In their latest article "Neuroexistentialism" for The Philosophers' Magazine (found here), Owen Flanagan and Gregg D. Caruso argue that we have entered a third-wave of existentialism, namely neuroexistentialism. To quote, "Today, there is a third-wave existentialism, neuroexistentialism, which expresses the anxiety that, even as science yields the truth about human nature, it also disenchants." No doubt, the ascendency of science and scientists as the sole authorities on every area of human nature has created a sense of disenchantment. We are told that we have no free will, that our moral decision making is determined by physical processes, and that in fact there is no more to the human person than the physical self. The old meaning-makers, God and the soul, have been cast aside for the hard, cold facts of science and a thoroughly material universe. But, let's be honest, this is a reality of our own choosing. And, it's based on limits we have constructed for ourselves and then accepted.
Flanagan and Caruso rightly point out that this third-wave existentialism is the result of naturalism. "During the Enlightenment we saw the beginning of a movement toward naturalism, according to which morals and meaning are to be analysed and understood in terms of history and the other human sciences, not metaphysically or theologically. Over the past few centuries, this movement has continued, and, most recently, we have seen the rise of moral psychology and other interdisciplinary attempts to understand moral development and human values, norms, judgements, and attitudes naturalistically."
What is their solution? If naturalism has given rise to existential anxiety about meaning and purpose, what should we do? As they put it, "The constructive project of neuroexistentialism, then, is to make use of the knowledge and insights of the behavioral, cognitive, and neurosciences to satisfy our existential concerns and achieve some level of flourishing and fulfilment." So, does that mean abandoning naturalism? No. "While much progress has already been made on this front, the project continues. And since naturalism is the only game in town, it’s one we should all hope succeeds."
So, naturalism is the only game in town. Even though it has played the most significant part in creating our current existential concerns, we should still hope it succeeds in providing meaning and significance in support of human flourishing and fulfillment.
Flanagan and Caruso know that naturalism is not science and science is not naturalism. Naturalism is a metaphysical position. And, it's a metaphysical position that a significant portion of our society has chosen to embrace. So, they are tracking the current situation. But, what will it take to consider other possibilities? Or, maybe better, what will it take to simply abandon the naturalist's position?
I am not saying that there needs to be a revival of theism; although, I would consider such a revival a good thing. All that really needs to happen is a good dose of humility. Naturalism, in essence, says, "Reality is, and can only be, that which we are able divine through our various scientific methods." The idea is that a completed physics would tell us all there is, i.e. all that is real. If it isn't delivered by a completed physics, then it isn't real. But, this arrogantly assumes way too much. It is like someone born blind saying, "There are no colors because I have never seen any."
In spite of their hopefulness, there is no amount of naturalism that will ever go beyond naturalism. So, if there is some aspect of reality that doesn't fall within the framework of assumed naturalism, the naturalist will never discover it.
But, more importantly, meaning is not something naturalism will ever be able to provide. Take any kind of material qua material. Material, in this sense, is meaningless and purposeless in and of itself. It is when material, of any kind, is understood in relation to a person's desires, hopes, and goals that it takes on meaning and purpose. Take some material object, say a hammer. From the viewpoint of the naturalist's reductionism, the hammer is simply a collection of physical properties. But, for the carpenter it is a tool that has a use in terms of achieving some goal. In other words, the hammer has a telos. Now, if there is one thing the naturalist hates, it's the idea of anything having a telos. But without telos and without someone who cares about telos there can be no such thing as purpose or meaning.
Here's the truth, the naturalists are not very honest in their reductionist program. They may hold to it when it comes to the deliverances of science. But, when it comes to their everyday living, the naturalists reveal what they would deny. Why does the physicist, who also happens to be a naturalist, do her work? To what end? If she says she does her work in order to discover the physics that produces some phenomena, then she has already allowed for telos. And if, in a moment of honesty, she admits that she also enjoys the profit and prestige she accrues through her work, then we have all the makings needed for meaning and purpose (shallow as those makings may be). But, she will demur and argue that ultimately she is subject to various neural firings in her brain that determine all of her desires, motivations, goals, etc. But, isn't that just a post hoc move to save her naturalism?
I find it hard to believe that naturalism will ever save us from naturalism. But, some humility might.
No comments:
Post a Comment