The Cult of the Simpletons

"Like the rest of biological evolution, the human mind is a collage of adaptations (the propensity to do the right thing) to different situations. Our thought is a pack of fixed routines — simpletons. We need them. It is vital to find the right food at the right time, to mate well, to generate children, to avoid marauders, to respond to emergency quickly....

The mind evolved great breadth, but it is shallow, for it performs quick and dirty sketches of the world. This rough-and-ready perception of reality enabled our ancestors to survive better. The mind did not evolve to know the world or to know ourselves. Simply speaking, there has never been, nor will there ever be, enough time to be truly rational."

Taking this description -- simpletons -- as a metaphor, it may be possible to apply it to another human tendency, the construction of religious or philosophical ideas by purely metaphysical means. In other words, the development of ideological points of view in a void, separate from empirical input, sans scientific method. The idea that one can divine truth by logical thinking, without going through the rigorous exercise of starting with empirical observations and inductive thinking, before reaching a conclusion about the nature of reality. The absence of such an approach in attempts to develop knowledge about the real world -- particularly when it comes to political philosophy -- is the essence of ideology.

To many, the post-Soviet period is known as a non-ideological era, in which ideas based on fantasies of the past (Nazism and Fascism) or those based on fantasies of the future (Communism) no longer apply. As the world succombs increasingly to scientific knowledge and the scientific method, ideology -- especially political ideology -- becomes a thing of the past.

But does it?

David Brin's article, Neoconservatism, Islam and Ideology:The Real Culture War (from which the above citations are taken), casts doubts on this premise,using the American conservative movement as an example.

Traditional American conservatives must come to grips with what has happened to their movement. While old-style libertarians like William F. Buckley and Gingrich-era combatants such as Pat Buchanan and John McCain blink in astonishment, even dismay, the very definition of "conservative" has been shattered and the word taken over by a new brand of neoconservatism that has proved fundamentally different, though fantastically effective (so far) at seizing power in the world's greatest democracy.

What commonalities could I possibly see between Islamic fundamentalism and today's American neoconservative movement?

The author starts by pointing out how Straussian neocons have neatly sidestepped the values of The Englightenment, opting for Plato's "noble lies" instead of the Enlightenment value of accountability. More to the point, however, Mr. Brin argues that the character of neoconservative ideas bears an uncanny resemblance to those of religious fanatics.

What appears stunning to me is how few have pointed out the deep commonalities between American neoconservatism, Islamic fundamentalism, and every other prescriptive dogma that wracked and afflicted the Twentieth Century. The one common theme uniting all of these ideology-based systems is a burning contempt for the secular, pragmatic, accountable and tolerant legacy of the Enlightenment. Especially its promotion of skepticism toward the subjective, self important mind games that allow each of us to play tricks upon ourselves.

Anyone not on the fringes of neoconservative politics has been pointing this out from the first day that Bush took office. Brin, however, does not stop there.

There is a cultural war going on, all right. Not between East and West. Or between North and South. Or Islam vs. Christianity. Nor is it based on that ridiculous political metaphor and curse bequeathed to us by the French -- left versus right. Not even faith vs. humanism. All are distractions.

What Dr. Brin has in mind goes right to the political core of America -- and perhaps most of the free world. His thesis is both surprising and predictable.

The struggle is between panic and confidence. Between those -- both left and right --who preach that we must enslave our minds to simple doctrines, and those who know that free people can argue, learning from each other, using all of the tools at hand to raise a generation of human beings who are smarter and better than we are.

The full text of Dr. Brin's article can be found here.



Tags: neoconservatism; ideology; straussian; politics; Bush