Philosophy is more highly regarded in China as part of the social sciences, unlike in the United States where it falls under the humanities umbrella. From the perspective of the Chinese, philosophy directs people how to change the world and guides policy development, said Cobb."
That means that it is culturally inherent to recognize the integral place of things like philosophic theory as connected with politics. European-Western philosophy has reached many dead ends, but the thought stemming primarily from the work of A.N. Whitehead, broadly a field called "process thought", is as much departure from those dead ends as it is integrative of beneficial ideas and approaches therefrom.
John Cobb's name (in quote above) I've also mentioned in Green circles as meriting recognition & whose work particularly in regard to its clarity of expression should be studied. He's even mentioned along with collaborator of long ago Daly (see other link above) at http://www.greenparty.ca/en/about_us/challenge_and... , although process thought by definition seeks comprehensiveness (bearing on all fields of inquiry as any philosophy ever tentatively seeking adequacy will do), so he & related thinkers could have been extensively quoted to make many points basic to Green principles.
One more most interesting note: probably the second most notable scholar in the field of process thought of the past generation is one whose recent very notable public engagement also betrays the sense of responsibility stemming from that philosophy, David Ray Griffin. If the events of Sept. 11 have not indicated for you the long overdue dreadful demise of regnant philosophy (or non-philosophy if you will) as it translates into public affairs, the detailed deconstruction contained in Prof. Griffin's recent work will. You'll see how in "postmodernism" deconstruction of a sort precedes reconstruction, and it appears maybe that China is preparing to lead the way. Utter shame on wealthy us for not doing so, for politically bumping around in dead ends.
- Daryl Vernon's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
ecology & Green politics from philosophy
Here's another quote to urge consideration of the primary importance for ecology & environmentalism, and hence Green politics, economics, etc., of process philosophy stemming from the work of Whitehead. I've read elsewhere suggestions that Leopold was inspired, without attribution, by Whitehead. Consider this, from Prof. Eugene Hargrove's, "The Historic Foundations of American Environmental Attitudes", in Nature, Aesthetics and Environmentalism: From Beauty to Duty (Carlson & Lintott eds., 2008):
"In Science and the Modern World [1925], Whitehead's aim is to combat science and philosophy's "assumption of the bare valuelessness of mere matter" that "led to a lack of reverence in the treatment of natural and artistic beauty" and brought about two evils: "one, the ignoration of the true relation of each organism to its environment; and the other, the habit of ignoring the intrinsic worth of the environment which must be allowed its weight in any consideration of final ends." Indisputably, this aim is also an environmentalist aim. Most interesting of all is the similarity of some of Whitehead's comments and those of environmentalist Aldo Leopold [writing some 25 years later]. There are long passages in the last chapter of Science and the Modern World, for instance, which could easily have served as the source of some of Leopold's ideas, and which suggest that Leopold's notion of community could be derived from Whitehead's theory of organism without much difficulty. In one place especially Whitehead speaks of "associations of different species which mutually cooperate," and he refers to the forest environment as "the triumph of the organization of mutually dependent species." A few lines further on he adds that "every organism requires an environment of friends, partly to shield it from violent changes, and partly to supply it with its wants." It is a small step from Whitehead's "environment of friends" to Leopold's "biotic community.""
A few days ago on CBC Radio an interviewee was describing a typical Canadian reaction to the suggestion in conversation of consideration of deep & fundamental issues: the interlocutor gives the suggester a look, picks up his drink and moves to another table. Still, there is a similar percentage of philosophically inclined among Canadians as among all peoples, it's just that it's not easily allowed to emerge with seriousness in public discourse. Nonetheless, central to the world of process philosophy has been active, even activist, engagement with the world. In the blog post above I try to draw attention to the work of two of the most prominent process thinkers as they precede Greens in engagement in issues at the heart of Green concern. It's normal for philosophers to go first, unattributed, creativity is at that heart after all. But while Greens are excused from delving into professional philosophical work, inattention to the vital sources of much of their own Green agendas only serves to deprive a Green movement of depth, staying power & ultimate influence.
Apart from Cobb's contribution, for example, with Daly to Green economics, he has, for further example, directly and cogently addressed consonance and problems with "deep ecology" (as have other process-inspired thinkers), on which see (from 2001) "Deep Ecology and Process Thought".
And regarding something else from 2001, something that were Greens to grasp quickly and fully via the recent stellar work of Griffin, their proper place in creating new politics would only be facilitated. I'm not optimistic, but there it is put before you again.