Revolution In Thought
David Sklar
[Reprinted from the Henry George News, April,
1971]
HISTORIANS vary in the meaning they give to the events they record.
Some look for a single thread, some for several, but all look for
meaning or, at least, an explanation of history.
A view of history that might be suggested is as a conflict between
knowledge and ignorance. In this view, every step forward would come
from the triumph of knowledge; every step backward from the triumph of
ignorance. Knowledge would be seen fighting its way inch by inch
through the web of ignorance woven into every society for the
protection of what Toynbee calls "the dominant minority."
The influence of "the creative minority" asserts itself
during the growth stage of a society but is eventually supplanted by a
dominant minority which is the effect of and the further cause of the
breakdown of a society. Toynbee's analysis is also expressed by the
mystics as the struggle of the forces of light against the forces of
darkness.
With knowledge as our thread, we could proceed along the following
lines: The object of knowledge is understanding of truth. Because of
our limitations, we may never possess a complete understanding of
truth, but the more we increase our understanding, the better equipped
we are to solve problems, whether in aerodynamics or economics. It is
only through understanding that man can be a problem-solver and
nature's only progressive animal.
Truth is a most powerful force and the only real threat to
those in the dominant minority. For this reason they take the greatest
care to protect themselves from it in any field that poses any danger
to their position.
The social sciences have most readily fallen into this category in
the present age. The development of these studies in the i8th and 19th
centuries presented the greatest threat to the dominant minority. But
they have emerged victorious in the 20th century to discredit all
belief in the possibility of discovering truth. The social sciences
became overladen with meaningless statistical studies which dazzled
the unwary student. Popularized half-truths such as those of Marx,
captured his mind and diverted him from inquiring into the studies of
more profound scholars who were either ignored or deemphisized by the
respectable authorities.
The underlying philosophy behind ideas prevalent today must be
combated. How can we hope to find a solution to social problems when
truth is believed to be a matter of opinion that varies with the
individual or, with the time, place or social mores? How can we argue
against the idea that there are no absolutes, that all truth is
subject to change and therefore cannot be relied on or even discussed?
The essence of the current philosophy is only a pretense and is not
seriously believed. Would the space ship have been launched on the
assumption that truth is in the eyes of the beholder? It is the
reliance on established principles that has allowed us to accomplish
all that we have. Social scientists seem to take the absurd position
that there are two universes: one where man can rely on natural law,
and another where natural law does not apply.
Whether the prevalent philosophy is valid or not may be an open
question but its effect is to lead us away from a simple, direct
solution to our social and economic problems, because according to
this philosophy no solution is possible.
The first step must be a return to the idea that cause and effect in
social phenomena can be traced and their observation can lead, to a
definite solution of problems. But this involves a total revolution in
the current mode of thought. Only a thorough understanding of ideas
can equip us for this. But so equipped, we become a force to be
reckoned with. Weakness comes from insufficient understanding;
undreamed of strength from thorough understanding, The enemy is much
weaker than we think.
|