The Triglav Circle held its meeting at the Harvard-Yenching Institute on the 12th and 13th of March.
The theme for discussion was: the meaning of life and the purpose of society, as concepts to be taken into account in the elaboration of development programs and in public policy making directed at social progress and sustainable growth. This is an ambitious and complex subject but its exploration may enable the Circle to go a step further in its efforts to enrich public policy by introducing relevant moral and philosophical values into the public discourse.
It is recalled that the topic of the last meeting of the Circle was “Seeking an Ethical Framework for Poverty Reduction.” Building such a framework depended on a firm understanding of moral values and their role in an international political undertaking. C.S. Lewis outlined a three-dimensional model of morality, relating to moral action, motivations, and a conception of purpose, respectively. The last meeting loosely followed this approach, in particular on the first and second levels. It was proposed that this meeting deal more specifically with the third dimension.
We examined the concepts of meaning and purpose in themselves and in their relevance to public policy. For discussion on “meaning,” a useful point of departure was found in the chapter written by Peter Marris in Candles in the Dark, which is entitled “What can be wrong with growth?” As to “purpose” of society, perhaps better formulated in the interrogative form—should society have a purpose? or a set of goals?, or an explicit ideal?—several chapters in Candles are relevant, as they advocate a new spirit for a plural world. One can also try to define such a notion as a “satisfactory meaning for life” and a “noble purpose for society,” and identify their practical linkages as well as the paths and institutions that could promote the renaissance the Circle has been exploring. Perhaps also, reflection on meaning and purpose will help the Circle find a common ground between pragmatism and idealism, if not in philosophical, at least in political terms. The following agenda was discussed.
AGENDA
There is nothing mysterious about the faculty of idealization, whether in the individual or in the group. This faculty is not a sort of luxury, which man could do without, but a condition of his existence. If he had not acquired it, he would not be a social being, which is to say he would not be a man….
And, a few pages later, this judgment: We are going through a period of transition and mediocrity (…) But that state of uncertainty and confused anxiety cannot last forever. A day will come when our societies once again will know hours of creative effervescence during which new ideals will again spring forth and new formulas emerge to guide humanity for a time.
Durkheim, who wrote this in 1912 in The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, far from being a religious person or an idealist, was a proponent of science positive. But for him, individual existence, or life, had to have a meaning, a sense — not simply to be worth living but to be life –, and society had to have a purpose, as it was made of social beings with needs and aspirations. Meaning of life and purpose of society were intensely debated questions — indeed they generated revolutions — and the “private” and the “public,” the individual consciousness and the collective consciousness were commingled.
This historical detour suggests three questions to orient the debate of the Circle:
*
What is the current relevance of questions concerning the meaning of life and the purpose of society?
*
What is the notion today of a continuum between private and public consciousness?
*
What elements should be included in an enriched discourse on meaning(s) of life and purpose(s) of society?
1. What is the current relevance of questions concerning the meaning of life and the purpose of society?
*
What are the reasons for debating this subject? Is the world again (or still?) in the state of “uncertainty and confused anxiety” evoked by Durkheim?
*
Is it that the materialism of the dominant culture is impoverishing both meaning of individual life and purpose of society?
*
At what point does the desire to improve one’s condition become consumerism and materialism? Is one of the keys of the palpable moral malaise that affects affluent societies to be found in the weight given by the dominant culture to the concepts of “satisfaction” and “happiness”? Should governments and societies have “higher” goals and purposes than the improvement of the levels of living and security of their citizens? Should the concepts of “poverty” and ‘wealth” be revisited?
*
Current avatars of totalitarian doctrines inspired by various types of fundamentalism and imperialism are reducing human beings to instruments of a cause. What types of concerns does this evoke? Individuals putting themselves at the service of a cause do feel that their lives have a meaning. And societies with a clear project -be it the preservation of a faith or the propagation of a political, economic and social system – convey a sense of purpose. What are then the criteria for distinguishing “good” and “bad” projects and causes, “good” and “bad” ideals?
2. What is the notion today of a continuum between private and public consciousness?
*
The struggle to liberate the individual from the grip of public authorities and powers — be they religious or secular — has been a feature of the Western civilization for several centuries. And for some, this struggle has now reached a global level. Within this liberal logic, there is the “private sphere” and the “public sphere”, or even, ultimately, there is only the private sphere, as society is reduced to providing for the security of individuals and private institutions. Is then the only legitimate question that of the meaning of life? And have issues of spiritual and moral enrichment to be approached only from an individual perspective?
*
Put differently, is it possible in a post-modern culture to give a content to notions such as Man as a “social being”, “collective consciousness” and “collective purpose”? Is love and respect for nature one of the entries into a harmonious relation between the private and the public?
*
In what manner can the proposition of Vaclav Havel for a spiritual renaissance be realized?
3. What elements should be included in an enriched discourse on meaning(s) of life and purpose(s) of society?
*
What, if any, are the signs of a “creative effervescence” in the spirit of the time?
*
What new or renewed ideals do individuals and societies need? Is the concept and ambition of a renaissance appropriate to the time and its problems? What would be the culture or civilization of reference for such a renaissance? Does the market society require an alternative or an enrichment?
*
What philosophical and moral avenues offer promises for renewal of the moral spirit?
*
Should the world strive for a pluralism of meanings and purposes? Does this pluralism, to have a chance to be peaceful and harmonious, require a set of shared principles and values?
*
Religions have traditionally been, and still are, the main if not unique source of meaning for individual lives. And even when separated from political institutions, they have a lot to say on the organization of society, its morals and its purposes. What would be possible satisfactory arrangements for enhancing such role in a democratic and pluralistic context?
List of Participants
Frank Aguilar
Leila Ahmed
Gustavo Alfaro
Barbara Baudot
Jacques Baudot
Lynn Brooks
Thomas Butler
Ewert Cousins
Jan Cousins
Charles Courtney
Joe Doherty
Henry Epstein
Judith B. Feldman
John Fortin
Richard Harley
Nelson Kiang
William Moomaw
Qi Zhang
Dirck Stryker
Tu Weiming
Yihong Liu
Special Guest
Sulak Sivaraska
Student Assistant
Laura Baudot
Message from JK Galbraith visited at his home during the session.