Modern and Traditional Worldviews

From the perspective of the Aristotelian-Thomist-Tolkien interpretation of nature (or Being, reality – different accents of the same phenomenon), modernity was radically reductionist. It denied Hamlet’s belief that “there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy [or science],” replying “there is less in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your common-sense experience.”

. . .

E. F. Schumacher in his wonderful book A Guide for the Perplexed. He states the worldview he argues against like this:

It is being loudly proclaimed, in the name of scientific objectivity, that 'values and meanings are nothing but defence mechanisms and reaction formations'; that man is 'nothing but a complex biochemical mechanism powered by a combustion system which energises computers with prodigious storage facilities for retaining encoded information'; Sigmund Freud even assured us that 'this alone I know with certainty, namely that man's value judgments are guided absolutely by their desire for happiness [i.e. pleasure], and are therefore merely an attempt to bolster up their illusions by arguments.'

Schumacher – explicitly embracing Aristotle and Aquinas, argued that we must eschew the reductionist inclination to fragment nature (including human nature) into mere mechanical parts. The mineral/material foundation, though essential, is but the initial tier in a grand hierarchy of existence. It is the plant that adds to matter the vital force, elevating what matter can be with the miracle of growth and sustenance. The animal, in turn, enriches this vital force with the gift of consciousness, perception, and instinctual response. Yet it is humanity that transcends all preceding levels with the capacity for self-awareness, rational thought, and moral discernment. A hierarchy of being – a great chain of being – is imagined.

 To perceive a tree merely as a collection of timber is to ignore the intricate dance of life that animates its structure, the delicate interplay of sunlight, water, and soil that sustains it, and the quiet dignity it can lend to life. Each stratum of being contributes distinct and invaluable qualities, forming a complex and interwoven tapestry that eludes reduction to simplistic terms.

     Reductionism denies the being of all the higher levels, reducing them by explaining them solely in terms of the lowest levels. Self-consciousness is explained in terms of animal consciousness, which is then explained in terms of biochemistry, which itself can be cashed out in terms of inorganic chemistry and physics. The Self doing the explaining is left stranded, left with a residue of unreality, and yet is severed from any reality to conform its judgments to other than its own felt desires.

     Schumacher's critique of reductionism emphasizes that true understanding demands an appreciation of each level's unique contributions. The essence of life, consciousness, and self-awareness cannot be fully apprehended by examining their material bases alone. We must acknowledge the emergent properties and intrinsic purposes that characterize each stage, recognizing the holistic interdependence that defines our reality. Thus, the pursuit of wisdom lies in embracing the full spectrum of existence, honoring the irreducible interconnectedness and the transcendent qualities that emerge at each ascending level. Only through this approach can we hope to grasp the true being of the natural world and our place within it.

. . .

Galileo was truly a founding father of the modern worldview. Galileo’s ontology came before his science; indeed, it made his science possible. He posited along with the other founding fathers of modernity that only the so-called “primary qualities” such as shape, size, motion, and solidity are the fundamental realities. In other words, only those aspects of reality that can be quantified By focusing exclusively on these objective, measurable attributes, Galileo moved away from Aristotle's framework that emphasized formal causes (the essence of things) and final causes (their purpose and value). The essence or formal cause, which involves the intrinsic nature or defining characteristics of an object, became less relevant in Galileo's framework. Instead of asking what makes an object essentially what it is, Galileo focused on how its primary qualities can be described and predicted through mathematical laws. The purpose or final cause, which Aristotle saw as central to understanding the nature of objects, was largely ignored by Galileo. He did not concern himself with the purpose of natural phenomena but with the mechanisms by which they operate. This mechanistic view aligns with his ontology, where primary qualities and their interactions constitute the fundamental reality. The Book of Nature was no longer intelligible in language but in mathematics: mathematics was the language of nature, as Galileo wrote. To sum it up: Galileo concentrated on material and efficient causes alone, using empirical observation and mathematical description to uncover the laws governing physical phenomena.

       This shift allowed Galileo to establish a foundation for “objective science,” rooted in quantifiable and universal principles, thus rejecting the qualitative, philosophical approach of Aristotelian science. Through this lens, our entire subjective life was made unreal, reduced to “primary qualities”. Our consciousness, though unreal, was still unavoidably experienced – it takes a mind to think the thought that the mind as experienced is not real. This real-unreal consciousness thus could become “lord and master” over nature, as Descartes put it. [None of this is my original interpretation. I am telling the story in a condensed fashion as I learned about it from reading. I will list some books at the end of this entry.]

. . .

  To become lord and master over nature: that was the point. Nature was stripped of meaning and value, for that was the import of banning the formal and final causes from Being. Understanding nature only from the narrow perspective of what gives certain groups among us the power to harness its forces to purposes no longer judged by nature or natural reason: mostly. Power and profit. The “dark, Satanic mills” (William Blake) – driven by steam power produced by burning tons of coal – soon followed. The rest is history. [Science and technology are 95% in the service of corporate power and profit today, which is unsurprising.] I am not suggesting that there was no exploitation of man and nature before modern industrial capitalism, the fruit of the world view ushered in by Galileo, Bacon, Locke, Descartes, and others. But at least concerning the exploitation of nature, the handicraft methods used could barely make a scratch. Only when the conquest of nature became a project, expressing a pure technological-industrial and bureaucratic-capitalist rationality did it take off. Rather like Auschwitz was to previous genocidal crimes.

   I wrote that the picture of the Appalachian wasteland had something to do with autonomy, which has much to do with how we understand ourselves today. We see nature as raw material to do with as we see fit; we see our bodies as raw material to do with as we see fit. Nature (reality) – understood as nothing but material and efficient causes in Aristotelian terms – is severed from the mind, which is its own place and can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven. If we want 72 genders, we can have 72 genders; nature has nothing to say. Or if it does have something to say, then only what can be understood in terms of the material or efficient cause – not essence or telos, not meaning or value in other words.  The hippies of the sixties and the capitalists are ideological mates: both believe the self is the source of morals, not nature. If we want to transform an ancient forest into a strip mine or a purely aesthetic object for the tourist industry (e.g. a nature preserve), we can. We are the source of reality and value, we contribute, we define the formal and final causes, we project our wishes onto the blank screen of nature (including our bodies).

. . .

   My sympathies are entirely with Aristotle and Thomas – well, not entirely. Aristotelian natural philosophy, particularly through the interpretations of Thomas Aquinas, was instrumental in justifying the subordination of women and the working classes in medieval times. Aristotle's understanding of teleology (final causes) suggested that men and women had inherently different natures and roles, with men being rational leaders and women being suited for reproductive and domestic tasks. Aquinas integrated these ideas with Christian theology, arguing that societal roles reflected God's divine plan. He supported a hierarchical society where the ruling classes were naturally endowed with superior rational and moral qualities, while women and the working classes were seen as lacking these virtues and thus naturally suited to supportive and manual roles. This alignment of natural philosophy with religious doctrine legitimized existing social structures, perpetuated gender and class inequalities, and reinforced the notion that challenging one’s divinely ordained position was against both nature and divine will.

    Moreover, Aristotelian natural philosophy, as interpreted by Thomas Aquinas in medieval times, provided a framework that condemned homosexuality based on its views of natural law and the purpose of human sexuality. Aristotle's emphasis on teleology, where everything in nature has a specific purpose, aligned with Aquinas' integration of these ideas into Christian theology. They argued that the primary purpose of sexual activity is procreation, and any sexual behavior not conducive to this purpose was considered "unnatural" and morally wrong. Aquinas viewed natural law as reflecting divine will, making adherence to procreative purposes essential for moral behavior. Consequently, homosexuality was condemned as a violation of natural law, seen as contrary to both human nature and divine intent. It is still understood in this way by conservative Catholicism. This philosophical and theological perspective justified the widespread condemnation and prohibition of homosexual acts in medieval society, contributing to legal penalties, social stigma, and reinforcing heteronormative cultural norms that persisted for centuries.

   So not surprising the same worldview that removed the restraints on the capitalist to exploit the earth and human labor removed the restraints on women, working people, and homosexuals from resisting the ideological versions of hierarchy keeping them down.

   Either these injustices were a direct implication of the Aristotelian-Thomist way of understanding nature or a corruption of this way of understanding nature, reflecting the ideologies of their culture. [Ideology is false consciousness, an obscuring of the reality of unjust power structures through false or misleading narratives.] I guess the thought of no one who has ever lived in the historical period of humanity has been completely free of ideology. To throw out a profound and realistic philosophy because parts of it were polluted with ideology was like throwing out the baby with the dirty bath water. We need to reanimate this philosophy. Modernity is destroying both the natural and human worlds. In the end, it is what is in people’s heads that is doing this destruction. We make pictures of ourselves and then become like the pictures, wrote Iris Murdoch. We need a better picture of humanity and nature.

    But within that better picture we need a better, more truthful, more just understanding of the nature of work, the body, sexuality, the sexes, and homosexuality. Animals too. Well, of the nature of everything. No merely human understanding can ever be final. We can and should go on deepening our understanding of everything without end.

Source books. Most of these I studied as a student. The philosophy of technology was a keen interest of mine then, and has remained so. Some of these are hard reads. The books by Schumacher, Berry, Tarnas, Winner, and Sherrard are written in an easily accessible style.

Kostas Axelos, Alienation, Praxis, and Techne in the Thought of Karl Marx, 1961, 1976.

Wendell Berry, The Unsettling of America, 1977.

Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society, 1964.

William Leiss, The Domination of Nature, 1972.

Lewis Mumford, Technics and Civilization, 1934

Lewis Mumford, The Myth of the Machine, vol. 2: The Pentagon of Power, 1970.

Benjamin Nelson, The Idea of Usury: From Tribal Brotherhood to Universal Otherhood, 1969.

Philip Sherrard, The Rape of Man and Nature: An Enquiry into the Origins and Consequences of Modern Science, 1987.

Richard Tarnas, The Passion of the Western Mind: Understanding the Ideas That Have Shaped Our World, 1991.

Langdon Winner, Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-control as a Theme in Political Thought, 1977.