Context
Scepticism and Animal Faith was published in 1923, between the two World Wars. The author George Santayana (1863-1952) was born Jorge Agustín Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás in Madrid and lived in the US where he published all his work in English.
The early 20th. century saw the rise of pragmatism in American philosophy, with figures like William James and John Dewey emphasising practical consequences and the usefulness of beliefs. Santayana, while influenced by pragmatism, diverged by focusing on the non-rational aspects of belief.
Santayana and James had differing basic philosophical approaches. Santayana adopted an intuitive phenomenology as his basis and James's philosophy was positivist and existentialist.
Their opposing views are most clearly seen in the idea of transcendence. Santayana developed a post-Hegelian view of the history of philosophy, one that allows for different moments to become synthesised into a single philosophical perspective. Unlike Hegel, who thought that there existed a single historical synthesis for each philosophical era, however, Santayana argues that his synthesis expresses his own vital philosophy, and that it was not the only possible synthesis for any historical period. Santayana’s vital philosophy also shares some interesting commonalities with how linguists develop grammatical theories based on a “tacit knowledge a priori".
On this basis, Santayana developed a radically opposed view of transcendence to that of James, who consistently expressed a total disregard for intellectual history. This is most clearly seen in his radical development of America’s popular philosophy, which allowed him to stress the willingness in reflex action and to minimise the role of theory.
The beginning of the 20th. century was marked by a strong emphasis on empiricism and naturalism, which sought to ground knowledge in observable phenomena and the natural world. Following these influences Santayana's work advocated for a philosophy that recognised the biological and instinctual roots of human thought.
Santayana's empirical leanings led him to emphasise that knowledge arises from sensory experience. He believed that our understanding of the world is grounded in what we can observe and experience directly: knowledge is primarily derived from sensory experience. He was critical of rationalist approaches that prioritise reason and innate ideas over empirical evidence. He argued that abstract reasoning without empirical grounding can lead to misconceptions about reality. However, he also recognised the importance of imagination in shaping human experience. He believed that imagination played a crucial role in interpreting sensory data and constructing meaning.
The author was also influenced by naturalist ideas which propose that everything can be understood in terms of natural processes and laws. He rejected supernatural explanations and insisted that human beings are part of the natural world, subject to its laws and influences. He argued that human experiences, emotions, and values are rooted in the natural world and explored how cultural and historical contexts shape human understanding and behaviour, suggesting that philosophy should be grounded in the realities of human life.
Santayana also integrated Naturalism into his aesthetic theory. He believed that beauty and art are products of natural processes and human experiences, rather than transcendent ideals.
The early 20th. century was also a time of intense debate between scepticism and rationalism. Philosophers were grappling with the implications of scepticism for knowledge and belief, particularly in the wake of modern scientific advancements that challenged traditional metaphysical views. Santayana's exploration of scepticism reflects this broader philosophical inquiry.
The aftermath of World War I had a profound impact on European and American thought, which translated into the Modernist movement. The war led to disillusionment with rationality and progress, prompting many thinkers to question the foundations of Western philosophy and culture. Santayana's emphasis on instinct and faith can be seen as a response to this cultural climate, highlighting the limitations of purely rational approaches. Advances in psychology, particularly the work of figures like Sigmund Freud, were also influential. The exploration of the unconscious and instinctual drives resonated with Santayana's ideas about animal faith and the non-rational aspects of human belief.
Santayana was part of a broader literary and philosophical movement that included writers and thinkers who were exploring themes of existentialism, human nature, and the search for meaning in a rapidly changing world. His work reflects a literary style that combines philosophical rigour with a poetic sensibility.
Summary
In Scepticism and Animal Faith (1923) Santayana explores the relationship between scepticism and belief in the context of human experience and the nature of knowledge. In his preface he states his practical approach to philosophy:
"I think that common sense, in a rough dogged way, is technically sounder than the special schools of philosophy, each of which squints and overlooks half the facts and half the difficulties in its eagerness to find in some detail the key to the whole."
Santayana discusses the nature of scepticism, which questions the validity of knowledge and the certainty of beliefs. He acknowledges that while scepticism can lead to doubt and uncertainty, it is also a necessary part of philosophical inquiry.
Santayana's scepticism adopted the ancient Greek tradition of Pyrro which comes to us through his follower, the Roman doctor Sextus Empiricus, in his Pro Dogmatikous (2nd. century A.D.). There Sextus expressed doubt about the possibility of achieving absolute knowledge, a result of his empirical medical approach. Santayana also argued that human understanding is limited and shaped by biological and cultural contexts.
Santayana discusses the concept of animal faith. This refers to the instinctual beliefs and perceptions that guide both humans and animals. He posits that these beliefs are not necessarily rational or reflective but are also rooted in our biological nature and experiences. The term "animal faith" refers to the instinctual, non-rational beliefs that humans and animals possess. Santayana argued that these beliefs are foundational to our existence and experience. They are not based on rational justification but are instead rooted in our biological and psychological nature. Santayana's notion of animal faith suggests that both humans and animals operate on a level of instinctual belief that does not require conscious reasoning.
The author's ideas about animal faith led him to challenge the idea that all beliefs must be rationally justified. In his critique of pure rationalism he argued that this perspective overlooks the essential role of non-rational beliefs in human life. He maintained that much of what we know is derived from our instincts and the natural world, which may not always fit neatly with rational thought.
In this sense his scepticism extended to logic and rationalism and embraced a pragmatic understanding of knowledge in which he suggested that instincts and sensory experiences played a crucial role in shaping beliefs. He affirmed that beliefs should be evaluated based on their practical consequences and their ability to help us navigate the world, rather than solely on their logical justification.
Santayana insisted on the importance of instinctual beliefs in guiding human behaviour and understanding. He suggested that while rational thought is valuable, it often cannot replace the fundamental beliefs that arise from our instincts. In the concept of "animal faith instinct" he referred to an innate, often subconscious tendency to trust and believe in certain things without requiring extensive evidence. This instinct can be seen in both humans and animals, where behaviours are driven by instinctual responses rather than rational analysis.
He pointed out that human decision-making is often made based on gut feelings or instincts. Animals and humans may also rely on past experiences to inform their instinctual information and guide their beliefs and actions. He emphasises the importance of instinct as a survival mechanism because it allows for quick decision-making in uncertain environments.
The interplay between scepticism and animal faith instinct can lead to a balanced approach to understanding the world. While scepticism encourages thorough investigation and critical thinking, the animal faith instinct allows for quick, instinctual responses that can be beneficial in certain situations.
In many cases, individuals may oscillate between these two approaches, relying on scepticism in complex situations that require careful thought, while trusting their instincts in more straightforward or urgent scenarios. Understanding both can enhance decision-making and foster a more nuanced view of knowledge and belief.
Themes
Reasoning and behaviour
Scepticism and Animal Faith marks a turning point in Santayana’s philosophy, leading to the development of his complete naturalism and to a decisive change in philosophical inquiry that was a century ahead of his time. Much of what Santayana explains in this book is now central to enquiries in the social and biological sciences that attempt to understand human behaviour.
Before Santayana, philosophers often thought humans were distinct from other animals because of their reasoning and their ability to act based on thinking through difficulties and then deciding to proceed in the most beneficial way. This approach was widely held from Plato to U.S. Pragmatism. However, Santayana’s orientation is dramatically different, focusing on animal faith and not human reason. He is a non-reductive naturalist.
To the surprise of his contemporaries, Santayana no longer considered humans unique from other animals nor perhaps even more complicated in their interactions with their environment. Mental consciousness or spirit is a reflection, an aftereffect of animals acting and responding in a physical environment. He suggests an analogy to the sound of music produced by an orchestra. Consciousness or spirit is not causal. For the most part it is momentary, lasting only so long as it is generated by our physical being, what he calls psyche. Hence, rather than being a philosopher who recognises reason and mind as unique in causing human action, he notes that our actions, like that of all animals, are caused by our psyche’s physical interaction with its environment. Such a move abandons philosophy as a discipline focusing on reason as the basis for action. One might think this lessens the value of consciousness, but not for Santayana. Spirit is to be celebrated and cherished. Indeed, a principal goal of human life is to cultivate a spiritual life.
Santayana’s naturalistic approach also leads to a distinct understanding of human cultures, their value, and the political structures involved in various human organisations. There is no hierarchy of best or better, only the reality of human societies serving their constituents in differing ways, much as we might describe the social structures of other animals. If the goal is to provide the greatest range of opportunities for the greatest number of people, one may find evidence that some societies enable more people to live well, but no one political structure is likely to accomplish that in all human environments. Even so, Santayana explores the natural values of charity and justice as central to human societies enabling individual humans to flourish.
Epiphenomenalism
Commonsense explanations maintain that human behaviour has its cause in consciousness. Yet this is denied by epiphenomenalism, a classic theory in the philosophy of mind. George Santayana saw conscious will as only a symptom – the expression of the underlying activity of the brain. Consciousness is a phenomenon arising from and sitting above the brain’s action: an epiphenomenon. Consciousness is caused by, but not itself the cause of, the changes effected by the brain.
“Conscious will is a symptom, not a cause; its roots… are invisible to it… material”.
Santayana developed a form of Critical Realism—in contrast to both naïve realism, which holds that a perceived physical object is in direct contact with our conscience, and indirect realism, which holds that we infer the existence of physical objects from the presence of certain sense impressions. Critical Realism suggested that what is directly present to the conscience is the essence of a known object. The actual presence of the object is a physical experience reacted to by the physical body, rather than an experience of the mind, but evaluating its nature is an act of the intellect.
Santayana believed that absolute and certain knowledge of something was impossible, but that humans should adopt a practical system of beliefs based on experience and gained in a reliable manner. Truth existed as an objective reality, far surpassing any possible knowledge, and could be grasped only as mostly symbolic fragments by human beings. The author deplored any suggestion that the world, reality or truth was somehow a human construction. He regarded self-centred egotism as a flaw of modern pragmatism and idealism and an unrealistic glorification of human power. He considered himself a naturalist, believing that man depended on a greater, non-human cosmos, and held Spinoza's writings in high regard, without subscribing to Spinoza's rationalism or pantheism. Although an atheist, he described himself as an "aesthetic Catholic," and spent the last decade of his life in a Roman Catholic convent, cared for by nuns. His appreciation of human creative imagination in all aspects of life, but particularly in art, philosophy, religion, literature and science, was one of Santayana’s major contributions to American thought.
Materialism
Santayana’s philosophy is materialistic and seeks natural explanations when required. But none of this entails neglect of art, religion, or spiritual life. There is no attempt in his thought to reduce consciousness or values to the material antecedents from which they proceed. Consistent with his materialism is his belief in objective truth and a reality independent of human thinking or desiring. His defence of independent reality is seen in his sustained criticism of the Kantian and German idealistic tradition, including Georg Hegel.
Santayana regards matter as the fundamental reality in the universe, and mind as a product of matter. Mental events are always grounded in material ones. He distinguishes his materialism from the kind which regards matter as the sole reality. Mind, he insists, is as much a fact as matter but is, again, wholly dependent on the latter:
"That matter is capable of eliciting feeling and thought follows necessarily from the principle that matter is the only substance, power or agency in the universe: and this, not that matter is the only reality, is the first principle of materialism."
Hence, matter, while not the only reality, is the only entity that causes things to happen. This view places the mind in an essentially passive role. Mental happenings are always effects, never causes. Mind is a by-product of physical processes in the brain.
As a materialist, Santayana sees himself as part of a broad tradition that includes Democritus, Lucretius, Spinoza and Darwin.
Idealism & materialism
In his book Character and Opinion in the United States Santayana offers a comprehensive critique of American thought and civilisation and reflects the detached perspective that lent his criticism its characteristic objectivity and strength. Santayana's subject is the conflict of materialism and idealism in American life. In his view there exists a dualism in the American mind: one side, dealing with religion, literature, philosophy, and morality, tended to stay with inherited, old doctrines, the genteel tradition, and failed to keep pace with the other, practical side and its new developments in industry, invention, and social organisation.
The author traces the first mentality to Calvinism and its sense of sin, an attitude out of keeping with a new civilisation and the dominance of practical interests. As a consequence of separating philosophy from everyday life, its study merely served religious and moral interests cut off from the free search for truth. At the heart of the book is Santayana's examination of the influential thought of William James and Josiah Royce, who typified for him the dilemma of American thought. The subordination of thought to social form and custom underlies Santayana's sharp critique of academic philosophy at Harvard where he studied and taught. He was disturbed by the very idea of philosophy as an academic discipline. Philosophy, he felt, should be an individual, original creation, "something dark, perilous, untested, and not ripe to be taught".
No comments:
Post a Comment