“CAN WE CREATE A SOCIETY THAT IS CANDID AND HONEST”
Can today’s society exist with the concept of honesty, sincerity, integrity, ethical and without a façade of showmanship and playacting to impress others, without utilizing money and power to buy favors, distort the truth and twist justice, create injustice.
We should be genuine, sincere, abhor deception.
There is one way to find out if a man is honest; ask him! If he says yes you know he’s crooked.
You’ve got to be honest; if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.
The defeat of logical realism in the great medieval debate was the crucial event in the history of Western culture; from this flowed those acts which issue now in modern decadence.
Is peaceful progress through rational improvement actually possible in our cruel, greedy world?
Urge to Honesty
The 'urge to honesty', as herein defined, refers to the internal nudge we feel that inclines us toward integrity. It includes: (1) a mental "pull" that draws us to prefer true over false; (2) private inclinations to choose valid over invalid reasoning; and (3) inner wants that crave fair play.
To expand this idea, the term 'urge to honesty' is a way to name our aspirations to know the truth, our predilections to tell the truth, and our inherent eagerness to learn. It means intellectual cravings that impel us to want to reason in a valid manner, to make efforts to arrange our knowledge in coherent order, and to apply what we know to what we do. It is an intellectual relish for sound rational thinking that prods us to acquire knowledge, cultivate commonsense, pursue unbiased critical thinking, and to practice what we preach. Viewed from another direction, our urge to honesty is our propensity to overcome ignorance, to avoid deceit, to reject manipulation, and to shun hypocrisy. All of these inclinations are included in the term "urge to honesty".
All rational people start out with a lively urge to honesty and most people keep a strong desire to live in an honest world. When talking to people face to face, it is a rare case to find someone with no candid responses.
Although normal humans, in ordinary circumstance, possess a strong natural bent toward truthfulness, honesty is not cultivated enough. Prejudice, conceit, cynicism, superstition, fear and con games frequently interfere with or squelch our natural impetus to be straight forward. The deepest and most far-reaching suppressions of our inclination to honesty stem from root errors promulgated through distortions in the rational style in society.
Honesty and commonsense are counterparts. Learning the virtue of honesty requires the cultivation of commonsense, and the cultivation of commonsense presupposes a commitment to honesty. However, commonsense and honesty are not exactly the same. In commonsense, the emphasis is on ability and in honesty the emphasis is on resolve and action. It takes both to reach the quality of negotiation required to achieve a just society. Honesty and commonsense are so basic to building the trust required to make a good society that, without them, our creative efforts, time after time, bring the opposite of our hopes and dreams.
Obviously, an urge to honesty presupposes a talent for honesty. To encourage honesty presumes a capacity, limited but real, to seek, tell, and use truth in appropriate ways. We do not expect honesty from creatures with no ability to distinguish true from false propositions. A fox, despite his wily ways, is not dishonest. Only humans can be honest and only humans can be dishonest.
A potential urge to honesty is natural but to become actual it must be used. Once activated, it increases the more it is applied. After a desire to be honest gains momentum, our inner inclination keeps us probing for truth to some extent even if negative prone ideologists persuade us to abandon goals of rational consistency and coherence. Because most of us hold in our minds a point of foolishness beyond which we will not go, we are protected to some extent from inanity. Our natural urge to honesty provides us with a measure of immunity from corrupt dialectical theories.
A taste of truth easily activates our desire to know. Putting aside problems of brain damage and serious nurtural deprivation, normal people begin to exercise truth-acquiring talents at an early age. Soon new learners connect bits of knowledge in rational relations. They test their conclusions in practice and evaluate consequences. With encouragement, this process accelerates and becomes habitual. In advanced civilizations, encouraging a search for truth is part of the education process. The more students are encouraged to seek truth, the more they will join in humanities quest for knowledge. Acquiring and sharing knowledge goes on and on.
Every rationally functional person has some integrity and practices honesty to some degree. When we nurture our impulse to be honest, it becomes a source of energy and pleasure. Admittedly, a few, described in clinical terms as psychopaths, seem to have almost no inner urge to honesty. Perhaps these unfortunates cannot distinguish their own imagination from reality. However, attempts to cure them presupposes that an inclination exists to be awakened if we could discover how.
Although not always dominant, the urge to honesty resides to some degree in all non-psychopathic persons who are rationally mature enough to function in society. People who share developed commitment to honesty enjoy being together.
The virtue of honesty does not require stupidity. To be honest one need not out every rude thought that comes to his or her head with no regard of the consequences. The honest speaker tells the truth that needs to be told, when it needs to be told, the way it needs to be told. The virtue of honesty does not hinge on one proposition told truly, but on many propositions well knitted. An honest person digs for truth and puts truths found in prudent perspective.
Well developed honesty arranges bits of truth in proportion to long term value. Although the virtue of honesty presupposes propositional veracity, honesty is not one truth lived but, rather, is an integration of many truths held in an interconnected network of tested belief. Mature honesty presupposes judgments measured one to another, and applied to situations in an unbiased logical manner. The virtue of honestly grows out of a wholesome inter-relation of fact and principle in which we value truths proportionally and applied them with care. To live in a society that cultivates honesty is a privilege.
As mentioned, honesty develops from commitment. We gage the depth of an individual’s commitment to pursue truth by their perseverance over obstacles. Strange to say, those with firm commitment to honest living rarely put their conviction in words and those with the strongest private commitment to seek truth often say the least. However, the intensity of inner resolve speaks for itself. By noticing the way responsible people act, we soon recognize that their personality proclaims integrity. Clearly, individual commitment to honesty cannot be measured by bragging but, rather, by doing. Some, with the deepest mettle, would be genuinely surprised to learn they held a more than usual determination to be truthful.
Odd to say, those who put on a show of honesty, often prove to be the worst hypocrites. Who gives more lip service to ‘honor’, and ‘virtue’ than the charlatan setting up his mark for the take? Because people bent toward deception misuse the symbols of honesty, we quickly learn that, when slick speakers talk about ‘truth’, we best prepare for a trip through fantasy land. As Augustine said of the Manicheans,
"They cry ‘Truth’, ‘Truth’ ‘Truth’, and tell ‘lies’, ‘lies’, ‘lies’".
The specific deception of the fabricator might be relatively innocuous but the long term effect is ominous because the fabricator gives a bad name to our highest ideals. The damage done by rogues, con artists, and sorcerers goes far beyond the malice of the individuals involved.
One of the major difficulties we encounter in trying to fix root errors, is the discrepancy between the effort it takes make the mistake and the effort it takes to repair the mistake. Making a mistake is easy and takes only a few seconds. Correcting the mistake is hard and sometimes takes years, even centuries. For example, to tell a lie is as easy as tossing a pebble in a placid lake. The pebble goes in quickly and sinks. However, after the pebble enters the water, one wave of ripples follows another as they expand father and farther from the center where the pebble hit. In the practical world, often the pebble is of minor importance. It’s the ripples that cause trouble. Any attempt to reach in the water and retrieve the pebble, causes more ripples. The lie sinks in and the victim is left with almost no recourse. If the victim protests and points out that his opponent is telling lies, the opponent accuses the victim of inflammatory rhetoric and dirty tricks.
Even though deception causes much harm to society, we should be careful judging the quality of another person’s honesty. When we catch someone in a direct lie we wisely show caution about passing judgment on the entire character of the person. One lie may be an anomaly or the person may not realize what he or she did. What is more, people can be very truthful in one area of their lives and crafty in another.
A liar usually lives under the illusion that his/her lies are relatively harmless. Most of us, when we tell lies, don’t really mean any harm. We just want to appear good or smart in the eyes of others. Sometimes we are too lazy to seek out the truth, but don’t wish to appear ignorant and so we invent something, pretending we know when we don’t know.
To be honest about honesty, we need to emphasize that no person is absolutely honest or absolutely dishonest. By examining the units of honesty (propositions) and becoming familiar with the limitations and possibilities of knowledge, we enhance our appreciation of the virtue of honesty while at the same time learning to recognize the perimeters of human veracity. To demand more than people can give does a disservice to everyone’s integrity. We, the public, face a continuous challenge in learning how to set high standards of honesty for public servants without demanding perfection beyond reasonable performance.
Honesty occurs in many guises. Honest use of terminology, honest use of facts, honest use of generalities, honest use of reason, honest use of evaluation (priorities), and honest use of practice are types of honesty. All aspects must be adequately developed for individuals to be well balanced in their commitment to honesty. For example, a person may present straight facts and tell a good story but ruin their case by jumping to unfounded conclusions. The facts are true, the story is beguiling, but the conclusion is a hoax.
The development of honesty requires commitment to affirmative logic. Deliberate misuse of our deductive skill in order to rationalize a deceitful conclusion is as dishonest as a direct lie. An undistributed middle term deceives more insidiously than a false fact. Courts refuse to allow special pleading because they recognize that manipulation of facts to support pre-drawn conclusions is dishonest and prejudicial to a case. True facts, cleverly stacked, can sometimes be more cruelly deceptive than an outright lie.
For every kind of honesty a corresponding form of dishonesty comes into play. For example, a person being honest avoids equivocation, whereas a person intending to deceive twists the meanings of words in subtle ways and the listener, who doesn’t catch the switch, may never know that he was deliberately misled. A person honestly seeking truth examines major and minor premises each in their own light whereas the conniver hides the weak premise under elaborate effusion over the strong. As a general policy, the person maturing in honesty studies fallacies in order to avoid them whereas the manipulative person studies fallacies to use them to win favor and exploit those he considers to be his inferiors. Dishonest people always have a superiority complex.
Unfortunately, people deliberately practicing dishonesty aim for a rational stance that masks as honesty. With shrewd cunning, the deceiver tells cleaver lies to outwit those they perceive as opponents. Persons of this ilk sometimes rise to prominence on a manufactured image that is virtually the opposite of their real self. Tactics like this are the scourge of politics and make it very difficult for more candid candidates to succeed. The mud tends to stick on the person who is the target, not on the one who does the throwing.
Dishonesty tempts the ambitious because often, in the beginning, it works. Once started on a deception, a person becomes trapped and often chooses to manufacture more and more fabrications to keep his or her story going. In many cases, deception works for awhile but, in the long run, dishonesty builds a leaning tower of trouble. The worst difficulty is the damage dishonesty does to the trust we need to solve mutual problems and to conduct successful peace negotiations. Speaking truthfully within the realm of honest expectations is prerequisite for building trust we need to achieve long term justice.
To further complicate the situation, people who deliberately deceive often feel innocent. If a person intellectually believes that "truth" mutates to suit the times or is a meaningless abstraction, it follows that he or she will not acknowledge a serious difference between lies and truths. Some will argue that, since they can’t visualize ‘truth’ and it has no weight that, therefore, truth is not real. Why, they ask, make a fuss over something that doesn’t materially exist. Whatever the reason, in the end, people with low regard for truth usually hold little respect for honesty.
Since none of us are perfect, we hesitate to accuse another of dishonesty. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." And yet it is a mistake to allow fraudulence to develop unchecked. Toleration of deception leads society from bad to worse. Martin Buber, a Jewish philosopher who experienced fascism first hand, saw lies lead from one atrocity to another. In 1942, with the worst yet to come, he wrote an article, "People and Leader", in which he showed how readily masses of people are willing to be deceived. Mussolini, for example, lied and the people knew what he was doing, but he said what many wanted to hear and they loved him for it.
"No one could really believe in this norm, but since no one sees any other way to take part in action, everyone lets it be explained by the very norm offered by fascism through the newly created myth of the ‘nation’ … Do the masses really hope? One masks one’s despair as hope and finally lets oneself be deceived by the mask until midnight comes. Is one really courageous? There is nothing left to one but to show courage. This so-called myth is, at any rate, a ‘sting’."
The deep seated respect for impartial truth that unifies decent democratic republics was not strong enough in Mussolini’s society to resist the attraction of mythical illusion. Attitudes that made this thinking popular grew out of wide spread root errors that spread rot through the intellectual atmosphere of the culture. Fascism, for example, assumes that we create our own ‘truth’ and that the bourgeois ‘hope for progress’ is an illusion. For more on this notion, read George Sorel, Mussolini’s intellectual mentor. Hitler, as we know, took this idea and went several steps further with his "Big Lie". These machinations would have fallen on deaf ears if people had not been softened by dysfunctional notions promulgated by wayward ideologies and antagonistic dialecticians who adopt negative views of rationality and human nature.
Dishonesty, as defined here, is always deliberate. When deception is unintentional, then the deceiver is not dishonest but is the victim of his own illusion. Operating under illusion is a much different state of affairs than practicing dishonesty. Although often difficult to know whether a person willfully deceives or genuinely believes his own fantasy, a real psychological difference between dishonesty and illusion does exist. Dishonesty, as here defined, only occurs in the case of deliberate duplicity.
Dishonesty presents an interesting logical paradox because dishonesty always masks as honesty. Most readers are familiar with Zeno’s liar paradox.
All Cretans are liars. I am a Cretan. Therefore I am lying. But if I am lying, then I am not a Cretan, and I might be telling the truth. But if I am telling the truth I must be lying.
This paradox has a thousand variations which have been used as examples for centuries. In the New Testament, Paul obliquely refers to the liar paradox in his epistle to Titus when he says,
"One of themselves, a prophet of their own, said 'Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.' This statement is true."
For the most part, the science of paradox is a challenge that is discussed and developed by mathematicians. However, the realities of paradox, which are genuine puzzles, do not require the denial of affirmative logic by everybody else while we wait for mathematical experts to discover final solutions—which may never happen. The social philosophers, who assume that mathematical paradox invalidates the ability of ordinary people to understand propositional truth are wrong. Paradoxes help demonstrate our human limitations but the problems posed by various paradoxes do not negate the value of vast fields of knowledge that lay within our grasp.
Philosophers who desire to promote progress in peace should be committed to promoting a mood of trust, which requires honesty, which requires respect for truth. If serious about real progress and genuine peace, we, the concerned public, can elevate to prominence those philosophers who clarify issues, esteem impartial truth, and make honesty attractive. Unfortunately this is not always the case. Too often we, the public, adulate those who mystify and offer sweet excuse. For some mysterious reason, there is a tendency to ignore brilliant philosophers who speak the plain truth. Through neglect, we let them fade into obscurity while manipulators such as Machiavelli, Hobbes and Marx get top billing. Here again, the cause of the problem is often undetected root errors.
In developing our personal standards of honesty, the rational style of the society in which we live influences all of us to some degree. The promulgation of rational assumptions through education, media, and governmental policies creates an intellectual atmosphere surrounding us in which we converse and mentally breathe. These influences make a profound impression on enough people to impact public opinion. We all make decisions as to how honest we wish to be within the atmosphere in which we were raised.
Influences of rational style of our culture are powerful but not absolute. A person’s understanding of honesty can be, and often is, in conflict with various aspects of the dominant rational expectation of his peers. It is because individuals can break away to some degree from the influences of the mental market place that we can hope to correct mistaken assumptions and upgrade the rational style of a group. Unfortunately, this same freedom can work in the opposite direction. Changes in rational style, for better or worse, stem ultimately from the free decisions of individuals.
Choice
Overwhelming evidence is available to establish a real difference between honesty and dishonesty, true and false, valid and invalid. If we learn how to look for it, we can soon be convinced that there is a genuine distinction between an honest statement and a lie.
To achieve peaceful progress and to avoid the calamities that hover on the horizon of our technical civilization, we need to recognize our own rational freedom and our rational obligations. This task begins with our duty to want to develop honesty.
Happily, vast numbers of people DO choose honesty as a dominating factor in their lives. That is one reason why there is always hope. Even those who intellectually advocate the occult policies of antagonistic dialectics don’t always follow their own negative advice.
The drive to be honest is strong. Most people, given a choice, prefer honesty. Over time, large numbers of people have made admirable commitments to honesty and have carried through. This adds up. By now, so much has been accomplished that we only need a little more to reach the level of problem solving where we can enjoy genuine progress in peace on a long term basis.
However we do need more. What we have accomplished to date is impressive but it is not enough. On the plus side, much that occurs in modern society tends to activate and augment our natural urge to honesty. We bathe in a sea of reliable information that no generation before could even anticipate. But, on the minus side, even with scientific development and the spread of education we still miss achieving the level of intellectual integrity we should be able to reach. When the negative outweighs the positive, we sink into destructive combat. Often the difference between war and peace is only a little bit.
We can sometimes make up the difference with only a small effort directed at increasing individual commitment to honesty and upgrading rational style. The more we activate our urge to honesty and cultivate commonsense, the more we will advance our abilities to progress in peace. If we had to be perfect, our situation would be hopeless. But we don’t have to be perfect. We only have to be good enough. Since vast reservoirs of commonsense honesty already exist, often just a little improvement is all that is needed to achieve a breakthrough in a problem situation.
Cultivating commonsense and augmenting our urge for honesty is worth the trouble it takes. When the urge to honesty dominates over more selfish and immediate demands, changes (sometimes minute at first) upgrade, in beneficial ways, the course of history. Those who choose to speak truth to the best of their ability, who build courage to pursue knowledge of truths unknown; and who struggle to bring into realization the values of discovery, contribute to the progress of the human race. Deceit, fraud, and secret conniving do the opposite.
Plain is the word of truth, and of elaborate interpretations justice has no need; of herself she is fitting. But the unrighteous word, being unsound, needs cunning allurements.
The Lure of Illusion
Along with our love of truth, we humans are tempted with a fondness for error and crippled by a fear of logic. It’s no secret that on many occasions many of us prefer comfortable illusion to stark reality. Challenging our urge to honesty stands a compulsion toward the opposite.
The word illusion developed from the Latin ‘illusio which means the action of mocking and from this usage came to mean intellectual deception. Intellectual deception is in the mind, not in the eyesight. As happens so often in language, the intellectual idea develops from a metaphor.
In defining illusion, the plus system builds on this idea of intellectual deception and adds the adds the quality of unintentional. The term illusion thus refers to a double artifice. While the propositions involved are false, the people in the grip of the illusion believe they are true.
Definition of Illusion
Illusion, as plus defined, refers to propositions or sets of propositions people judge to be true that in actually are false. From this point of view, illusions are always intellectual and inadvertent. People do not deliberately seek illusions. To the contrary, they think the illusion is true.
Undetected error is the substance of illusion. An illusion presents an error, often a cluster of errors, as if the mistakes were not mistakes. Being blind to the inaccuracy, we unwittingly give illusions the status of truth and bestow on the illusion all the respect and honor due to truth and honesty. It is hard to unravel an illusion because the illusion is assumed to be true.
Illusions are not Lies
Following this stipulated terminology, a lie (a deliberate attempt to deceive) is not an illusion. When we tell a lie, we know we are telling a lie. Contrariwise, when living under an illusion, although we think we know the truth, in reality, we are mistaken.
In the thralls of illusion, we believe as true that which is false. Illusion is a genuine mistake whereas dishonesty is deliberate. A calculated fabrication differs from an unintentional mistake.
Definition of Knowledge
In contrast to illusion, knowledge, as plus defined, refers to those propositions or sets of propositions we judge to be true that really are true. Knowledge is the opposite of illusion.
In present conventional English, we commonly use the term knowledge to refer to thoughts we believe, for good reason, to be true. Usually when we say we know something, we can back up what we assert with good evidence. Often we are right, but occasionally we think we know and find out later we were wrong. We learn, sometimes in sorrow, that what we thought was knowledge was instead an illusion of knowledge.
Plus definition system limits the meaning of knowledge to those propositions we think are true that actually are true. [See Part B, esp. Chapters 12, 13, & 21 for the development of this definition.]
Explanation
The definitions of illusion and knowledge, posited here, are more narrow than many interpretations. But these plus definitions are fitting and often conform to common usage. Sticking to these particular definitions solves several sticky philosophical problems.
The definitions of illusion and knowledge stipulated here are useful in many ways. For one thing they help clarify the gap between virtual certainty and absolute certainty. As we learn to appreciate the value of this gap (the certainty gap), we understand why we should post a question mark on material we consider to be knowledge. What we think we know as true most probably is true, but the wise course is to keep an open mind and recognize the possibility that what we consider to be knowledge may not be all that we think it is.
The significance of the certainty gap will become more clear in later chapters on propositional relativity, which explain how changing the meanings of terms can alter the truth value of propositions, and conceptual variance, which examines important differences among meanings of core terms such as truth, knowledge, certainty, reality, and so on.
Illusions and Lies
Illusions are not the same as lies. The liar knows he is telling a lie. However, those who believe the lie are suffering under an illusion because they believe the lie is true. And, strange to say, the liar often sets up conditions that involve him or her in the clutches of illusion.
The relation of lies to illusions offers a curious intertwine of ideas. Lies and illusions weave together and become hard to untangle. People who start out telling lies, often end up lost in illusions. Conversely, people lost in illusions often tell lies to avoid examining their illusions.
Between lies and illusion resides a nebulous land of self-imposed ignorance where we suspect something is wrong but proceed with our life as if all were well. The old moral philosophers used to call this culpable ignorance. A modern psychologist might call it repressed ideas. A large percentage of human error fits in this gray area. Many a person telling a fib convinces him or herself that somehow his lie is not a lie and many a person accepts a fantastic story on face value because he or she doesn’t want to know the truth.
Sources of Illusion
Sources of illusion abound but the most insidious illusions stem from root errors. Some root errors stem from doubt, despair, laziness, prejudice, fear, superstition, and tempt philosophers to misinterpret the difficulties of paradox. When we examine the magnitude of the forces working against the urge to honesty we appreciate more the honesty that does exist.
Cynical Doubt
Cynical doubt fans the coals of illusion and dulls the tools we need to undo illusions. Doubts arise out of genuine problems. For example, questions concerning the meaning and reality of truth are numerous, nagging, and difficult to answer. Cherished beliefs time and again prove faulty. Overwhelmed with disillusionment we ask, "How can there be an unchanging truth when we so often change our mind? How can there be a right reason when we often reason wrong?" Normal, healthy people ask these questions, but when they concoct answers misinformed by root errors, as often happens, healthy doubt turns to unhealthy cynicism and, instead of being the impetus to overcome illusion, doubt becomes the agent that sets illusions in cement.
Cynical doubt leads to despair about the possibility of rational improvement. This mental attitude weaves in and out of Nineteenth and Twentieth Century philosophy and has influenced the development of errant ideologies. The consequences of drop out or blow up mentalities can be extremely serious because rational improvement is precisely the goal we need to keep in the front of our mind if we are to advance our abilities to progress in peace.
How can we expect to upgrade rational style and build the trust we need to increase negotiation quality if we believe we are incapable of rational improvement? This challenging question is left unanswered or answered wrong because we are innervated with doubt about the value of our rational skills. Many people seem to feel that rational improvement has been tried and failed. If they study the history of rational theory, they will discover that the opposite is true. Wherever affirmative logic courses are taught and when commonsense honesty is cultivated, then the rational style is consistently upgraded, trust is built, negotiation quality increases, and illusions are gently laid to rest. Rational improvement is feasible and worth the trouble it takes.
Laziness
Laziness is another factor that stands in the way of over-coming illusions. The temptation to bypass the difficulties of seeking truth and pursuing honesty lures everyone to some extent. Most of the time we slide into the style of the day and go with the flow. Because our present rational style (2001) has numerous admirable points, often going-along-to-get-along is not too harmful. Although there is a chorus (much needed) deploring the ethical aberrations of our time, the over all quality of rational expectation is far better than in many ages past.
Just going with the flow, thus, has some advantages. Many of us feel in the cunning of our inner mind that we might be able to get away with it. We convince ourselves that we don’t have to study logic because we pick up good intellectual habits from our peers and from our own exceptionally clever insight. Thus we justify our laziness.
But laziness in this matter is a mistake. Yes, the standards of our day are good. In numerous cases, they are better than they were 100 years ago. But, they are not yet good enough to meet the challenges of our technical, nuclear world. Our rational standards are well developed, but we need improvement. We don’t need enormous changes but we do need to upgrade rational skills if we are to make our world safer for living and raising families.
Affirmative elemental philosophers who wish to promote the guidelines of sound rational thinking and praise the wonders of impartial truth have the hard road to go. It is much easier to ride the sled of illusion. Relieved of the requirements of honesty, fantasy makers can weave alluring enchantments that leave truth seekers looking like dullards.
To write about impartial truth and right reason is easy. To actually sell the majesty of the project requires rare genius. The great minds who illuminate the true way so the rest of us can see are few and far between. Most get side tracked by one illusion or another.
Paradox
A major factor that acerbates illusion is the problem of paradox. The more we become intellectually curious, the more we stumble into paradox in every subject. Paradox in mathematics, psychology, epistemology, etc. point over and over to the difficulty of finding absolutely certain knowledge.
Some philosophers present puzzles of paradox to show proof that antagonism between thesis and antithesis ultimately drives the universe and that conflict, from rude to violent, is the way of progress. Addressing this argument is one of the major intellectual challenges we face today. Plus root theory rejects this view as an exaggeration. When normal give and take is turned into an absolute, it becomes a root error and causes problems rather than solving problems.
We need a mature understanding of the requirements of affirmative logic and fair play before we can intelligently and successfully handle problems of paradox and appreciate sound answers to questions concerning dialectical antagonism. If we adopt popular root errors and misunderstand the guidelines of sound rational thinking, there is no way out of the labyrinth of paradox we create in our thought puzzles. However, if we adequately correct the most serious root errors and sufficiently promote pertinent elemental verities, paradox does not overwhelm and we can again feel comfortable in pursuing our goal of rational improvement.
Fear
Fear is another factor that acerbates illusion. The pursuit of impartial truth has a terrifying aspect. Sometimes we fear that if we lose our illusions, we will fall to pieces. Religious people can be particularly sensitive this way.
But this fear of illusion is ungrounded, especially religious fear. Most religions, in one way or another, equate God with Truth. "God is truth and light his shadow" (Plato). "God is true and every man a liar" (Paul). "God is the truth, the way, and the light" (John).
If God is equated with truth, then the pursuit of truth is one with the pursuit of God. Development of knowledge is the realization of the spirit of God within the human soul. From a plus point of view, rather than being afraid of sound rational thinking, religions should applaud the use of right reason to acquire truth. St. Augustine (354-430) put it this way,
But if this truth were on the same plane with our minds, it too would be changeable. For our minds at one time see more clearly, at another time less: and from this they show that they are changeable. Whit it (truth) is neither more true when it is seen by us, nor less ture when we see it not: but entire and inviolate, it delights those who are turned to it by its lights, and those who are turned away it punishes by blindness.
The search for truth is a holy mission. When churches sincerely preach the love truth, they become places where people work together to seek truth, to support each other in developing honesty, to help each be their best self, and to be accepted for the integrity of their effort.
For the record, many religious people are and have been genuine truth-seekers. What is more, if we look at long term results, religions are best when they encourage sound rational thinking and pursue truth with an open mind. When religions try to suppress truth and discourage rational improvement, they change from honorable religion into something less. Following the lesser path, they can develop into the opposite of what religion should be.
Fear is often the source of illusion, but the fear of right reason and impartial truth is itself an illusion. The fear of logic and truth is a critical error of major proportions. Logophobia is a crucial root error.
Root Errors
As we all know, many causes of illusion abound in our imperfect world. The proximate source is often a misunderstanding, a false report, or lack of information. However, in too many cases, the deep seated causes of chronic illusions can be traced to root errors that settle into our thought systems and become habitual. Often root errors enter the style of the day and become ingrained for generations. Once adopted in the rational style of an age, we tend to ignore root errors, either because we fail to see them or because we deem them trivial and not worth the bother to fix.
Ptolemy Example
Obviously, illusions, as defined, are difficult to detect. No sane person sets out to live by illusion in preference to truth. To the contrary, we acquire illusions because we think the illusions are true. The illusion, once believed, sets us up to accept the next illusion. For example, in the second century A. D., Ptolemy of Alexandria gave to the world one of its first encyclopedias. He collected what was considered the knowledge of his day into 13 volumes of information that came to be known as The Algamest.
Using instruments made as precise as technicians of his day knew how to manufacture, Ptolemy charted 1022 stars in the sky. Measuring, counting and figuring, he developed numerous progressive ideas. Mixed in with his accurate information and sound reasons, there were some mistakes. One of these mistakes was his conclusion that the earth was the fixed center around which the moon, the sun, the plants, and the stars rotated. This is an excellent example of illusion as plus defined.
Ptolemy's Error 1 and 2
Error-1: The earth is the fixed, unmoving, center of the universe.
This error is a set up for the next mistake which logically follows.
Error-2: The moon, the sun, the planets, and the stars orbit the earth.
The problem is with Ptolemy’s false premise. One illusion (false premise) led to a collection of illusions that became tightly interwoven into complex systems which for centuries were presumed water tight and sacrosanct. We all know the story of Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, etc. and the opposition they encountered as they unraveled the confusions that evolved from Error-1. Using hindsight, we can see that accepting Error-1 worked as an intellectual constriction holding back the development of science. Once that illusion was broken, science took off in one major development after another.
Ramifications
Some illusions are much worse than others. Ptolomy’s Error-1 was a major mistake because the ramifications were extensive. For one thing, judging the earth to be the unmoving, fixed center of the solar system limits, in calculations, the distance between earth and stars because of the speed involved in orbiting the earth. This, in turn, made it necessary for philosophers to reject the notion of a vast, far reaching universe. Astronomers, following Ptolemy, concocted ingenious inventions to account for the various aberrations of the planets in their measurements.
Copernicus (1473-1543) did not face a simple primitive superstition. He had to confront an intricate interwoven net of rationalizations held together by massive mathematical calculations and instrumental measurements that were considered sophisticated at the time. People, who had studied for years to master the calculations used to justify Ptolomy’s Error-1, had their intellectual life invested in the belief. They were in love with their illusions and held on tight.
Most scholars of the day were not receptive to what Copernicus was trying to do, not because they were superstitious, but because they were committed to an involved intellectual rationalization that grew out of years of mathematical studies. Mathematicians like to think of themselves as open-minded intellectuals, but if you page through history, it is possible to find many mathematicians who were closed minded. Korzybsky started as a mathematician.
Sort
Another point to be made about illusions is that, although the ramifications of an illusion may be sweeping, an illusion does not affect every judgment. In Ptolomy’s case, many of his thoughts were admirably sound. He discovered several advanced geometrical proofs and theorems; he prepared a useful calendar; he helped explain weather patterns; he did good introductory work on optics, refraction, and music. Ptolomy taught that the earth was a globe, predicted the equator, improved methods of making maps and provided scholars with a clear, well spoken method of describing phenomena. Ptolemy is an excellent example of a strange mix of elaborate mistakes combined with sound theory. Exposing his mistakes as false, did not change the truth of his correct observations and valid deductions—which were correct and valid for other reasons!
It is important to emphasize that, because Ptolemy made several very serious errors does not mean we must conclude that everything Ptolemy said was false. It is a totalitarian reaction to reject everything because something is wrong. Our proper response, from a plus point of view, is to sort illusion from knowledge. We do the work required to correct the illusion and preserve the knowledge.
The need to sort applies to all thinkers. No one writes with such purity that every statement he/she composes is free from error. Conversely, even the most wayward ideologist will be correct part of the time. By developing understanding about the propositional character of illusions and their propositional ramifications we can learn how to separate them from an otherwise healthy body of knowledge. We can keep that which is useful and set aside the rest. The more adroit we become at sorting knowledge from illusion, the more value we can gain from history and from present studies.
Philosophy, past and present, is a mix of plus and minus. We can profitably examine the values of philosophers by sorting judgments, studying connections, and observing consequences. This, as an approach to history, is more helpful in applying the lessons of the past to present problems than trying to pigeonhole philosophers into fashionable categories such as nominalism, empiricism, existentialism, structuralism, and now post modernism or post deconstructionalism. If we examine the thoughts of philosophers with discernment we can correct bygone mistakes while preserving worthy values and benefiting from the lessons of history. Anything less is not good enough to meet the challenges of our present age.
Examining the development of philosophy by sorting knowledge from illusion helps us learn how to do the same with current affairs. It is easier to develop honesty in the present when we have a well formed perspective on the past. Recorded history offers inexhaustible wells of data to sort. The mistakes of the past were never pure mistakes. They were illusions mixed with knowledge that, in many cases, were compromised by varying amounts of deliberate deception.
That which was true then is still true now. That which is false then is still false. Was Richard III guilty or innocent of murdering the twin princes? If Richard III was falsely accused, as many historians say may have been the case, he was innocent. If he was innocent at the time, he did not later become guilty simply because Thomas More and Shakespeare said so.
If we can learn the lessons of the past, we can avoid major mistakes in the present. Why should we repeat the same mistake over and over? The more we can avoid major root errors, the more we can prevent future agonies and the more we can advance our abilities to progress in peace.
Drama
The conflict between knowledge and illusion exhibits a continuing struggle in the human story. We are all involved in the game of true or false. Every person is the center of a drama in which fact battles fantasy, honesty contends with deceit, and every person builds his or her own character as they choose reality or make-believe.
Sorting knowledge from illusion is never boring. Illusion has an original attraction because people think the illusion is true. Illusion leads us into traps. Truth is the opposite and leads to freedom. As we develop our appreciation of the power of impartial truth and taste the wonders that come our way as we explore paths of knowledge, the more exciting our lives become. Each illusion is a door shut in our face. As we open it we find a new marvels to explore.
If we can see truth as our universal ally and error as our universal enemy, we do not have to fight each other but we can join together in an endeavor to applaud and celebrate knowledge and integrity as we overcome ignorance and duplicity.
Truth is a unifying aspect of reality. The more we value it, the more we come together in a community developing our knowledge as we seek truth.
In contrast, illusion is a polarizing aspect of reality. Virtually every hatred and cruelty and war can be traced to an illusion. The last thing we need in this world are more illusions.
The contest between our urge to honesty and the lure of illusion creates an unending drama. Theory never totally transcends this struggle. Practice can never be final. No matter how perverse society might become there will always be some commonsense honesty and some who will not capitulate to the enchantment of error. Conversely, no matter how well we purify our theories, illusion will still lure us with its fantastic promises. We continue to be challenged with the difficulty of distinguishing between knowledge and illusion. What one believes to be true, another may believe to be an illusion.
From early times diversities of opinion have abounded among people, even the most learned, to the extent that there is no opinion, no matter how absurd, that has not prevailed somewhere at some time.
There is nothing about which men really agree, nothing so absurd that some sage has not said it.
Complexity
This chapter tackles the "Why Not" question. If elemental problems are critically important and if fixing root errors is within the expertise of ordinary people, then why don’t we do it? In other words, why do we allow root errors to abide generation after generation when we could easily fix them with down to earth commonsense, if we just would?
The answer to this question is curious. If the solutions to difficulties wrought by root errors were self-evident, then serious root errors would already be fixed. But, in reading rational philosophy, especially that stemming from leftist German ideology and French existentialism, it is obvious that epistemological and other elemental problems are rampant and the solutions are not easily apparent. To make matters worse, mistakes complicate mistakes as errors of the past become embedded in aspects of present rational fashion. Some root errors persist because they are there. These mistakes collect, become settled in our thought patterns, and slowly add up. We get used to them and don’t even realize they exist. The major reason we don’t fix root errors is because of the complexity.
The magnitude of the difficulties is frightening. For starters, major problems extend from the sheer number of root errors involved. Added to that are the problems that develop from the entangled combinations of plus and minus we encounter. True and false are twisted together so we can’t tell which is which. What is more, root errors interconnect so that one mistake tends to bring forth another. [See Eg. Ptolomy Error1 Chapter 09] Furthermore, complications occur from elemental double standards and from the conceits of absolutism, subjectivism. Paradoxes, natural and artificial, multiply already numerous incongruities. To add complexity these confusions at all levels of thinking. To this we add the dangers of superstition, magic and sorcery, part of the many illusions which confound the affairs of mankind. To make matters worse, many problems go unheeded because root errors easily escape our scrutiny and we don’t realize they are there. On top of that , when we do notice elemental blunders we tend pass them off as trivial or shrug our shoulders and treat the difficulty as if it were hopeless. It is no wonder that people tend leave elemental problems alone.
Let’s go over a few of these predicaments one at a time.
Numerous
It’s not an exaggeration to say that elemental (epistemological, logical, semantic, linguistic, etc.) problems are numerous. In intellectual society, the number of root errors is astronomical. To gather a notion of the numbers involved, make a list of questions that fall within the field of elemental theory and then count them. [See Numbers Essay for a short list].
After estimating the number of questions, then consider the number of answers, both correct and incorrect. If you do this exercise, you should have a large number.
The number of possible mistaken answers to the questions will be even larger than the number of questions. This is because it is possible to have several incorrect answers to one question.
Add these together and you will see that the quantity of elemental problems we face is titanic. If we try to answer them one at a time, the task is beyond mortal means.
To get an idea of what is involved let’s examine one short question.
Do ideas symbolize objects?
The usefulness of an answer to this question depends, first of all, on the definitions of (1) "ideas", (2) "symbolize", and (3) "objects". If each term has ten possible different definitions, a modest count, this sentence presents a thousand possible propositions; -- And that’s only one question of four words. But that is not the full extent of the confusion. We need to ask whether the question is even worth pursuing? From a plus point of view this example is a misleading question and we waste our time trying to answer it the way it is phrased.
Another way to estimate numbers is to examine books. For a personal note, my home library has approximately a thousand books dealing with philosophy. These books average about 500 pages. This gives a total of approximately 500,000 pages in my library. Let’s say each page averages one proposition with elemental import. Accepting this estimate, then around five hundred thousand propositions concerning the subject of elemental theory inhabit my small library. Most of these propositions are true enough; that is, they are adequate for the occasion and qualify as root verities. However, even the best philosopher makes some mistakes. If two percent of the propositions under discussion were mistaken, then we can roughly estimate 10,000 root errors in the books that surround my desk. If it took one chapter to refute each error, the resulting book would have 10,000 chapters. If it took a month to write each chapter, and I started now, I could hope to be done in the year 2825.
This exercise in numbers is intended to be humorous. Even though no one is going to count the root errors in my library, just thinking about the project gives an idea of the difficulty. If we extrapolate from my library to libraries in general, the number of recorded root errors goes into the billions. That’s a bunch. To construct a well rounded refutation of the root errors already made would take more time than is available even if everybody worked on it for fifty years.
Numerous
But numbers are not the only complication. Root errors usually come mixed in with sound statements and intriguing ideas. Using the word ‘mix’ is a shortcut way to say that verities and errors mingle with each other in such a manner that knowledge is often mixed with illusion. {See Chapter 09].
When root values are mixed, well formed judgments amalgamate with those that are false or meaningless. They meld together and we don’t see the differences as we read along. In this manner, root errors slip in among well-spoken acuities. Many people tend to accept the error at the same time they consent to the sound aspects of the presentation. For example, in 1962, Henry D. Aiken in his anthology, Philosophy in the Twentieth Century, wrote,
The fact is, however, that the German idealists, like many recent critics of Moore and Russell, wholly rejected the premises on which the Cartesian search for ultimate logical, elemental, and semantical simples is based. They did not believe that any idea can be understood, or indeed that it has any significant meaning, in isolation from all others. They did not believe that the truth or validity of any proposition can be made out by isolating it from all other propositions and then, as it were, trying to superimpose it upon the equally distinct and isolated "facts" to which it is said to "correspond." And though their theories were often stated in terms that are unnecessarily vague and obscure, it is a proof of the vitality of the idealist theory of interpretation that in a new and no doubt more refined form it is once again emerging as the fresh insight of our more advanced logicians and semanticists.
This comment, as in most of Aiken’s works, expresses several accurate evaluations. However, if we analyze the above quote into propositional components, explicit and implied, we can see that at least three insidious—and very serious—root errors nestle in this one quote. For example, connecting Descartes, Russell and Moore with that misleading phrase about "ultimate - simples" confuses the difference between "Certainty" and "Truth" and contorts the real problem out of shape. Also, although it was true that in 1962, many logical theorists were amplifying German dialectical ideology, Aiken jumps the gun in announcing that this trend is a proven advancement. To further confuse the issue, ‘revival’ was the wrong word to use in regard to German ideology. Even though Nazism had been defeated, German radical ideology was in its heyday in 1962. At the time Aiken wrote the above remark, Dialectical Materialism was flourishing and mutated versions of Marxist analysis were sweeping the universities around the world, including the United States. Although it is safe to presume Aiken’s root errors were not deliberate, they, nonetheless, mislead the unwary and rob Aiken of the joy of using his talents in a more constructive manner.
In mixed elemental presumptions, mistakes and verities combine in such a manner that isolating the error for proper refutation, requires time-consuming intellectual surgery. To refute the root errors in the above quote requires establishing of terminology, review of history and development of a commonly accepted method of logical discourse. With this in place, we can begin to refute the errors involved but who has the time for this?
Trying to sort the mix of mistakes and verities that Aiken concocted in just this one paragraph presents overwhelming difficulties. It is likely that many people reading material of this type feel that something is off kilter, but they also recognize the near impossibility of refuting the transgressions and so allow misinformation to stand without comment. Who wants to bother with the trouble it takes to try to fix elemental blunders implied in material of this type. Even if someone did the work involved, who cares? Probably there is a well researched article in some scholarly journal resting on a dusty library self that nicely refutes these errors—and is never read.
Much of what Aiken said in his over-all work is true enough, but his root errors blend in with his sound commentary in such a way that monumental confusion hinders the project of trying to correct the errors he propounds. If the mistakes in question were in straight forward statements, they would be easier to fix. Instead they are mixed in with thoughts of penetrating insight. The fallacy seems trivial compared to the brilliance of his shrewd understanding in other matters. In this way, root errors slip in cracks between well spun rhetoric.
Elemental mixes are often, as in the case of Aiken, put together with skillful composition. Mixes of affirmative and negative add curious complexities to questions of theory and make solving elemental problems a jungle of confusion.
Aiken wrote the above at a time (1962) when we in the USA desperately needed a clear, rational critique of German Ideology. Aiken and his coeditor, William Barrett, had the talent, energy, and influence to counteract the power of mystical antagonism that has exacerbated so much 19th and 20th century violence. Instead, these talented men became vehicles for perpetuating deep, consequential elemental conflict. In so doing, they hindered the development toward courteous commonsense comity which was (and is) underway in middle class society. In all likelihood, acerbating antagonism is not what they wanted to do. Through insidious little jabs they undid their own objectives. This tragedy happened because they picked up, in their personal philosophy, root errors that bent them in a direction they would never go if they realized the ramifications of their warped elemental insinuations.
Network
Another component adding to the complexity of elemental problems is the network of interdependence in which root assumptions (verities or mistakes) suggest and perpetuate each other. On the plus side this is good because one sound elemental maxim clearly spoken tends to bring forth more sound elemental maxims. When this happens, (as it often does) mankind benefits. However, on the minus side, the interconnection of elemental assumptions can be ominous because one error often leads to others. As root errors interconnect, they form clusters that are tedious to disentangle. The Ptolomy example Chapter 09 is a case in point.
The network effect of root errors is evident particularly in definitions. A misformed definition in a key position can set a whole argument off base. For example, in speaking of Emerson, Merrill Peterson wrote,
Emerson … had been captivated by the Coleridgian distinction between the Reason and the Understanding … It was, he said, ‘philosophy itself’ … Reason is the highest faculty of the soul …: it never reasons, never proves; it simply perceives, it is a vision. The understanding toils all the time, compares, contrives, adds, argues, (it is) nearsighted … dwelling in the present …
It is difficult to find a more inappropriate definition of a philosophical idea than the above definition of reason. When the term ‘reason’ is defined as that faculty that does not use reasons, constructive elemental conversation slows to a stumble. If a person seriously tries to follow through with this definition, one error follows another until the rational enterprise becomes grid locked.
Neither Coleridge nor Emerson consistently applied this grotesque definition in their own works. In both cases, most of their writing proceeds using normal unbiased middle terms adequately distributed, as should be. However, their dysfunctional definition of ‘reason’ inter links with misshapen conclusions that surface in unexpected spots in their arguments.
The subtle connections that thread through philosophy touched by root errors require an enormous investment of time and energy to trace. Who wants the job? Who would read it?
Hidden
To add to the complexity of the problem, root errors are often hidden from view. In reading Emerson or Coleridge, we would not normally suspect an unusual definition of reason (as above) was working. However, once aware the thought is there, we can detect repercussions that would otherwise escape notice. Perhaps if Coleridge’s notion of reason (and truth) had not been so far removed from good commonsense, his scheme to form a Pantisocracy (Utopian Society) in America might have worked and Coleridge’s vision of the power of Spirit in the affairs of mankind might not have ended in so much travail, drugs, and despair.[B175/II/72-4]
Emerson (born 1803 in Boston and graduated from Harvard in 1821), in much of his thinking kept a strong hold on candid commonsense. Unfortunately, through his love affair with a few elemental errors, he helped set the stage for the undoing of affirmative logic as an academic subject in American education. If Emerson, who esteemed the transcendental aspect of Kant’s thinking, had been able to see the root errors hidden in Kant’s assumptions, Emerson might have avoided some of the mind-binding contradictions that misdirected the transcendental movement he helped inspire. Unfortunately, the errors in Kant’s epistemology burrow so deep that even Kant couldn’t see them.
Like microorganisms, elemental (epistemological, logical, etc.) assumptions easily escape notice. We need an intellectual microscope to discover their existence. Also, like microorganisms, once found we move from surprise to surprise as we learn how numerous they are and how they affect our well-being. Root verities, similar to friendly microbes, promote health. On the other hand, root errors, like unsanitary bacteria, cause intellectual disease and sometimes even bring on death.
As in the case of micro-organisms, it takes much study of root values to learn which are dangerous and which are friendly. Just spotting them is not enough. We have to trace their life cycle to learn their habits and observe their effects. Hidden aspects of root errors adds another layer of complexity to an already complex subject.
Trivialities
There is still more confusion to add to the complexity of elemental theory. Many of us tend to treat elemental questions as if they were trivialities. For example, H. M. Hubbell in his introduction to Cicero’s De Inventione comments,
The treatise "De Inventione" is a youthful work of Cicero, which was probably written while he was studying the elements of oratory, and is in fact hardly more than an elaborate note-book in which he recorded the dictation of his teacher. To this he later added conventional introductions when he decided to publish. It is an immature work, stiff, didactic and formal, and shows, except in the introduction, no promise of the opulence of style and breadth of thought which were to characterize the rhetorical works of his later years.
Hubble politely dismisses De Inventione as unimportant because it was a less eloquent exercise Cicero did when quite young. From a affirmative point of view, the opposite is true. In this exercise, Cicero provided a synopsis of the education he received and a short cut to the instruction that laid the ground work for the mature Cicero. Very seldom do we have a capsule of the education of a great man. The work, rather than being a mere "stiff", "conventional" exercise, should be considered a major resource in the history of Western Civilization.
Another example of the problem of triviality is in Susan Langer’s Symbolic Logic (1937). She wrote,
From this brief account, it may be seen that the categorical syllogism is a small part of the algebra of classes, namely, a sub-system limited to three terms, other than 0 or 1, and their respective complements, and setting forth the relations of inclusion (partial or total) among these. Thousands of men, through thousands of years, have had millions of headaches over the 24 valid and 40 invalid combinations of these terms, arranging, relating, and naming them. Symbolic logic proves them all equivalent to just three forms of a much greater system.
Susan Langer, a follower of Bertrand Russell, expresses the view of many modern logicians. They don’t deny the validity of syllogistic rules but they fail to see how syllogistic requirements apply to modern rhetoric. They dismiss the syllogistic enterprise as a curiosity of the past and a mere triviality for the present.
Granted, logicians are thoroughly justified in their excitement with mathematical logic. Basic to computers, higher mathematics, and modern physical sciences, it’s one of the wonders of the world. Modern mathematical logic is a dream come true.
However, this does not make the older syllogistic logic obsolescent. The older logic is a broad category of which we can treat mathematical logic as a division. We needed mathematical logic to develop the atomic bomb. Now we need sound syllogistic logic to negotiate a working peace so we don’t use atomic bombs to destroy our world.
The tendency to dismiss syllogistic logic as trivial, is a crucial root error. It is a serious mistake because it goes right to the heart of the problems of modern society. [See Part C for an expansion of this thought.]
Level of Root Splits
As already discussed, root errors can occur in subliminal, liminal, and critical states of awareness. This introduces another dimension of complexity in the science of elemental theory.
Sometimes a crucial root error is stored deep in our thoughts where it operates as a subliminal illusion. Errors of this nature create obscure double standards because our subconscious sends our conscious mind contradictory signals. Our intuitional knowledge tells us one thing but subliminal illusions suggest another.
When we countenance elemental double standards at any level of thinking, we accept contradictory elemental ideas in different areas of thought. For example, philosophers will use rationally developed argumentation to argue that rationality has failed and must be replaced by sentiment or instinct or some form of antithetical dialectic action and reaction.
Just because a writer says he opposes rationality doesn’t mean he ceases being rational. Rationality can not be turned off. Norman O. Brown tried to do it in Love’s Body" [B316] but failed. His thinking was rational but often not sound. He gave many reasons but they mere excuses. When professors of philosophy reject the requirements of affirmative logic, they grant themselves exemption from the requirements of sound rational thinking.
We cannot choose to turn rationality off, but we can choose how we use our rationality. Are we satisfied with any reason that pops into our mind and slides downhill or do we want sound and sufficient reasons?
Strange to say, adopting root errors does not mean that the people involved always reject root verities. This is not the case. Cultures, insofar as they grow civil, ground themselves on sound rational thinking. Successful societies educate people to incorporate numerous root verities into their thought systems. Most of us, as we mature, develop a credible repertoire of sound rational assumptions basic to our problem solving skills that we use as a matter of course, even though we rarely discuss them.
When we inadvertently adopt root errors we do not erase sound elemental axioms. Instead we "split" our thinking and set elemental double standards in our mind. As we think, we carry on our own internal "disputation" as to which elemental directive will dominate at which time. It is common for us in our thinking to run both sound and unsound at the same time, speaking coherently out of one side of our mouth, and erratically out of the other. Eric Fromm gives us many examples of this type of double standard. He is so cleaver at double talk that many readers do not catch his real meaning.
The prevalence of root splits in our thought systems helps explain why many people avoid a study of elemental theory. We intuitively fear that digging into our tangled mind might destroy our ability to solve problems. Even worse, we fear that giving up elemental illusions might erase our identity and even annihilate our very self. But the exact opposite is true. Correcting root errors at all levels of awareness helps to strengthen people’s problem solving skills, enhances personal identity, and vitalizes the true self within. We desperately need philosophers and psychologists who not only recognize that correcting root errors is a healthy endeavor. We also need to know how to tell what is healthy and what is unhealthy.
Paradox
Another complication that adds complexity to the task of correcting root errors is the matter of paradox. Elemental questions, because they are basic, numerous, mixed, interconnected, and hidden, inevitably lead us into puzzling paradox. Each time we resolve one paradox, another appears. These puzzles are wonderful intellectual exercises and, if approached in this manner, help advance knowledge. Serious problems develop, however, when philosophers use paradox as an excuse to reject and disparage the basic requirements of sound rational thinking. To solve puzzles we need more sound rational thinking, not less.
Paradox adds endless challenges to the task of trying to understand our rational talents but it does not make everything of the past obsolete or excuse the rejection of sound rational commonsense thinking in the present.
There are two types of paradox in elemental theory. The first type is natural and inherent in the subject. For example, to defend the basic guidelines of sound rational thinking one must use the basic guidelines of rational thinking. To explain why a person should repair root errors and promote sound rational axioms, one must assume the axioms one aims to establish. Fundamental dilemmas reside in elemental theory by nature and lead inevitably into paradox. As we work on natural paradox we advance our comprehension and appreciation of the complexity of the subject.
The other type of paradox is artificially constructed by the adoption of root errors. This problem is not a true paradox. Instead it is an synthetically created problem that we can resolve by correcting the errors involved.
Because natural paradox inevitably accompanies elemental questions, philosophers usually introduce paradoxical puzzles into the early stages of their discussions of knowledge and theories of truth. One of the reasons epistemology has acquired its present taboo is because too many philosophers have tried to solve too many dilemmas without first acquiring the basic tools necessary to do a credible job. An analogy is in the field of astronomy. Scientists attempting to discover the forces that drive the universe should first learn arithmetic. An aspiring astronomer who doesn’t understand decimals will not do well in solving problems of quantum physics. Where you put the decimal point can make a big difference.
This study avoids the difficulty of becoming bogged down in the quandaries of paradox by saving a discussion of enigmatic contradictions for more advanced analysis. It’s important from the start to keep in mind that these problems exist, but in the long run we make better progress if we build a sturdy ship before launching into stormy seas. Plus root theory provides the tools we need to distinguish artificial from natural paradox. It provides a reliable critical way to tackle the difficult problems involved—many of which are mathematical.
Credulity and Cynicism
The top heavy load of complexity we encounter in discussing elemental theory is real. When we learn to appreciate the scope of the problem, it explains, to considerable extent, why many people avoid the subject.
We can see this avoidance in two mistaken attitudes that have been prominent in the history of mankind: (1) abso-ism, which is short sighted credulity and (2) subso-ism, which is subjective cynicism. Abso-ism, the first mistaken attitude, ignores complexity and addresses the basic problems of rationality as if they were self evident or of little challenge. The second mistaken attitude, subso-ism, demands too much and declares that, if an answer is not perfect, then it is useless. Both lean toward totalitarian movements that view more or less problems in terms of all or none. At first glance, these two attitudes appear to be opposites.
Abso-ism occurs in elemental theory when people accept or reject answers to elemental questions without attempting to understand what is involved. They are overly credulous. They choose to avoid the trouble of thinking about elemental problems by pretending that there is no problem. Because they do not see what is involved, they fail to take the time to be accurate.
The credulous believe what is handed to them because someone said so. They swallow explanations with the same ease they pick ordeaurves off a platter. In philosophical matters, credulous people are gullible and virtually invite root errors into their rational systems of thought. They do not aim for rational improvement because they see no need.
The second wrong road, subso-ism is a form of disbelief. Subso-ism is more sophisticated than abso-ism. In subjective cynicism, people correctly recognize the complexity of elemental theory but they over-react and jump to the conclusion that, because the problem is multi-complicated, it is therefore hapless or hopeless. Adopting the cynical frame of mind, subjective pundits subscribe to an all or none mentality in which, if they can’t have a quick, absolute answer, they don’t want any answer, at least not a commonsense answer.
Cynical doubt leads to despair about the possibilities of rational solutions to the problems that face mankind. The cynic either drops out or is drawn to polar invert dialectics that encourage mystical antagonism which, in turn, leads to the pursuit of power for the sake of power, as in case of Fascism.
Although the two attitudes appear the opposite, both the naif and the cynic avoid facing the real troubles that need fixing. The first, by avoiding complexity, denies the problem. The second, by declaring the problem hopeless, denies solutions. Both relieve themselves of the responsibility of correcting troublesome mistakes. Even worse, both feed on each other.
In both cases, the enormous complexity of elemental theory is the real source of the problem.
People know intuitively that elemental theory is like the mythological labyrinth built by Daedalus to contain Minotaur, the monster half bull and half human. The labyrinth was so complex that once inside most could not find their way out. The only safe solution was never to enter. We need a modern Theseus who dares accept the challenge, has the strength to kill the monster, and the wit to return.
Multi-Complex Question
The complexities mentioned above are not the only difficulties that complicate elemental theory. Elemental problems vary in degrees of importance. Some really are trivial while others hold the key to decency. Added to that, root errors have emotional connections, political implications and religious overtones (the section on Fair Play expands on this notion). Furthermore, elemental assumptions are personal People easily identify themselves with their elemental assumptions and feel threatened at the possibility of changing beliefs deeply embedded in personal thought systems. In terms of historical development, superstition and magic have been great obstacles to elemental progress. [See Human Nature Part E]
The main reason we do not do the work required to fix crucial root errors is because the complexity of the maze turns us away. If we are to break down the reluctance to address elemental conundrums, we need a ball of thread to lead us out of the mess after we enter. Trying to deny the complexity of elemental theory will not solve the problem. Giving up in despair will not solve the problem.
Cultivated honest commonsense is our ball of thread. We all have enough if we learn to use it well.
Plus root theory holds that a large number of people already have enough educated commonsense, honesty, and fair play to be the thread. We humans can use our own liminal acumen to guide our way as we slay the elemental monster and safely return.
Because many people already have cultivated commonsense and a commitment to honesty, the problem is not hopeless. We can make significant improvement if we face complexity straight on, recognize our limits, acknowledge our possibilities, and aim to make things better rather than worse.
Because we are limited in our rational gifts and because elemental problems are profoundly complex, we cannot hope to solve all elemental problems, or to even solve one absolutely. However, we have real rational talents and a natural ability to distinguish sound from unsound. Problem solving skills are already well cultivated in a large number of people. We can find good enough answers to meet the needs of our day. The results are worth the trouble.
I’ve allus notices grate success
is mixed with troubles more or less,
And it’s the man who does his best
That gets more kicks than all the rest.
After investigating the complex pits inherent in elemental rational philosophy, perhaps we should reconsider the cynic’s position? Maybe complications overwhelm possibilities and we should admit that the psycho-mess has gone beyond repair? Or worse, perhaps Nietzsche told the truth when he said:
Socrates was a misunderstanding; the whole improvement morality, including the Christian, was a misunderstanding.
Nietzsche contends that rationality is a disease and that the formula of happiness equals instinct. Nietzsche expressed a despair for rational improvement that permeated avant-garde ideology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. [See Scratch]
To be honest, expecting improvement in rational skill does not mean much on face value. Very few people would be opposed to rational improvement if convinced that that which is called ‘improvement’ genuinely was improvement. Most who oppose the improvement mentality feel it has been tried since Prometheus brought fire to man but has been a disaster. The harder man works to use his rational gifts the more miserably he fails.
Those who concluded that the improvement mentality had failed began to insist on something radically new. Following this reasoning, Hegel (transcendental non-Aristotelian dialectic), Marx (Communistic Dialectical Materialism), Mussolini (Fascism), Hitler (Nazism), Sartre (Existentialism) and those who dog their steps, rejected the improvement mentality and raised to a fine art their radical effective reverse value ideology, dialectic and totalitarian socialism.
But their dubious dialectic hasn’t worked. In Europe, two centuries of psycho-heroic revolution and totalitarian confrontation has produced so many disasters that the time has come to consider the possibility that Nietzsche, Sorel, Lenin, and like minded dialecticians, are the ones who failed and that simple commonsense improvement mentality, represented by Joseph Addison, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and followers of affirmative logic, is what succeeds.
A relatively easy solution to complexity awaits. Granted, inherent difficulties warn us not to expect instant or absolute answers. However—and this is what counts—the problem of complexity does not rule out the possibility of improvement. If we have a feasible method and if we motivate ourselves to do the work and if we instigate a few well-chosen corrections, then we, the truth seeking majority, can use our clout to help upgrade collective abilities enough to advance our abilities to progress in peace.
Nietzsche had it exactly backwards. Improvement is what we need and improvement is what we can have. What is more, the genuinely fresh, upscale and top notch point of view has always been in the ways of those who have the wit to see the creative power of improvement mentality.
The notion of improvement in problem solving assumes we already have some logical skills at our disposal and that we do not have to start from scratch. Also, opting for rational improvement assumes improvement is feasible. Along with that, the idea of rational improvement implies that, even though human knowledge is limited, possibilities abound for development within our restricted perimeters. A project of rational improvement presupposes it is worth the effort required to clarify meaning, to develop symbols that fit the case, to encourage sound judgment, and to popularize standards of valid deduction. When we choose rational improvement as an objective, by implication, we declare it is worth our while to set goals, to encourage persistence, and to establish sound rational guidelines to help us move toward our objective.
Rational improvement means progress in promoting sound rational thinking in individuals and headway in upgrading rational style in society. Surely we can do better than we now do.
Affirmative Rationality bolstered by Basic Common Logic is a feasible method. When we use an Affirmative Rational commitment in ordinary everyday thinking we call it commonsense. Part C of The Roots of Sound Rational Thinking explains Basic Common Logic in an introductory manner.
Problems develop when we make mistakes. If we make mistakes in assessing the basic requirements of sound rational thinking, we make elemental rational mistake. We make root errors.
As previously mentioned, to speak constructively about elemental rational theory we need terminology we can understand and meanings we can share. Unfortunately, too many words have been squandered by lax linguistics and political spin. In the process, we have loaded philosophical words with so many contrary and contradictory meanings that the terminology in place no longer expedites communication.
Establishing definitions that fit the need, stands now as one of the most difficult challenges of modern elemental theory. Plusroot Theory addresses this problem by clarifying our understanding of the requirements of reliable definition theory and by using stipulated appropriate definitions. These efforts underlie normal discourse and science.
Rational improvement, as defined here, is not mere zigzag action and reaction. Rational improvement supposes an involvement with a well formed set of logical requirements already adequately understood. Affirmative reasoners not only respect the guidelines of sound rational thinking, but make a concerted effort to follow them in practice.
The working guidelines of sound rational thinking are straightforward requirements that people with cultivated commonsense already know to a satisfactory degree. Some of the basics are: (1) survey the field, (2) identify issues, (3) take steps to clarify meaning, (4) set goals, (5) divide problems into smaller parts, (6) state pertinent questions in writing, (7) determine priorities, (8) plan procedures, (9) design tests, (10) keep records, (11) measure that which is germane and measurable, (12) adequately define that which needs defining, (13) do that which we believe needs doing if it is ethical and economically feasible, (14) When answers seem clear, form a tentative synthesis and, as time passes, follow through with checks and rechecks to test the veracity of the proposed hypothesis.
These are some of the working guidelines of sound rational thinking. In well-formed reasoning, we use these guidelines when examining matters of consequence. It’s not a big secret. The basic guidelines are easy to understand. Analysis, based on sound rational thinking, is commonsense unbiased logic at work. Part Three of this study examines guidelines of sound rational thinking in detail.
In establishing order of procedure, motivation stands high on our list of root problems. Motivation is important because, unless we are motivated, we won’t do anything at all. In driving a car, we start the engine before we head to the store.
Improvement is a step by step process. In pursuing rational improvement, we fix a blunder, promote a root tenet, correct a mistake, solve a problem. Improvement mentality avoids totalitarian extremes.
Rational improvement is non-totalitarian. It avoids all-or-none thinking in those cases where more or less is appropriate. The idea of rational improvement reverberates with values and ethical implications. It is something we should do, not merely a description of something we do do. Rational improvement is a type of moral progress.
Radical totalitarian thinkers demand quick solutions that are impossible. They plead for single answers to complex questions and are indignant when results are not immediate. When a society fails to produce instant results in complicated situations, discontents use the time lag as fodder for revolution.
Rational improvement is the alternative to totalitarian mentality. Totalitarian thinking, as already mentioned, demands total solutions or gives up in despair and declares everything hopeless. Totalitarian thinking is unjustified all or none dichotomizing. Those of a totalitarian mentality are ripe for a radical revolution because they maintain improvement has completely failed and they see present conditions as absolutely intolerable. Those of an improvement mentality are of a different mind set. They want to fix what needs fixing and keep what already works.
If we practice rational improvement, then we can expect each generation to add something to what was learned before. When we can negotiate fair resolution to conflict, then we do not need violent revolutions. We do not need cataclysmic reversals. We do not deed radical change—and Karl Marx is out of business. Instead of riot, murder, and mayhem, if we learn the lessons of history, we can preserve the values that work, identify schemes that fail, fix mistakes in a controlled, experimental manner, and make improvements in a non-violent atmosphere. This method will triumph if enough people really want it to and will do the work required to make it succeed. If we care, we can find ways to reduce the damage created by negative militants who take our problems and whip them into a whirlwind of crisis.
The notion of rational improvement implies that we, individually and collectively, already have developed rational skills and already have many good intellectual habits. Endorsing rational improvement as a way to advance our abilities to progress in peace in today’s society begins with the assumption that most people, as of right now, possess a rational repertoire that works well in numerous areas. Improvement mentality respects the opinions of other people even when in disagreement.
Asking for a little more is not asking for much. Present skills could function much better if we polish away some rust that makes the engine sluggish. There is no need, as some demand, to start over from scratch with a new logic that rejects traditions of the past in a wholesale sweep. From a rational improvement point of view, the influential California professor, Theodore Roszak, sent the wrong message when he declared,
It is indeed tragic that in a crisis that demands the tact and wisdom of maturity, everything that looks most hopeful in our culture should be building from scratch—as must be the case when the builders are absolute beginners.
Roszak wrote this in the late Sixties for young people who needed to learn how to regain their rational heritage—not reject it. This message from Rosack as with the above quote from Nietzsche was exactly wrong.
Instead of rejecting the whole because some parts were frayed, we are better served if we work to sort true from false, to upgrade knowledge already learned, to correct mistakes that need correcting, and to continue to uphold an atmosphere conducive to discovery.
Those who prefer friendly step by step rational improvement, rather than heroic all or none revolution in which one faction overthrows another, believe that we best meet the challenges of our day by applauding positive achievements of previous thinkers and by recognizing values of the past as stepping stones to new accomplishments.
In seeking non-violent ways to bring more justice to society, philosophers, who encourage the development of affirmative logic, are sympathetic to the improvement mentality. Instead of revolutionary rhetoric that opposes fundamentals of affirmative logic, those who favor sound rational thinking seek to preserve knowledge acquired over the centuries. Furthermore, those who favor sound rational thinking are willing to do the work required to learn more and make improvements.
People who prize the guidelines of sound rational thinking are not paralyzed by past mistakes. Rather than despairing about errors of the past, thinkers who favor right reason will work to repair old errors to the best of their ability and to intellectually set the stage for creative new ideas to build a better future.
Admittedly, some past theories presented as ‘improvement’ failed to meet expectations. After bad experiences, we justifiably shy away from over-optimistic claims. However, because negative aspects of past theories proved inadequate, does not mean that everything done in the past was bad and that we must now throw out the affirmative aspects of Western Civilization and start over.
Much from the past is good and should be preserved with pride. Many rational principles of older agendas genuinely helped to avoid disaster and, when ethically applied, brought disputers into constructive accord. Erasmus and Vives, for example, proposed many guidelines for discussion that actually worked when augmented in the spirit they advocated.
In the middle ages, a Norwegian king stayed home from the crusades. Instead of leading an army, he spent his time shaping laws so people could obtain justice. He believed in improvement through law and not by force or fighting.
Systein said to his brother, "I have heard that thou hast won many battles in foreign lands, but what I did at home might have been more useful to this land. North at Vagar I built booths for the fishing folk, so that poor people could get help and earn their living. There I founded a priest’s garth and endowed the Church. - - etc - - Now these matters are of small importance, yet I do not know whether the people in the land are not better served by them than because thou hast killed black men in Saracen land and sent their souls to hell."
Systein shows a budding affirmative mentality whereas his brother represents a strong inclination toward a totalitarian mentality. In most history, martial mentality has overwhelmed affirmative reason.
Christopher Dawson (1889-1970) points out that one advantage of the Crusades for Europe is that it took the warriors out of the area (primitive warrior ethos) and instead of tearing up the land with their fighting, they were fighting some place else. This gave the lawmakers at home a respite so they could begin to establish a more stable society.
Promoting rational improvement in modern society is a project budding with hope because a high degree of rational skill already exists among a large number of people. Our real challenge is to find methods that genuinely augment the good already in use and that truly correct mistakes that need fixing.
Obviously, merely calling something ‘improvement’ will not make it so. Many a theory that claims to advance the art of clear thinking does more harm than good. Flesch’s The Art of Clear Thinking comes to mind. [quote needed] Flesch makes a few good points but, from a plus point of view, his elemental mistakes are so serious that he brings to the intellectual world more trouble than he offsets with his few worthwhile ideas.
If we are to promote rational improvement, we must find procedures that genuinely are improvements. We should promote sound rational discussion about sound rational discussion. We need the issues laid on the table where we can chew on them and decide what is digestible.
To promote rational improvement, we must continually acknowledge both human limitations and human possibilities. Unless we treat our rational limitations in a realistic manner, root errors quickly work themselves into dead ends and create elemental double standards.
People who refuse to acknowledge the limitations of their knowledge, limit their possibilities. Conversely, as we genuinely understand our limitations, we expand our possibilities.
If we emphasize that rational improvement does not claim rational perfection, then we can appreciate improvement when it happens and not be disappointed because it is imperfect. When we become comfortable with the distinction between improvement and totalitarian absolutes, then we can be happy with a method of promoting improvement that is adequate to handle problems at hand. If each time round we make a little improvement, it adds up.
A philosophy that values rational improvement uses limited methods to discover limited solutions that are good enough to meet the needs of the moment. An improvement mentality is not totalitarian. It is not all or none. Although rational improvement encourages high standards of logical and ethical behavior, it is a more or less (non-totalitarian) way of resolving immediate problems. It does not pretend to express the whole all together.
To recognize the limits of our understanding and to appreciate the development of our human knowledge does not mean that impartial truth is evolving. Plus root theory emphatically maintains that impartial truth and human knowledge are not equivalent. There is a great gap between human knowledge and the fullness of truth. Humans do not create truth. Instead, we discover truth. Seeking and finding truth is a grand adventure and an activity we can all share. Emphasizing the distinction between human knowledge and impartial truth is a basic provision of plus root theory.
Many people ask: Is peaceful progress through rational improvement actually possible in our cruel, greedy world? Some groups in Western society have long entertained a deep undercurrent of pessimism reflecting a settled conviction that man by his nature is too corrupt to achieve progress or peace. Machiavelli said,
If people were good, these rules would not apply.
This extreme negative view of human nature discourages people from doing the work required to upgrade rational competence. Martin Luther, in the sixteenth century, also gave expression to this despair. Among many other anti-rational remarks he said,
Reason is the devil’s handmaid and does nothing but blaspheme and dishonor all that God says or does.
A feeling of hopelessness often turns people inward and away from civil conversations that could make a difference. When people, in their heart of heart, believe rational improvement is a dangerous illusion, motivating anyone to grant even a passing glance at elemental problems becomes very difficult.
But Luther’s negative attitude toward reason had a counterpoint in Erasmus and others. Every generation seems to struggle with this problem. Is reason a gift from God so we can seek the God of Truth & Beauty & Love or is reason a trick the devil plays on mankind to create hell on earth? Morton White in The Age of Belief wrote,
From apostolic times on, there were two fairly well defined Christian positions: the deliberately and aggressively, anti-intellectual, whose supporters argued that since God has spoken to us it is no longer necessary for us to think, and a more orthodox, but minority, position, that whatever is true or good is ours.
From an plus point of view, religious people hurt their cause when they turn against reason. Anti-rationalism, insofar as it infects a religion, tends to promote prejudice, instigates superstition, and fans totalitarian thinking. In religion, as in other fields, if we fail to make the effort it takes to use reason well, we will inadvertently use our rational talents to our detriment. Affirmative theologians view our ability to reason as a gift from God and, with this gift, comes a responsibility to use reason well. Thomas Jefferson was strong on this point. He said, in his Notes on Virginia,
Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their investigation. They are the natural enemies of error. - - - - - - Reason and experiment have been indulged, and error has fled before them. It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.
When the United States was founded as an independent country, Thomas Jefferson was not alone in his respect for reason and truth. The moving figures of that movement shared common guidelines of sound rational thinking and consequently were able to reason together adequately enough to meet their need. In general, they saw reason and religion as compliments, not contradictories.
Looking at the issue from this vantage point, we can trace a movement toward rational improvement in the history of religion. In western history, most church schools taught logic and made a clear distinction between sound and unsound rational thinking. They encouraged esteem for impartial truth, they promoted virtue, and they aimed for justice. This correlation between religion and logic is so intimate that logic, over the centuries, owes its primary development to the efforts of religious people.
This affirmative trend does not mean that all was perfect. Logicians of the past made their fair share of mistakes. In the process of promoting the positive values of sound rational thinking, many church oriented educators made blunders. A few of the mistakes they made are blatant to modern eyes and we are tempted to reject the whole enterprise because a part was bent out of shape. However, the serious mistakes came, not from sound rational thinking, but from the anti-rational trends that also held sway at the time. It happened in the past much as it happens today. It is illogical to reject the values of sound rational thinking because unsound rational thinking has proven to be disastrous.
How do we raise the quality of our problem solving skills, particularly those skills negotiators need in order to barter for mutually beneficial solutions to major conflicts? To augment rational discourse and improve our abilities to successfully negotiate conflict, we need to upgrade rational style, cultivate commonsense, augment our urge to honesty, and reduce the negative illusions that interfere with negotiation success. If we are serious about wanting a peaceful world where we can safely progress in an atmosphere of non-violence, then we must open our eyes to the need to improve private and public problem solving skills.
The question at issue here is not whether we utilize any elemental verities in our rational thinking and problem solving. The question, rather, is what dominates. For guidelines of sound rational thinking to be noticeably effective in society, they must be developed as a set to meet the needs of the time and reach an adequate degree of dominance. The state of development and degree of dominance are very important in evaluating the effect of logic on the progress of philosophy. Although we don’t have to be perfect, we must be good enough to meet the challenge of the occasion.
We need not despair. Our prospects are good because we don’t have to correct all root errors to achieve a better society. We only need to correct enough of the worst to reach the degree of rational competence required to solve present problems. We already have much cultivated commonsense and mature honesty in the public at large. A little motivation could make a big difference in our abilities to upgrade rational style.
We can entertain high hopes for the future because in our present state of development we only need a little improvement to make strides forward in quality of living. Small improvements in the right places could easily achieve the breakthrough we need to reach and maintain comity. Due to the efforts of gifted teachers and inspired leaders of the past, we (the general populous) already enjoy a vast collection of well-developed rational skills.
We don’t have to start from scratch! The world community already shares a remarkable body of sound rational skill. All we need is a little improvement in the right places and we will reach the degree of competence we need to achieve long term comity and to live in a world where we can progress in peace. It’s within our grasp.
Learning to appreciate possibilities can motivate us enough to do the work required to help us close the gap between what we have and what we need. With enough people willing to work in the right place we could make a difference.
Plus root theory advocates seven main steps to advance our abilities to progress in peace. They are: 1. Cultivate clear understanding. 2. Build Esteem for Impartial Truth. 3. Encourage Right Reason. 4. Foster Fair Play. 5. Nurture Good Will. 6. Develop Civil Discourse. 7. Support Affirmative Philosophy and Legitimate Religion.
Simply stating the long range goals helps because they fit with intellectual logical intuition. When we adequately understand these long range goals, they go without saying. If we feel these goals are beyond us, it is because root errors embedded in our rational style have grown into serious obstacles that are difficult to get around. If we reduce the virility of the worst mistakes, the goals become much more obtainable.
The actual process of correcting a root error is a snap. Once we see the error, we simply say to ourselves, "Gee, that is silly", and out it goes. The trouble comes in learning to recognize the error as a mistake and in learning to see a solution that is an improvement rather than making another mistake that only compounds the problem. This requires work.
The approach to rational problems advocated by plus root theory clears the way for establishing an important general principle, that is: In order to make significant improvement we do not have to correct every elemental mistake. All we need to do is adequately correct enough of the worst.
With this guideline to help direct our path, we are not at the mercy of preemptive philosophical experts in order to make improvements. Ordinary people using normal commonsense can understand enough to make real contributions and to noticeably upgrade general logical skills in society. Rational improvement is a public concern and a feasible project.
Because we only need a little more, the project of attaining peaceful progress through rational improvement takes on added poignancy. What a shame to nip the bud of civilization as it begins to flower! We, the huge middle majority who desire non-violent progress, already share almost enough sound rational assumptions (root verities) to provide an adequate logical basis on which to build problem solving skills to a level of expertise where we can consistently make improvements in a non-violent manner. Most of us want this. We, the moderate middle majority, already hold in common a vast number of sound rational guidelines in our thought systems. Perhaps, if lucky, we may even possess enough to avoid a nuclear war or equivalent technical disaster.
But the problem is borderline. Along with the sound rational assumptions accepted in the style of our day, we also, unwittingly, have absorbed serious root errors into our thinking patterns. While root verities strengthen the foundations on which we base our problem solving skills, root errors do the opposite. Some root errors are so crucial that they menace safe negotiation of looming conflicts. Crucial errors in rational theory pose grave danger today because they provoke policy mistakes that invite the very disasters we, the moderate middle, most wish to avoid. To advance our abilities to progress in peace we always come back to a need to adequately correct crucial epistemological mistakes and sufficiently support sound rational guidelines.
Although we, in the body politic, lack enough shared sound rationality to feel safe in an overcrowded planet, happily, we come close. In all parts of the globe, we see impressive rational skills used in promoting sound problem solving expertise. As concerned citizens question what still needs doing, we benefit by acknowledging what has been accomplished. If we deny the real rational progress already made, we might despair at the moment we near a vital breakthrough. Because so much has already been done, we only need relatively small amounts of rational improvement in the right places to achieve and maintain comity.
What will happen to human society in the long run is an open question. But for our generation and for the 21st century at least, we have the means at hand to make a good life shared around the globe. We can do it and we should do it. However, to succeed over an extended period, we must be able to talk to each other enough to resolve major problems and to develop policies that work to our mutual benefit. Time after time we almost make it and then we let it fall apart.
A mentality of rational improvement is a commonsense sorting mentality. That is to say. people who work for improvement use an adequately developed understanding of the requirements of sound rational thinking as a criteria to sort values in other aspects of their lives. The more skilled people become in using affirmative reason the more they can converse with others and the more they will be able to promote improvements.
A sorting mentality is non-totalitarian. It appreciates both limits and possibilities of human knowledge while holding deep respect for the sanctity of impartial truth.
To return to the original question at the beginning of chapter one: What is the better course for our future? Should we follow Neitzche’s advise and promote instinct and material power as our path to salvation or should we follow long-held affirmative traditions and work to improve our commitment to sound rational thinking and be satisfied with step by step progress?
Plus root theory holds high regard for human physiological mental talents, including instinct and encourages behavioral research that helps us understand this aspect of our nature. In addition, plus root theory supports the affirmative traditions of history that value human intellectual rational gifts. While supporting physiological studies, plus root theory grants an even higher priority to understanding and developing sound rational thinking. Plus root theory is first of all a philosophy of rational improvement.
Plus root theory offers real hope that, if we make the right logical developments in the right places, we can significantly reduce man-made calamities that mar the human story. We can do this by adequately correcting a cluster of serious root errors that have become embedded in our rational style. If we make the effort required to adequately correct the most insidious elemental mistakes that cause the worst problems, then we can entertain realistic hope for a safe and sane 21st century.
Which way we go (force based on instinct or the value of right reason) is a choice each person makes. In a democracy, the majority will decide the case.
The theorizing mind tends always to the oversimplification of its materials. This is the root of all that absolutism and one-sided dogmatism by which both philosophy and religion have been infested.
