Ch. 3: Introducing Metasophism

Morality in Flux

When one glances back at the disaster for Europe that was the twentieth century, who are the prime candidates for blame?

A straightforward mind would blame the Communist and Fascist ideologies for the havoc they wreaked. The logical conclusion could be that all extremist ideologies, defined as anything that deviates from mainstream liberalism, ought to be opposed.

A more subtle mind would perhaps blame nationalism more generally rather than just its hyper-concentrated fascist form. Had it not been for nationalist sentiment, we would not have had the kind of nation-states that triggered and sustained the two World Wars.

A reactionary or monarchist could very well agree with all the above, and note that it was the French revolution and its associated ideas of human rights, universal enfranchisement, and nationalism which paved the way for the nation-at-war romanticism epitomised by the levée en masse. Someone taking an even longer view would say that the decline in religious belief— already rather advanced among the intelligentsia by the mid-eighteenth century—left an emotional and moral vacuum to be filled by the new worldviews of nationalism, socialism and humanitarianism.

Untested ideologies are risky for the society that adopts them. For example, the adoption of nationalism exposed society to the risk of adopting hyper-nationalism and the subsequent exclusion of those who were not considered to be part of the nation. Moreover, nationalism tended to be a self-propagating force and therefore an agent of instability. French nationalism during the French revolution provoked French expansion into Germany, and the French presence there sparked a German nationalism. When German nationalism resulted in French defeat during the Franco-Prussian War and the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine, French nationalism hardened into French revanchism, while Germany become even more militaristic as the Prussian ethos seeped through the new empire. Both factors led to World War One, with the crescendo of nationalism coming thereafter in the form of fascism. As the emotional spiral led to physical conflagration and ultimately national depletion, we can say that nationalism is unstable.

Religious worldviews can also be unstable. Consider the stability of Christianity, which has been questioned many times. John Wesley, the English cleric and theologian who founded Methodism, wondered if:

... true scriptural Christianity has a tendency, in process of time, to undermine and destroy itself? For wherever true Christianity spreads, it must cause diligence and frugality, which in the natural course of things, must beget riches! And riches naturally beget pride, love of the world, and every temper that is destructive of Christianity. (Causes of the inefficacy of Christianity, Works VII: 290).

We already discussed in the previous chapter how modern liberalism is unstable, as it does not have any features immunising it against the pathologies of excessive sacralisation, narration, and exaggeration. Such features are also lacking in its nationalist and Woke rivals. But what would such features look like? And how can they be implemented? Answering such questions will take a few chapters, so let us start with the basic principles.  

Principles of Metasophism

What is good? This fundamental question—which every ideology should have answer for—is almost impossible to answer without knowing the meaning of life itself. And if one is limited to fact and reason, then we must admit that the meaning of life is unknown for now.

However, our ignorance of the meaning of life does not imply that there is no good to achieve. If life has meaning, then the priority for humanity should be to discover what it is, or to survive until a point at which it may be revealed.

There are thus two concepts of good on which this philosophy is based. First, a concept of absolute good which is unknowable and therefore unachievable until we know the meaning of life. Second, a concept of provisional good which states that whatever helps us to attain our objective of discovering the meaning of life is desirable.

For those who would devote themselves to such a mission, the priorities are clear: first, ensure the continued expansion of knowledge about our physical and social universe.

Second, preserve and entrench human civilisation, for if civilisation were to endure a trauma such as that which befell the Roman Empire, then much knowledge would be lost, and our mission would suffer a severe and possibly irreversible setback. The first objective complements the second, as knowledge is necessary for long-term human survival in order to have the technology to ward off threats such as a catastrophic asteroid strike or even a gamma-ray burst.

Thus, the basis for the philosophy I call Metasophism is derived. Why this name?

“Meta” can mean a subject that analyses another one at a more abstract or higher level. As sophía is the Greek word for wisdom, Metasophism indicates a philosophy that seeks to integrate the wisdom emanating from other political philosophies and even different academic disciplines.[51] We shall now outline the properties of Metasophism that would enable it to serve such an integrating purpose.

The Metasophist Imperative

The fundamental principle of Metasophism is that the current mission for humanity should be to acquire knowledge with the goal of discovering the meaning of life. This telos is termed the Metasophist Imperative. Whatever furthers this mission we consider as provisionally good, and whatever damages this mission is provisionally bad.

Search for truth

If a society is to discover the meaning of life, or survive long enough to do so, then a true picture of the world and emerging challenges is necessary. Metasophism is thus more likely to avoid the pitfall into which many other philosophies and ideologies fall into whereby the truth is often suppressed or ignored when it contradicts the tenets of the ideology. For example, in the Soviet Union, information surrounding the success of Western capitalism in delivering higher living standards was concealed.

In today’s West, media often conceal or spin information that would damage whatever political forces they favour. A more detailed discussion of this will take place in a later chapter, where we will try to design a diverse and well-funded media system, free from domination by the state and financial interests.

Inherently democratic

Metasophism mandates democracy for two reasons.

First, democracy forces a government to react to the problems faced by people. Without democracy, a government may become detached from reality, and society may in the meanwhile become enamoured by another philosophy -- the resulting revolution would then overturn a Metasophist system in the event it became established. Moreover, the autocratic alternative to democracy usually becomes the refuge of the uncreative, the incompetent, and the corrupt, none of whom have any role in leading a government.

Second, in order to form an accurate view of reality, it is necessary to gather information from as many sources as possible. Regular elections provide incentives and disincentives to the governing elite to gather and act on this information.

Universality

Metasophism makes a universal declaration of what is good, and is therefore a universal ideology. In theory, it has a message applicable to every society. This is a desirable trait, as universal ideologies and religions such as Christianity, Islam, and communism seem to be more attractive and thus more durable than non-universal ideologies.

However, while the above religions and ideologies are termed universal, this is perhaps not literally true: if they only make claims about humanity, and not about other potentially intelligent species, they are universal only if we restrain our notion of the universe to humanity — a questionable proposition.

In contrast, Metasophism is truly universal as the Metasophist Imperative does not just apply to humanity, but to intelligent life in general. To appreciate the universality of Metasophism, consider the following test: if a severe asteroid strike happened to planet Earth before humans evolved which prevented future life, is that good, bad, or meaningless? For a Metasophist, this is clearly bad, as the development of conscious life and therefore the probability of discovering and realising good is reduced. For human-centred ideologies and religions though, it is not easy to arrive at a conclusion, as there are no humans around to which harm has been done. This indicates that such ideologies are not literally universal, despite their claims to be.

However, despite this strong theoretical universality, the idea of the Imperative might only appeal to societies in a postmodern condition, as traditional societies may not really be attracted to the search for meaning inherent to Metasophism.

Adaptability

Just as a society must adapt to survive, so must an ideology: technological and social development renders laws that were just unjust, and vice versa. Metasophism provides a way to judge what is good and bad from first principles.

Any philosophy that cannot do this is destined to render the society dysfunctional. While the difficulty Islamic societies have in adapting to the modern world is a case in point, Islam is not alone on this front as history is littered with such defunct ideologies.

Two live cases of this happening are liberal humanitarianism (as discussed earlier) and Christianity. The design of these religion-ideologies may be such that they are simply not capable of adapting without negating their source of authority in the eyes of their most ardent followers.

Catholicism is in such a situation. Many Westerners no longer look to it for guidance as it condemns practices they now hold sacrosanct, such as the right to abortion. But according to the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, its teaching on abortion is unchangeable. Even if the Catholic Church abandoned its position on abortion, this would most likely not reverse a decline rooted in the post-Reformation Wars of Religion, which encouraged thinkers such as John Locke into looking for sources of moral authority other than religion. It was at this time that liberalism began to form, with its earliest principle being religious toleration.

The sacralisation of certain ideas played a role in the decline of Christianity in another way. As Charles Talyor argues in A Secular Age, faith was often identified with doctrines such as the idea that the Earth was created in 4004 B.C., and the biblical drama of Fall, Incarnation and Redemption.[52] The easy refutability of such doctrines led people to reject the all of Christianity, including more defensible ideas such as the existence of God. Whether the religion could have done better by explicitly declaring untenable tenets to be metaphors is uncertain. Once established, their removal would always have been difficult.

Metasophism can escape such problems because the Imperative stated above is the only sacred principle. Everything else can be questioned. In this way, we may be able to avoid the trap identified by Toynbee whereby excessive sacralisation hinders the ability of society to adapt to new circumstances. 

Completeness

Metasophism has the potential to be not just universal, but complete. This means that it is possible in theory to classify all events or actions as good or bad. This is a favourable aspect, as for a political philosophy to stay relevant over the long-run it must be applicable to all situations. If it is not universally applicable, then at some point it will become irrelevant and forgotten, which would undermine our mission of equipping civilisation with a philosophy to guide it through all situations.

A corollary of completeness is that there is an optimal set of laws for every society. This optimal set of laws changes over time, and can vary by region. For example, a country surrounded by hostile neighbours may find it optimal to have a large army funded by higher taxes. In contrast, an island-society in the middle of an ocean would find such an expenditure to be a waste.

Finally, the complete nature of Metasophism means that it can serve as a moral compass for the individual in a fast-changing society. Many moral systems do not trust people to interpret for themselves what is good, preferring to prescribe a list of rules. People are not taught how to reason morally, which leaves society fragile. This philosophy remedies this problem by giving people a common point of reference on which to build their own moral reasoning.

An Integrating Ideology

A major strength of Metasophism is its capacity to integrate the thinking of other ideologies into it. Why is this?

First, as we do not have a correct understanding of how the world works, there can thus be honest disagreement about whether a certain action is good or not. Consider for instance the issue of drug-taking. This is an issue upon which a Metasophist could perhaps take either side.

For instance, a conservative could state that drugs harm the cognitive abilities of a person, resulting in lower academic performance and lower life outcomes in the long-run. On the other hand, a liberal may say that it is an aid to relaxation, and therefore allows one to perform better and be more creative. Which of the two effects dominate — and if they indeed hold — is largely an empirical question. While there is different literature supporting both sides of the issue, it tends to be distrusted as one will easily ascribe political bias to a result which clashes with one’s worldview. A drug may good in a certain context and for a certain type of individual, but bad in another.

A conflict such as this could be resolved by representatives from both sides committing to accept the results of a certain type of study or experiment, the design having been agreed beforehand, and the executors of which are neutral on the issue. This would help dispel the fuzzy morality and discord which currently prevails.

A similar type of logic applies to the question of the environment. From a Metasophist perspective, environmental protection is essential because the destruction of the environment can endanger the very survival of society itself. However, there are costs to protecting the environment: lower economic growth means less investment in technology and research. The role of Metasophism would then be to internalise this debate and give it a more rigorous form.

Perhaps some ideologies, like libertarianism, would be harder for Metasophism to integrate. If you simply believe in maximising freedom, then you might not want to prioritise maximising knowledge or the probability humanity will survive. The framing will be rejected. But in practice, libertarians often make appeals to other types of moral frameworks when trying to win over those of other persuasions. No doubt they would be able to argue how freedom would help with the Metasophist mission -- and certainly, it has a significant role to play.

And what about the difference between Metasophism and utilitarianism, the underlying framework of economic liberalism? Utilitarianism is the ideology whereby the objective is to maximise the sum or average of total societal happiness. Most economists use this heuristic when making any type of normative judgement. But from a Metasophist perspective, happiness is not something to pursue in and of itself. As a signal, it can be gamed, for example by taking drugs or eating sugary snacks. Consider the case where we have an invention which makes people very happy, such as a simulator in which one enters a sort of personal nirvana, where only pleasure is experienced but no knowledge is produced. This is optimal for a pure utilitarian, but highly undesirable for a Metasophist.

However, the question of which religions and ideologies would be able to reconcile themselves with Metasophism can only be answered by time. If one truly believes that one’s religion represents the truth, then there should be no conflict with Metasophism which sets its greatest aim as the revelation of the truth. In this sense, let us consider the case regarding the relationship of Metasophism to Christianity. For this, we only need to refer to an eminent authority on Christianity: Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. In his 2006 Regensburg speech, he said that "the will to be obedient to the truth ... embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit."[53] Thus there is some common ground between Metasophism and Christianity. 

But what of those influenced by other outlooks, such as a nationalist worldview? Let us assume that a nationalist believes that the survival of his nation is of the greatest importance. The only way such a claim could be justified is if your nation is sublimely good. But if our nationalist adheres to the limits of fact and logic, then he must see that the only demonstrably good mission is the discovery of the truth. Therefore, for the nationalist claim to be justified, the nation in question would need to adopt Metasophism.

What then is the difference between nationalism and Metasophism? In contrast to a nationalist, a Metasophist should value people not by their ethnicity, but rather by the likelihood that they will contribute to the common mission. This would allow us to emulate the useful symbolism of civic nationalism, which encapsulates many of the desirable features of nationalism -- societal solidarity, a mission around which a nation can be unified -- without excluding people from different regions or ethnicities. In this way, the basis for a global community could be laid.

Furthermore, a Metasophist outlook enables us to attach a positive value to different cultures and peoples even if they do not share our mission explicitly. This is because diversity in culture leads to diversity in governance and laws, raising the probability that an ideal solution to the challenges of the day already exists or would be found.

Now the inevitable question arises -- how to implement this philosophy? The first task is that of building a moral system on the imperative outlined above. How can such a task be organised? This is the subject of the next chapter.

Previous Chapter: The Decline of the Elites

Next Chapter: The Metasophist University

Endnotes

[50] “Meta” can also mean after or beyond. Sophism originally meant a method of teaching involving philosophy and rhetoric aimed at young noblemen seeking political office in Ancient Greece. Plato condemned the Sophists who performed such teaching for their use of fallacious reasoning, giving a more general meaning to sophism as the use of specious reasoning in order to convince people to undertake a certain action. In this sense, Metasophism can thus mean a philosophy that comes after relativistic sophism of the age we are in, as from a Metasophist perspective, all those who make moral claims with an unclear or faulty definition of good are sophists.

[51] Kate Connolly. “Tensions rise in Germany over handling of mass sexual assaults in Cologne”. In: The Guardian (2016). URL: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/06/tensions-rise-in-germany-over-handling-of-mass-sexual-assaults-in-cologne

[52] Charles Taylor. A Secular Age (p. 365). Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition. 

[53] Benedict XVI. Faith, Reason and the University: Memories and Reflections. URL: http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg.html Accessed: 2018-07-02. 2006