Mind over body

In the last of his series on Descartes Richard Francks ponders the nature of objectivity

It seems to me that the big philosophical problem we all face today is that of Objectivity. Every day we run into situations where a clash of beliefs involves what is either literally or figuratively a clash of cultures, i.e. cases where what is at issue is not just the particular point we disagree about, but the standards we should apply for resolving it.

Moral cases are the obvious examples: those who are for and against abortion, or gay rights, or suicide bombings, seem so far apart that you have to ask yourself whether they have enough in common ever to come to an agreement. Is there such a thing as an objective answer to such disputes, or is each side trapped within its own little bubble of understanding which is impenetrable to anyone not brought up the right way, or who hasn’t seen the light?

But morality isn’t the only area where such disagreements occur. Questions like Intelligent Design, monetary policy, the Holocaust, alternative medicine, GM crops and the existence of God all seem on the surface to be straightforwardly factual disputes. But it soon becomes clear that the two sides disagree also about which facts are relevant, what counts as evidence, what constitutes a good reason, whose opinion is of value, and a thousand other things which leave you wondering whether we shouldn’t give up the idea that there is a correct answer, and just concentrate our energies on managing the battle in such a way as to minimise the damage it causes.

Descartes’ philosophical work was devoted to proving the possibility of an Objective answer to every question. Everybody has an innate ability to think clearly, and such clear thinking will always get to the truth. By such means we can see beyond the misleading appearances of the world to the reality that underlies them. Even in practical affairs, where the issues are complicated and the facts are few, we can achieve a detached, Objective view on which we can all agree.

Here too, Descartes’ view is the one that has filtered down to us through the ages. This is the faith of the Enlightenment, that a rational, scientific view is always available, and can in principle unite us all. That faith is still active in the world, and informs the way we think about these issues, and therefore about people who disagree with us.

For Descartes, though, the belief in Objectivity is essentially bound up with his views on the self, and on God. The Objective view is the view of the pure, immaterial mind, which can rise above the deceptive urgings of its physical embodiment and perceive the world through pure intellect. And the view of the intellect is guaranteed to be true, because by escaping in this way from the body, we can recapitulate in our own small way God’s own, non-sensory, understanding of his creation.

Most people now are unhappy with Descartes’ ‘dualistic’ account of the mind as essentially separate from the body it ‘inhabits’. And most people now would not accept his idea that through reason we can achieve quite literally a God’s-eye-view of the universe. The Big Question, then, is this: if you take away those metaphysical underpinnings, what remains of the idea of Objectivity?

It seems to me that the idea of an Objective point of view is a contradiction. Any intelligible opinion must make some assumptions, must operate by some standards – and those foundations will be challenged by people who don’t accept them. So if you think your standpoint is the correct one, you will need to defend it; and for that defence to be effective it had better start from something your opponent is prepared to concede. The alternative to a standpoint which can be challenged is not an Objective view, but no view at all.

Richard Francks retired last year as Senior Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies in Philosophy at the University of Leeds. He has published translations of Leibniz (with Roger Woolhouse), his own Modern Philosophy (Routledge, 2003), and has just finished the manuscript of a Reader’s Guide to Descartes’ Meditations (Continuum, 2008).
Getty
Show Hide image

Richmond is a wake-up call for Labour's Brexit strategy

No one made Labour stand in Richmond Park. 

Oh, Labour Party. There was a way through.

No one made you stand in Richmond Park. You could have "struck a blow against the government", you could have shared the Lib Dem success. Instead, you lost both your dignity and your deposit. And to cap it all (Christian Wolmar, take a bow) you self-nominated for a Nobel Prize for Mansplaining.

It’s like the party strategist is locked in the bowels of HQ, endlessly looping in reverse Olivia Newton John’s "Making a Good Thing Better".

And no one can think that today marks the end of the party’s problems on Brexit.

But the thing is: there’s no need to Labour on. You can fix it.

Set the government some tests. Table some amendments: “The government shall negotiate having regard to…”

  • What would be good for our economy (boost investment, trade and jobs).
  • What would enhance fairness (help individuals and communities who have missed out over the last decades).
  • What would deliver sovereignty (magnify our democratic control over our destiny).
  • What would improve finances (what Brexit makes us better off, individually and collectively). 

And say that, if the government does not meet those tests, the Labour party will not support the Article 50 deal. You’ll take some pain today – but no matter, the general election is not for years. And if the tests are well crafted they will be easy to defend.

Then wait for the negotiations to conclude. If in 2019, Boris Johnson returns bearing cake for all, if the tests are achieved, Labour will, and rightly, support the government’s Brexit deal. There will be no second referendum. And MPs in Leave voting constituencies will bear no Brexit penalty at the polls.

But if he returns with thin gruel? If the economy has tanked, if inflation is rising and living standards have slumped, and the deficit has ballooned – what then? The only winners will be door manufacturers. Across the country they will be hard at work replacing those kicked down at constituency offices by voters demanding a fix. Labour will be joined in rejecting the deal from all across the floor: Labour will have shown the way.

Because the party reads the electorate today as wanting Brexit, it concludes it must deliver it. But, even for those who think a politician’s job is to channel the electorate, this thinking discloses an error in logic. The task is not to read the political dynamic of today. It is to position itself for the dynamic when it matters - at the next general election

And by setting some economic tests for a good Brexit, Labour can buy an option on that for free.

An earlier version of this argument appeared on Jolyon Maugham's blog Waiting For Tax.

Jolyon Maugham is a barrister who advised Ed Miliband on tax policy. He blogs at Waiting for Tax, and writes for the NS on tax and legal issues.