The last posting gives the reader a
ranging view of how Americans have developed in terms of their philosophical ideas. Just stating that, it sounds pompous to American
ears. And the fact that it does brings one
back to Allen C. Guelzo’s[1]
claim as to the pragmatic bias this nation has exhibited for being doers not
thinkers. And yet the academic history
of the nation stretches back almost to its very beginning.
And
for this, one can cite the founding of Harvard just six years after the
settlement of Boston in 1630. One can further
credit the religious enterprise, in this case that of the Puritans, to seek
answers to the more metaphysical questions of life. While this tradition is noted today for its very
strict, moralistic theology, it attempted to discover reality that is not
readily observable in the material world.
Now all of this development was a
complex mix of views and biases; for example, thrown into this was the common-sense
philosophy of Scottish thought in the eighteenth century (more on this below). But central in the beginning there was
Puritanism that along with its fire-and-brimstone sermons was a strong
commitment to congregational arrangements and their covenantal origins.
Puritanism
represents the stoic side of American thinking and one name that emerges as one
studies these various influences is that of Jonathan Edwards who was a leader
of the Great Awakening, a reemergence of Puritanical allegiance that was reestablished
in the mid to late 1700s. That movement
was a sincere effort to bolster Puritanical morals after some slippage due to
initial successes in the colonial settlements.
This is not to claim this historical
figure was some great thinker, but a thinker he was and was later designated as
president of Princeton (he died as he was about to assume that office in 1758). But even in the midst of the Great Awakening,
the practical side of American thought did not go away.
On
the other side of this dual personality, the next contributor, one that
overlaps in time with Edwards and his ilk, is Benjamin Franklin who published
his Poor Richards Almanac in 1732 and his Autobiography in 1791 (he
died in 1790). Here one finds the
practical tradition of Americans being extolled. Uplifted were qualities of business acumen
and common sense. And in addition, as
alluded to above, was the Scottish philosophic bent of Thomas Reid (1710-1796)
and others who if not affecting Franklin, did have an effect on Thomas
Jefferson.
Reid wrote the following:
Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to
this object. He was endowed with a sense
of right and wrong, merely relative to this.
This sense is as much a part of his nature as the sense of hearing,
seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, and not the kalon,
truth, etc., as fanciful writers have imagined.
The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or
arm. It is given to all human beings in
a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or
less degree. It may be strengthened by
exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some
degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required
for this; even a less one than what we call common sense. State a moral case to a ploughman and a
professor. The former will decide it as
well and often better than the latter because he has not been led astray by
artificial rules.[2]
This statement gives more philosophical
language to the very down-to-earth perspective that was common among Americans
not only of those days but throughout the nation’s history.
And this sort of leaning
can readily be seen as feeding another movement that would turn out to have a
profound influence that this blog highlighted in its last posting. That is the movement known as
Transcendentalism. And these lesser
religious notions or themes are picked up through the 1800s and one can cite the
fictional works of Herman Melville (Moby Dick) and Nathanial Hawthorne (The
Scarlet Letter). Their novels
directly attack the Puritanical thinking that was judged in these works to be too
inhuman in its expectations.
One can than trace this other tradition to the development,
years later, of Pragmaticism and the works of William James and John Dewey. And that brings a student of this tradition
into the twentieth century – Dewey died in 1952. But how philosophical was this tradition and,
for that matter, the Puritanical tradition?
Admittedly, not very. Even the
more well thought out tradition of Pragmaticism could boast of only a relatively
few top-notch thinkers such as Dewey and James.[3] But then again, its emphasis, even as a
philosophy, was on doing, not thinking.
And perhaps this lack of theorizing helped those who
opposed these voices influenced by the Enlightenment. Inspired by the Great Awakening in an around
about way, and the work of Edwards, was the influence exerted by the Romantics. While this Romanticism, as expressed in Transcendentalism,
was mostly anti-religious, it was pro sentiment and emotion and reactive
against pure reason and objectivism – and as such was a mixture of anti-religious
dogma, but pro-religious fervor.
Antagonistic to the ideas
emanating from science, from Descartes to Newton, these religiously inspired
ideas and emotions became part of the American story. In more current days, the remnants of the
Romantics can be found in Born Again messaging that one can find among
Evangelicals of today. Heavily reliant
on the Bible, its literal interpretation of that book provides much of what its
adherents consider truthful accounts of the physical world.
And why are these views
taken as truth? Because it feels
true. Passion, not reason, for Romantics
is the essential guide. And here, even
Transcendentalism can be viewed not as a movement toward reason, but toward emotionalism,
at least as it is represented by Ralph Waldo Emerson. All this will be described and explained in later
postings. Links to such characters as
John C. Calhoun and his representation of southern agrarianism will be pointed
out. Here, the aim is to give the reader
the warning that all of this, while it can be analyzed and of which sense can
be made, is not an account of a single-minded people.
One can detect the two
traditions, Puritanism and the Enlightenment.
How both affect Transcendentalism and its effects, given Santayana’s overview (see previous
posting), all of these combined and co-existed under an organizational and
political arrangement defined by federalist principles.
Organizational principles are not handed
down from above. They instead have to
stand free with enough supportive ideals and ideas which have to be thought of,
implemented, and defended to survive various challenges such as those facing
the Civil War generation, and many think, the present generation.
They are the product of the human
mind and are implemented through complex mixtures as those found in this
nation’s past. More will be shared in
upcoming postings including a more detailed accounts of what this and the last
two postings introduce and describe to the reader.
[1]
Allen C. Guelzo, The American Mind, Part I
– a transcript book – (Chantilly, VA: The
Teaching Company/The Great Courses, 2005).
Unless otherwise indicated, factual information found in this posting is
derived from this source.
[2] As quoted in Gary Wills, Inventing
America: Jefferson’s Declaration of
Independence
(New York, NY: Vintage Books,
1978/2018), 202-203. This quotation was
utilized in a previous posting.
[3] This claim is belied by Louis Menand’s account of
Pragmaticism. See Louis Menand, The
Metaphysical Club (New York, NY: Farrar,
Straus, and Giroux, 2001).
No comments:
Post a Comment