10 Philosophy Books For Your Perusal (Part 1)

I’m going to give everyone my list of 10 books of philosophy that have really enlightened my thinking about life and how to live it. Granted these blurbs aren’t supposed to be full summaries, but will hopefully prod everyone into questioning some of the things about ourselves and in society that go unquestioned.  I've included links on the titles to free versions of the texts, when possible. Enjoy.

Number One:

Adam Smith - The Theory of Moral Sentiments 

“In general, if any branch of trade, or any division of labour, be advantageous to the public, the freer and more general the competition, it will always be the more so.”

Economists quote him. Business students read him. People from Milton Friedman to Karl Marx, to Ronald Reagan have used him. Yet, Adam Smith is best known for only half his philosophy. So, first on the list, believe it or not, is that paragon of economics, Adam Smith. Smith is much maligned and worshipped. Both attitudes are born of a severe ignorance by both his enthusiasts and critics. The reason? There is a complete lack of knowledge of Smith’s moral philosophy. The Wealth of Nations didn't come out of the blue. To truly understand Smith's economic masterpiece one must understand its moral foundation. Without Smith's essential prequel the famous (or infamous) Wealth of Nations is easily misconstrued, perverted, or disallowed.

It is not the love of our neighbour, it is not the love of mankind, which upon many occasions prompts us to the practice of those divine virtues. It is a stronger love, a more powerful affection, which generally takes place upon such occasions; the love of what is honourable and noble, of the grandeur, and dignity, and superiority of our own characters.

Borrowing the idea from Hutcheson, Smith appropriately deposits the premise of his economics in a seedbed of moral philosophy -- the rights and wrongs, the whys and why-nots of human behavior and relationships. He demonstrates our moral ideas and actions are a product of our nature as social creatures. It argues that sociology, psychology, and communication are better guides to moral action than straightforward reason. It identifies the basic sentiments of empathy, prudence, and justice needed for society to survive, and explains the additional beneficent, actions that enable it to flourish. Concern for one’s own interest and concern for the public interest - the common good - are inseparable. Benevolence is essential and to the advantage of the individual. That is not what we hear about today.

Smith's capitalism is far from a heartless, cruel, greed-motivated, love-of-profits-at-any-cost approach to the marketplace, when seen in the context of his moral philosophy. The Theory of Moral Sentiments corrects the impression that Smith was a laissez-faire capitalist. In fact, his moral philosophy a priori critiques the objectivist, self-interested capitalism of Ayn Rand. In fact, although Smith was in theory against regulations and government interference in the marketplace, he was NOT blind to the fact that unadulterated self-interest needed to be regulated when undue burdens and unfair practices abound. 

Smith was, in fact, very critical of businessmen. Indeed, the viewpoints expressed in Moral Sentiments make it clear that the popular conception of Smith as first and foremost a money-making, capitalistic economist concerned with wealth does not mesh well with his own philosophy. 

Modernism, Postmodernism, and the Christian Church

There have been many attacks on what is perceived as the infiltration of postmodernity (pomo) into the Christian church, particularly the Emergent church. Here are some of them:

The Postmodern Crackup

Knowing Right From Wrong, A Christian Response To Postmodern “Tolerance”

Pomo and the Emergent Church

As is usual, I look at things just a tad bit differently. I believe the failure is not so much with pomo thinking, but with modernism. Modernism was a huge failure. The rationalists like Descartes and Spinoza left us with nothing but skepticism.  The Empiracists: thinkers like Hume and Berkeley left us with nothing but our senses: with no thing human but a summation of our experiences. Idealism - like Hegel's - led to the false promises of Fascism and Marxism, and their terrible impositions, communism and Nazism. Existentialism led to more questions about the nature of the self (which is both being and nothing). Absurdism made questions irrelevant, because there are no answers. The more we learn through science, the more speculative it becomes: dark matter, quarks, string theory. And industrialism led to the wonderful efficiency of the Holocaust, Vietnam, slavery, etc. Individualism itself is a product of modernism, and therefore the philosophy of relativism – what’s good and true and beautiful for me is what I say it is – is also a product of the modern outlook.

The main idea of modernity was progress, which was tripped up when so much 'progress' turned out to be no progress at all. This is not to say that modernism was all wrong, or that there were no successes. There's Kierkegaard, computers, the American Republic, etc., but over all the modernist project failed.

Even Christianity got caught up in the idea of ‘progress.’ Searching for the ultimate answer through state churches, and the rationality of apologetics. Also, looking for the ultimate truth of God through rationalistic and empirical methods. On one side of the equation, the religious ideas of this time are not about the ‘mystery’ of God or the ‘ineffable’ of the spiritual. More often than not they are about putting God in a box: “This is God. This is what He wants. This is what you do.” What else are all these damn (yes damn) Christian self-help books, but the application of the rational to our own selves in regard to God? Nihilism anyone? On the other side of the equation is the rationalistic interpretation of the gospel for justice, change and liberation: all summed up nicely in the phrase ‘social gospel.’ Nothing wrong with justice, change and liberation, but getting "heaven here on Earth" is a bit preposterous. Both of these attempts and modern Christianity were a failure as well. 

These authors are wrongs about a number of items (beyond the fact that they do not understand the differences between modernism and pomo). The self-centeredness and individualism and narcissism are part of the modern age, not pomo. In fact, they are arguing from a modernist perspective. Yes, there are certain things that we need to believe to be Christians, but there is a lot more to Christianity than “Hell Insurance,” as suggested.

There is much more to being a Christian than “being saved and going to heaven.” If not would we have to work our salvation with fear and trembling? Would we have to run the race? Would we have to put on the armor of God? Imagine if you or I believed only the things we believed when we first got saved. We’d always remain what Paul called babes.  God makes us hunger for more, because to be a Christian is to be in a relationship – with Him and with others. God uses His absence (ok, it isn’t REALLY His absence, bit sometimes it feels like it) and doubt to prick us to press deeper into His kind of life. Does this sound like a life preoccupied with merely the destination? Was your marriage a destination…or a beginning? Is parenthood a destination or a continued relationship?

Does the Emergent Church have it all right? No more than the modern church did. Pomo and Christianity are more compatible than Christianity and modernism. In fact Pomo is more akin to ancient and medieval biblical thought (Aquinas, St. Benedict, Anselm, Francis of Assisi, Eckhart) than most of the religious tomes written in the modern period. (Exceptions of course include Kierkegaard, CS Lewis, Bonhoffer, etc.) Like Premodern Christianity, Pomo allows the mystery, the questioning, the ineffable, the things that cannot be answered here on Earth to go unanswered. That is part of the journey. That is part of relationships.  That is what makes living the Christian life worth living.  Just saying.