Philosophy and the Social Problem

by Will Durant

In "Philosophy and the Social Problem," Will Durant's first book, Durant argues that philosophy has fallen into disrepute because it has stood high and dry upon academic ground, has occupied itself generally with the problem of knowledge, and has not gone down among the crowd to be of practical service. Durant says that philosophy can justify itself only by fruits which are of direct utility to the common man. And since the great problem of the modern world is the social problem - the problem of waste and want, rich and poor, luxury and starvation, child labor and education, crime, and so on - it follows that philosophy must be brought to take this problem in hand and that it will stand or fall as a factor in civilization according as it is or is not adequate to its solution. The new edition of this hard-to-find treasure is fully annotated with philosophical details, historical facts, and behind-the-scenes insights into the man and his ideas.

Genres: Philosophy, History

148 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1917

About the author

William James Durant was a prolific American writer, historian, and philosopher. He is best known for the 11-volume The Story of Civilization, written in collaboration with his wife Ariel and published between 1935 and 1975. He was earlier noted for his book, The Story of Philosophy, written in 1926, which was considered "a groundbreaking work that helped to popularize philosophy."

They were awarded the Pulitzer Prize for literature in 1967 and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1977.

Reviews

[Paulius · Rating 4 out of 5]

Philosophy and the Social Problem (1917)

Will Durant’s doctoral thesis in Philosophy at Columbia University was published as a book I look at here. Right off, he mentions his desire to map out a program for “the reconstruction of modern society.” (p. xi) Then he states the three purposes of his thesis of which the second is to approach the social problem through philosophy. He defines philosophy as the study of experience as a whole, and defines social problem as reducing human misery by modifying social institutions. (p. 1) He admits that his method will “sacrifice thoroughness of scholarship to present applicability” (p. 3) but that approach is precisely what attracts me in the first place.

Durant’s historical chapters are designed to show how thinkers of the past have related to the human condition and its progress over time. For example, on Plato he says, “What we have to do, says Plato, is to make people conceive a better world, so that they may see this world as ugly, and may strive to reshape it.” (p. 44) Durant describes Plato’s view of philosophers as practical administrators with the broad-based background to support this role. “One must study books—and men; one should read much, but live more.” (p. 50) Whether in the thought of Plato or Socrates or through the resurgence in the Renaissance, Durant sees the goal of philosophy and the solution of the social problem in man’s ability to replace, with a natural ethic, the authoritarian sanctions of supernatural religion. (p. 68)

Durant, like myself, can’t help but be attracted to the practical bent of Francis Bacon (1561-1626) who disdained dogma and, therefore, distrusted deduction in favor of induction as a mode of speculation, “if a man will begin with certainties he shall end in doubts; but, if he will be content to begin in doubts he shall end in certainties,” (p. 72) {quoted from Bacon’s Advancement of Learning, 1605} Durant demonstrates Bacon’s belief that processes need to be understood if there is any hope of managing or controlling those processes, “the empire of man over things depends wholly on the arts and sciences. For we cannot command nature except by obeying her.” (p. 76) {quoted from Bacon’s Novum Organum, 1620}.

Durant’s disaffection with scholasticism, with Aquinas and company, is reflected when he complains about “the ghosts of scholasticism—of a pursuit of knowledge divorced from its social end,” and how “specialization has so divided science that hardly any sense of the whole survives,” which leads Durant to conclude, “the blunt truth is that unless a scientist is also a philosopher, with some capacity to see things sub specie totius,--unless he can come out of his hole into the open,--he is not fit to direct his own research.” (p. 83)

Durant’s view on the ability to utilize scientific results in the government sector shows his disappointment and cynicism about the present situation, “the employment and direction of scientific ability in the business of government is still looked upon as a doubtful procedure; to say that the administration of municipal affairs, for example, is to be given over to men trained in the social sciences rather than to men artful in trapping votes with oratorical molasses, is still a venture into the loneliness of heresy.” (p. 84)

John Dewey was Durant’s mentor at Columbia University and his influence is felt throughout Durant’s work. Where Bacon focused on induction, Dewey focuses on experiments, “experimental attitude…substitutes detailed analysis for wholesale assertions, specific inquiries for temperamental convictions, small facts for opinions whose size is in precise ratio to their vagueness.” (p. 211) {a Dewey quote from the New Republic of Feb 3, 1917}. Furthermore, Dewey’s reputation was heavily based on his reform of education in America and Durant takes this connection as a centerpiece of his program for a new world, “all problems are problems of education; all the more so in a democracy.” (p. 211)

Throughout this volume, Durant has argued for the revitalization of philosophy by reconnecting it with its social and political roots, in opposition to modern thinkers’ misguided emphasis on epistemology, “philosophy was vital in Plato’s day; so vital that some philosophers were exiled and others put to death. No one would think of putting a philosopher to death today. Not because men are more delicate about killing; but because there is no need to kill that which is already dead.” (p. 218)

Finally Durant comes to his plan for the future of society. It begins with the assembly of 5000 individuals into a “Society for Social Research” whose primary aim is to seek information, all the facts of human life and business that may enlighten human will (pp. 232-233) and publish them. Reports written in language the public can understand is critical, and impartiality is absolutely necessary so that the society for research can become a trusted sort of social consciousness where plain dissemination of the facts becomes its strongest weapon. “Just to state facts is the most terrible thing that can be done to an injustice….Fact has this advantage over rhetoric, that time strengthens the one and weakens the other. Tell the truth and time will be your eloquence.” (p. 238) He also recommends a Committee on Literary Awards as a branch of his Society for Social Research to provide guidance in excellence in the arts. Durant’s Society for Social Research is a first step to harnessing philosophy and all the sciences into remaking our world into a better place, “We will remake. We will wonder and desire and dream and plan and try. We are such beings as dream and plan and try; and the glory of our defeats dims the splendor of the sun. We will take thought and add a cubit to our stature; we will bring intelligence to the test and call it together from all corners of the earth; we will harness the genius of the race and renew creation. We will remake.” (p. 272)

[Đăng Bảo]

- Như tựa đề của quyển sách, đó là quan điểm triết học của Plato, Socrate, Bacon, Spinoza, Nietzsche cũng như chính Will về các vấn đề liên quan tới xã hội, chính trị, giáo dục, sinh sản. Và đặc biệt mình thấy có khá nhiều quan điểm tập trung vào mảng chính trị, cách xã hội vận hành, hướng đi nó sẽ đến cũng như cách mà chính nó phủ định sự tồn tại của nó. Con người theo cách nào đó, từ bỏ lối sống hoang dã để trở thành một phần trong cái gọi là "xã hội" cũng chỉ vì sự ích kỉ muốn bảo vệ sự tồn tại của mình. Rồi cái gọi là công bằng phải chăng cũng chỉ là cách để những kẻ yếu kém được cảm thấy mình ngang hàng với những người có thể gọi là tinh hoa của loài người? Đúng là bi quan thật, nhưng mỗi thể chế xã hội được tạo ra cũng đều là vì mục đích đó. Nô lệ muốn được như chủ nô, công nhân muốn được như chủ tư sản và như thế một thể chế chính trị được coi là "tiến bộ hơn", "cải tiến hơn" ra đời. Nhưng không may thay, dù là thể chế nào thì dưới sự thống trị của một thiểu số người đáng ra phải là tinh hoa của cộng đồng thì lại trở thành lý do cho thể chế đó sụp đổ. Con người đang tự tạo nên sự diệt chủng của chính mình chăng?
- Để trả lời câu hỏi này thì mình nghĩ nên nhìn vào yếu tố về sinh sản. Bản năng duy trì nòi giống đang dần trở thành động lực để phát triển những khả năng về nghệ thuật, khoa học, nhưng nó cũng là lý do khiến sự tồn tại của bản thân trở nên mơ hồ hơn. Trước đây lúc còn chưa nghĩ nhiều về các yếu tố xã hội, bản năng con người là phải cố sống sót và truyền lại nguồn gen cho thế hệ sau. Nhưng hiện nay thì khác, họ không còn mấy quan tâm về nó, khi những thứ áp lực vô hình mà sự "phát triển" của xã hội sinh ra khiến họ như đang "sống mòn" vậy. Vậy cái gọi là "sự phát triển" này có thực sự phát triển hay không? Trên phương diện dân số thì đúng là dân số tăng, nhưng trên phương diện về cuộc sống thì sự phân biệt ngày càng sâu sắc. Thế sao không diệt sạch những người nghèo khổ đó đi? Không thể, vì chính lớp người tinh hoa sẽ bóc lột những người còn lại và biến họ trở nên nghèo khổ đi như một điều tất yếu. Vậy không hiểu "sự phát triển" của nền văn hóa để làm gì nhỉ?
- Con người có học hơn? Đang nói về mức độ phổ cập chống mù chữ? Nhưng thực chất họ lại hiểu ít hơn những gì mình nghe qua và nhớ, vì nó chả có ý nghĩa gì cả. Càng tập trung vào chuyên môn, những gì tổng quát họ biết lại càng ít ỏi và cái suy nghĩ phê phán nó cũng tương tự. Giáo dục hiện nay chỉ là một cách để giới cầm quyền gieo vào đầu người dân những suy nghĩ như: Vì đất nước, vì xã hội.... Nhưng tôi không muốn, tôi thích vì cá nhân đấy thì sao? Thì sẽ bị xã hội xa lánh :) Triết học lụi tàn vì những thứ như thế. Nhưng gì mà triết gia bây giờ nghĩ tới, bàn tới chỉ là những suy nghĩ của quá khứ, của Plato, của Kant, . . .
- Nếu như những gì mình nghĩ, thế hệ trẻ của thế kỉ này sẽ đập tan hết mọi thứ và xây lại cái gọi là xã hội này (hay cũng phá vỡ luôn cái gọi là "xã hội" nhỉ). Giá như được sống thật lâu để thấy được nó.
- Càng tìm hiểu về triết học, bản thân lại càng nhận thấy nhiều mâu thuẫn, nhiều sự vô lý của cái thế giới mình đang sống. Không, phải là mình đang tồn tại, nhỉ?

[Lisa · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good survey of philosophy and he proposes higher education for those who want it

[Arianne X · Rating 4 out of 5]

The End of The -isms

Though Professor Durant, as annotated in the text, at time of the writing of this book, was a vocal and committed socialist he honesty assesses the inherent contradictions of socialism, feminism, anarchism, and individualism. Professor Durant makes the case for and then quickly puts the lie to the many –isms that infect philosophical thinking on social, economic, political, and ethical problems. There is nothing polemical in this text. Professor Durant treats the subject in an even handed manner and this book is not an ideological diatribe in pursuit of socialism. There is no sign of ideological commitment in his book but what does shine through time and time again is Professor Durant’s basic humanity.

That which refutes any of the -isms is simply actual people living their lives in the real world. These –isms are half baked truths arising from preconceived bias as well as misinformation resulting in arrested philosophical thinking and human misery. These –isms are but a brutish response to our philosophical problems of behavior, organization and governance.

But still, Professor Durant’s attraction to social planning and his faith in experts is on display in this book for all to see but Professor Durant was writing before Ludwig Von Mises identified the key defect in Socialism that makes it unworkable as a form of social and economic organization which is the calculation problem. This book was also written prior to the time when F.A. Hayek showed that it is not possible for experts to plan a complex technology advanced industrial society from the top down. No one person or group of persons can possess all on the knowledge needed to properly plan and coordinate all of the activities, associations and social behaviors of an advanced society.

As annotated in the text, true to his own philosophical principles, it was later, after his visit to the Soviet Union in the 1930s to witness firsthand the results of socialism did Professor Durant come to see that only stagnation follows from socialism and thus the inevitable failure built into at least one of the vaunted –isms.

[Neelesh Marik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Opening lines:

THE purpose of this essay is to show: first, that the social problem has been the basic concern of many of the greater philosophers; second, that an approach to the social problem through philosophy is the first condition of even a moderately successful treatment of this problem; and third, that an approach to philosophy through the social problem is indispensable to the revitalization of philosophy. By “philosophy” we shall understand a study of experience as a whole, or of a portion of experience in relation to the whole. By the “social problem” we shall understand, simply and very broadly, the problem of reducing human misery by modifying social institutions.

The book renews concretely the Socratic plea for intelligence, the Platonic hope for philosopher-kings, Bacon’s dream of knowledge organized and ruling the world, Spinoza’s gentle insistence on democracy as the avenue of development, and Nietzsche’s passionate defence of aristocracy and power. While doing so it proposes a way by which intelligence will organize intelligence so that superior worth may have superior influence and yet work with and through the will of all.