Customer Reviews

On Equilibrium: Six Qualities of the New Humanism

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

"On Equlllibrium" follows in the tradition of Saul's earlier trilogy of philosophical works, extolling the classical humanist virtues and attacking various forms of modern corporatist rationale and systematic manipulations of human reason.

This book is like a very rich pastry, full of insights that bear savoring and re-savoring. On the other hand, as Saul is very much aware, it does not lead to a very satisfying conclusion. In the end, it is the reflective balance between the various intentionally vaguely defined qualities that make us human tha Saul equates with essential human wisdom. This sides the author with Rawls and a number of other progressive theorists who favor an uneasy dynamic balance over apparent certainties. And consistent with his critique of pure reason in "Voltair's Bastards," this leads him to poise classical Socratic doubt against reason and false certitude.

The incautious reader might well rush to accuse Saul of being irrationalist, and his sometimes murky style might reinforce that impression. He is attacking "pure reason" in the sense of clear-cut trees of propositional logic, not human reasoning in the broader sense. He is changing the emphasis regarding what it means to <i>reason</i> from a dependence on logic ... to the reflective use of numerous natural abilities. His main problem here is that he often accomplishes this in a relatively obscure and indirect way.

While it is not as difficult or confusingly complex as Voltaire's Bastards, and is somewhat better focused from the start, it still bears Saul's characteristic meandering ("reflective?") style and will annoy readers who prefer their philosophy to get to the point directly.

Saul deliberately avoids clear succinct definitions of his terms, even tentative definitions, and this makes reading this book somewhat like filling in a crossword puzzle. You are never completely sure what he means by his central terms like "memory" or "reason" or "common sense" until you see them contrasted with each other in other chapters. When you see all the other intersecting lines filled in, you can begin to guess at the missing word.

The result is a writing style that eventually rewards your patient efforts at reading and reflecting, but will probably fend off the less reflective reader very early on.

I recommend this book to fans of Saul, fans of difficult crossword puzzles, and others who enjoy rich, complex philosophical perspectives on human nature and human social interdependence. It is not at all technical, but still a difficult book requiring some patience and even some re-reading at times.

Saul's main idea is that there are six qualities - common sense, ethics, imagination, intuition, memory, reason - we need to keep in appropriate balance ("equilibrium") if we are to live in prosperity and peace. What this comes down to in overly simple terms is that we need to be aware that other people have points of view that are not identical to ours, but are not all that distant, either. In other words, we should pay attention to, and take seriously, what others have to say. Saul believes that when we make wealth our primary goal, we ignore the differences presented by others and force the world into our vision of it. This makes for dullness. He has a great point; we don't reach the good life by marching to our own beat. We get their by sharing shoes with others. The book can be frustrating at times, since he digresses every now and then. But there are many gems.

Saul's overall idea of a balanced humanism is a good idea. He thinks that living in a way that balances the employment of six qualities will achieve a greater humanism. This is a very interesting idea. The disappointment is the fact that he does not develop this concept well enough, in my opinion, writing a lackluster book that just doesn't seem to ever drive home his ideas. This is puzzling, because he makes these very quotable statements, but, everywhere else, writes a fairly disorganized and vague book that bounces around.

Another pro and con is in Saul's scholarship that he infuses in this book. On one hand, he cites many thinkers and uses these to present a strong context for his thoughts. In other places, he doesn't reference quotes, which left me unsure of from where they came. Having read some authors extensively, and finding that Saul uses interesting quotes from those authors that I had not previously encountered, made me curious of their origin. I would blush if I wrote a work that lacked so many necessary citations.

I think the real wonder of this book is marred by Saul's inability to really formulate a convincing discourse. what I am talking about is "reason." I think that future historians will refer to our era as "The Age of Reason," and probably in the perjorative sense. Just as rationalism was dismantled by transcendental philosophy and logical positivism abrogated by Godel's Incompleteness Theorem, I am confident that our current idea that "all is reducible to reason" will go to the way side, eventually. After all, the importance of the phenomenal world, and axioms chosen, precede the actual reasoning structure. I just didn't think Saul put into perspect the modern misuse of and misconception of reason. We live in a time where our courts of law always ask "What was person X's reason for killing person Y?" The problem is that, in some (possibly many) cases, there is not reason. I think Saul would have profitted greatly from using Voltaire's Pangloss to make his point better than he did. Our culture is seemingly structured in such a way as to turn all youths into college professors, an actuality that can never be. Sir Ken Robinson has made this point, and well made, I think. However, Saul does not use any of this to get his point across. His chapter on reason makes me feel, at times, as though he is "in hate" with reason. I know this is not the case, but do all of his readers know this?

Humanism is an important movement, and it is one that I think all people need to examine, whether religious, atheist, or just a spiritual person. Optimizing human being is an enrichment that is crucial to the content of human integrity.

I stopped reading this book after the chapter on 'Common Sense'.. in it Saul argues that there is a common body of knowledge in the world that cannot be transcribed by language and that transcends reasoning. He bemoans the increasing specialization of knowledge away from "common sense" and the worship of reason. I can't help but think of all the times when what was 'common knowledge' has been disproved or changed by what he derides as 'pure reasoning'.. e.g., the flat-earth idea, racial hierarchy, the planet being less than 5000 years old, etc. I also fail to see how knowledge is 'common', seeing as how it is tainted by our own views and prejudices. To be fair to him, he does try to differentiate his idea of 'common sense' from superstition, but doesn't specify where the line is drawn.. is it common sense that women are bad drivers or is it just superstition.. or is it a prejudiced world view that can be disproved by objective reasoning?

He fails to take into account the fact that as our body of knowledge has increased (through understanding and objective reasoning), we have come to rely on it more than on gut instinct and perceived common sense. There is a lot that we know but we don't understand but we rely on the fact that someone, somewhere has understood it. I know that human beings evolved from single celled organisms - I don't claim to understand it completely, but I know that someone, somewhere does and if I wanted to I could look it up. If I claim that it is common knowledge that the world is ruled by invisible purple monkeys, who is going to be the arbitrator of that claim? Science by majority voting?

In all the writing doesn't flow smoothly and I decided that it wasn't worth deciphering his ideas - it's just another case of "I don't understand it so it must be wrong".

John Ralston Saul does not like rationalism. For him reality is too complex to be captured within any rational scheme. Instead he says that we should embrace the complexity and be guided by our common sense (shared knowledge), ethics, intuition etc. We must keep all of these qualities in equilibrium since by embracing one we will be captured by ideology.

Does this sound vague and ultimately self-justifying? Does the maintenance of an equilibrium between vaguely defined qualities and the rejection of rational analysis seem to be a means of justifying one's own favorite beliefs? This book certainly seems to answer these questions in the affirmative. Ralston Saul begins with general questions but the answers that he comes up with always justify his social democratic positions on the political issues that were current at the time that this book was published in 2001. Who knew that the anti-globalization movement found its justification in common sense? Who knew that there need be no debate on anthropogenic global warming since it is common sense.

This book is vague, wandering and self-indulgent. There is no philosophical or political insight here that could not be found in a coffee shop conversation.

This book is not worth buying.

Saul presents some intriguing and pertinent ideas in Equilibrium. Moreover, they are understandable ideas. At least they would have been understandable if he had taken the time to write a book that didn't have to be deciphered.

I really enjoyed this book. Saul's writing is somewhat challenging, but with effort it becomes rhythmic. I valued his perpectives on human orientations and how they balance each other. The notion of "equilibrium" in human activities is a sound one, especially in these times, in which we face so many imbalances in the environment, wealth, power, justice, and opportunity.