How To Make Two Neglected Brilliant Ideas into Important or Even Revolutionary Ideas.

(Hanna and Paans, 2020: p. 35; diagram created by Otto Paans)

You can also download and read or share a .pdf of the complete text of this essay by scrolling down to the bottom of this post and clicking on the Download tab.

How To Make Two Neglected Brilliant Ideas into Important or Even Revolutionary Ideas

In “Running On Empty: Why Hasn’t Professional Academic Philosophy Produced Any Important Ideas in the Last 48 Years?,” I argued that

[b]y a brilliant philosophical idea I mean a philosophical idea that manifests great intellectual creativity, insight, and originality, opens up a new way of looking at a large domain of concepts, facts, phenomena, theories, and/or other information, and that would have significant sociocultural and social-institutional impact and influence if it were widely adopted and disseminated. By an important philosophical idea I mean a brilliant philosophical idea that is indeed widely adopted and disseminated, a brilliant philosophical idea with legs, that is, with actual significant impact and influence. And by a revolutionary philosophical idea I mean an important philosophical idea that brings about a shift in philosophical paradigm by inducing the adoption and dissemination of radically new thought-shapers by philosophers and non-philosophers alike, thereby permanently changing the course of philosophical, intellectual, sociocultural, and social-institutional history. (Hanna, 2024a: p. 1)

I also argued that

(i) first, professional academic philosophy has produced no important philosophical ideas produced in the last 48 years, and (ii) second, the most obvious and plausible explanation for this disturbing fact is that (iia) the hegemony of leading trends in recent and contemporary professional academic philosophy, (iib) the hyper-disciplined, rigidified social-institutional structures of philosophical education, and (iic) the entrenched practices of professional philosophical research-and-publishing over the last 48 years, have collectively systematically discouraged, ignored, and suppressed new brilliant philosophical ideas. (Hanna, 2024a: p. 1),

and that

the most obvious and most plausible explanation for this disconnect between the actual production of brilliant philosophical ideas since 2002, and their adoption and dissemination by recent and contemporary professional academic philosophers, is this triple whammy: first, the hegemony of Analytic metaphysics, experimental philosophy/debunking strategies, and feminist philosophy, in professional academic philosophy over the last 25 years, second, the steady increase of hyper-disciplined, rigidified practices of undergraduate and graduate training for professional academic philosophers, over the last 25 years, and third, the gradual and now seemingly permanent entrenchment of a research-and-publication system, driven by and grounded on what Susan Haack aptly calls “perverse incentives” (Haack, 2022), that works at a snail’s pace, is highly adversarial, highly subject to fads and domination by professional academic status-networks, and ultimately reinforces the “normal science” of insular, hyper-specialized, and ultimately unimportant Scholastic philosophical debate, in professional academic philosophy over the last 25 years. (Hanna, 2024a: p. 6)

Let’s suppose that all this is true. Then in this essay, I want to identify two of those brilliant but systematically neglected ideas, and also present a strategy for making them into important or even revolutionary ideas.

The first idea is the essential embodiment theory of the mind-body relation and mental causation.This idea says that the mental-physical relation in minded living organisms like us is nothing more and nothing less than (i) a synthetic a priori two-way necessary complementarity relation, and also (ii) a neo-Aristotelian hylomorphic relation, that is, a mental-to-physical and also physical-to-mental entangled necessary equivalence of “fused” inherently activating irreducible formal or morphetic mental properties on the one hand, and complex non-equilibrium thermodynamic material or hyletic biological physical properties on the other, such that, (iii) as minded animals, i.e., as conscious living organismic animal bodies, we’re an indissoluble and physically irreducible form-matter composite, by virtue of which we’re always “minding our bodies” (Hanna, 2011), that’s (iv) inherently poised for causally efficacious intentional action, spontaneously initiated and creatively guided by our synchronous acts of desire-based willing (Hanna, 2020). In short, our minds are physically irreducible forms of animal life and we’re essentially embodied minds in action (Hanna and Maiese, 2009).

And the second idea is the neo-organicist worldview. This idea is centered on the root metaphor of the living organism (for example, a plant, an animal, and above all, rational, self-conscious minded animals like us), and says: (i) that everything in the world is essentially or fundamentally uncomputable, negentropic, processual, purposive, self-organizing, time-irreversible or time–asymmetric, and non-equilibrium thermodynamic, (ii) that there is a basic metaphysical and ontological continuity, running from the Big Bang singularity to uncomputable, negentropic, time-asymmetric, non-equilibrium thermodynamic energy flows, to living organisms, to conscious minded animals, to rational, self-conscious minded animals with free will and practical agency, and finally to social institutions of all kinds (Torday, Miller Jr, and Hanna, 2020; Hanna, 2024b), and (iii) that all mechanical systems whatsoever, whether formal or natural, are nothing but systematic abstractions from—that is, degenerate cases of, fragments of, or limiting cases of—fundamentally organic systems, and therefore all mechanical systems whatsoever are logically or nomologically strongly supervenient on organic systems (Hanna, 2024b). In turn, the neo-organicist worldview directly entails the metaphysical doctrine of liberal naturalism (Hanna and Maiese, 2009; Nagel, 2012; Hanna, 2018). Liberal naturalism says that the physically irreducible but also non-dualistic mental properties of rational human minded animals are at least as basic in nature as biological properties and any other physical properties, and metaphysically continuous with them. More precisely, according to liberal naturalism, rational human free agency is an immanent structure of essentially embodied conscious, intentional, caring human animal mind; essentially embodied conscious, intentional, caring human animal mind is an immanent structure of organismic life; and organismic life is an immanent structure of spatiotemporally asymmetric, uncomputable, negentropic, non-equilibrium thermodynamic matter/energy flows. Each more complex structure is metaphysically continuous with, and embeds, all of the less complex structures. Again, and now put in terms of dynamic emergence, according to neo-organicism and its liberal naturalism, human freedom is dynamically inherent in and dynamically emerges from essentially embodied conscious, intentional, caring human animal mind. And essentially embodied conscious, intentional, caring human animal mind is dynamically inherent in and dynamically emerges from life. Therefore, human freedom is dynamically inherent in and dynamically emerges from life. Moreover, life is dynamically inherent in and dynamically emerges from spatiotemporally asymmetric, uncomputable, negentropic, non-equilibrium thermodynamic matter/energy flows. Therefore, human freedom, human mind, and life are all dynamically inherent in and dynamically emerge from spatiotemporally asymmetric, uncomputable, negentropic, non-equilibrium thermodynamic matter/energy flows. By way of a quick summary of the basic metaphysical continuities and structural embeddings according to the neo-organicist, liberal naturalist conception, see the diagram displayed at the top of this essay.

Now, the widespread dissemination and adoption of these two ideas would radically change, for the better, our conceptions of our own minds and bodies, our free will and practical agency, the natural universe as a whole, and our place in it (Hanna, 2024b). And in turn, when combined with the widespread dissmination and adoption of dignitarian moral and political theory, this would radically change our basic conceptions of human nature, society, and politics (Hanna and Paans, 2022; Hanna, 2023a, 2023b).

Nevertheless, in order to prove that these two brilliant philosophical ideas have been, and currently are, systematically neglected by professional academic philosohy, you need only (i) state either of them out loud, with a serious look on your face, in the hearing of your PhD advisor, in a job interview, at an APA conference talk that has a large audience, or to your beloved colleagues at a department meeting, and watch them meet the universal blank stare of disbelief and incomprehension, (ii) put them forward as being not only fully intelligible but fully defensible, in a fellowship application or job application, and watch them meet universal rejection, or (iii) try to get them published in a highly-ranked professional academic philosophy journal, and watch them be universally criticized and again rejected.

What can be done about the systematic neglect of these two brilliant ideas? The fundamental difficulties to be overcome are twofold. First, as is well-known, Thomas Kuhn accurately described the inevitability of “degenerating research programs” within the “normal science” of people working within a certain theoretical paradigm (Kuhn, 1970). But he also underestimated the depth and power of the social-institutional entrenchment of this paradigm-driven way of proceeding and its fundamental resistance to radical change within the modern professional academy as such. Indeed, the problem lies not merely in one or another specific discipline, say, physics or philosophy, but in the professional academy and higher education itself. Modern universities are, in effect, nothing less than mega-machines for promoting and sustaining normal science and degenerating research programs. Second, Kuhn also failed to appreciate fully the depth and power of the life-shaping, mind-shaping, and thought-shaping impact of such theoretical paradigms, and how exceptionally difficult it is for orthodox researchers to break out out of them and appreciate unorthodox ideas (Maiese and Hanna, 2019; Hanna and Paans, 2021; Maiese et al., 2024). Correspondingly, the mechanistic worldview is a perfect example of such a deeply and powerfully entrenched, life-shaping, mind-shaping, and thought-shaping paradigm (Hanna and Paans, 2020).

What this means, is that in order to make these two brilliant ideas into important or even revolutionary ideas, their contemporary proponents not only have to convince people working inside the professional academy of the truth of these ideas, but also and perhaps even more importantly, to challenge, transform, or even shatter the social-institutional and life-shaping, mind-shaping, and thought-shaping blinders and straitjackets that make it almost impossible for these people to consider these ideas dispassionately and reasonably. This is strenuous. It’s as if Einstein, Lorentz, Minkowski, and Weyl, in addition to writing and publishing their brilliant foundational essays essays on the theory of relativity (Einstein et al., 1923/1952), had also been required to co-author a best-selling book called Against Professional Academic Physics (see, e.g., Schmidt, 2000; and Hossenfelder, 2018) and thereby challenge, transform, or even shatter the early 20^th century social institution of professional academic physics.[i] In short, the contemporary proponents of these two brilliant ideas will also have to challenge, transform, or even shatter the contemporary professional academy itself. In order to do this, their proponents must exit the professional academy and try to develop and disseminate their brilliant ideas independently. But then they must also become contemporary Stoics, or even contemporary Cynics, and courageously reconcile themselves to being derisively labelled “failed academics” by the swarm of good little professional academic do-bees, and to being systematically ignored by them. In turn, in order for them to survive and thrive outside the professional academy, the contemporary Stoical and Cynical proponents of these neglected brilliant ideas must also have significant and sufficient independent, no-strings-attached financial support. As far as I can see, this is the only way forward.[ii]

NOTES

[i] It’s strikingly significant that Schmidt and Hossenfelder, who both hold PhDs in physics, are regarded by their orthodox professional physicist peers as “failed academics,” and ignored. This in turn strongly suggests that the scientific revolution created by Einstein and his associates simply could not happen today—or at least, could not happen today without being combined with simultaneous radical social-institutional change inside the professional academy.

[ii] I’m grateful to Paul Redding for thought-provoking correspondence about the main topics of this essay.

REFERENCES

(Einstein et al., 1923/1952). Einstein, A., Lorentz, H.A., Minkowski. H., and Weyl, H. The Principle of Relativity. New York: Dover.

(Hanna, 2011). Hanna, R. “Minding the Body.” Philosophical Topics 39: 15-40. Available online in preview at URL = <https://www.academia.edu/4458670/Minding_the_Body>.

(Hanna, 2018). Hanna, R. Deep Freedom and Real Persons: A Study in Metaphysics. THE RATIONAL HUMAN CONDITION, Vol. 2. New York: Nova Science. Available online in preview HERE.

(Hanna, 2020). Hanna, R. “Will-Power: Essentially Embodied Agentive Phenomenology, By Way of O’Shaughnessy.” In C. Erhard and T. Keiling (eds.), Routledge Handbook: The Phenomenology of Agency. London: Routledge. Pp. 312-333. Available online in preview at URL = <https://www.academia.edu/36883518/Will-Power_Essentially_Embodied_Agentive_Phenomenology_By_Way_of_OShaughnessy>.

(Hanna, 2023a). Hanna, R. “In Defence of Dignity.” Borderless Philosophy 6: 77-98. Available online at URL = <https://www.cckp.space/single-post/bp6-2023-robert-hanna-in-defence-of-dignity-77-98>.

(Hanna, 2023b). “Dignitarian Post-Capitalism.” Borderless Philosophy 6: 99-129. Available online at URL = <https://www.cckp.space/single-post/bp6-2023-robert-hanna-dignitarian-post-capitalism-99-129>.

(Hanna, 2024a). Hanna, R. “Running On Empty: Why Hasn’t Professional Academic Philosophy Produced Any Important Ideas in the Last 48 Years?” Unpublished MS. Available online HERE.

(Hanna, 2024b). Hanna, R. Science for Humans: Mind, Life, The Formal-&-Natural Sciences, and A New Concept of Nature. Berlin: Springer Nature. Available online in preview HERE.

(Hanna and Maiese, 2009). Hanna, R. and Maiese, M., Embodied Minds in Action. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Available online in preview HERE.

(Hanna and Paans, 2020). Hanna, R. and Paans, O. “This is the Way the World Ends: A Philosophy of Civilization Since 1900, and A Philosophy of the Future.” Cosmos & History 16, 2 (2020): 1-53. Available online at URL = <https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/865 >.

(Hanna and Paans, 2021). Hanna, R. and Paans, O. “Thought-Shapers.” Cosmos & History 17, 1: 1-72. Available online at URL = <http://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/923>.

(Hanna and Paans, 2022). Hanna, R. and Paans, O. “Creative Piety and Neo-Utopianism: Cultivating Our Global Garden.” Cosmos and History 18, 1: 1-82. Available online at URL = <https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1017>.

(Hossenfelder, 2018). Hossenfelder, S. Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray. New York: Basic Books.

(Kuhn, 1970). Kuhn, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2^nd edn., Chicago, IL: Univ. of Chicago Press.

(Maiese and Hanna, 2019). Maiese, M. and Hanna, R. The Mind-Body Politic. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Available online in preview HERE.

(Maiese et al., 2024). Maiese, M., Gare, A., Kiverstein, J., Krueger, J., and Hanna, R. “The Shape of Lives to Come.” Frontiers in Psychology Research Topics. Available online at URL = <https://www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/25439/the-shape-of-lives-to-come>.

(Nagel, 2012). Nagel, T. Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.

(Schmidt, 2000). Schmidt, J. Disciplined Minds: A Critical Look at Salaried Professionals and the Soul-Battering System That Shapes Their Lives. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

(Torday, Miller Jr, and Hanna, 2020). Torday, J.S., Miller, W.B. Jr, and Hanna, R. “Singularity, Life, and Mind: New Wave Organicism.” In J.S. Torday and W.B. Miller Jr, The Singularity of Nature: A Convergence of Biology, Chemistry and Physics. Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry, 2020. Ch. 20, pp. 206-246.

Download