Skip to content

Details

This is going to be an online meetup using Zoom. If you've never used Zoom before, don't worry — it's easy to use and free to join.

Here's the link to the event: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89766732279?pwd=WkZlb3JHbkY2TDQxUGxWZ1RTUFZqQT09
.

***

CAN & SHOULD WE BE "POLITICALLY AGNOSTIC"?

INTRODUCTION:

When I started this meetup back in 2015, I originally just wanted to create a nonpartisan forum for people with different viewpoints to discuss political issues. My thinking was that it would probably be a mistake and a waste of time to invite "true believers" in traditional conservatism or liberal-progressivism to join us since they'd already have their minds made up and would be prone to ranting & preaching. There are already plenty of political groups in the Philadelphia area that specifically cater to the interests of conservatives & progressives, and they've got the two major political parties, so I decided I'd create a space for those who didn't fit neatly into either of those boxes, which I decided to call "political agnostics". (I also considered the terms "political orphans", "politically homeless" and "political skeptics".)

Over the past 7+ years, I've periodically received messages & comments from people expressing confusion over the meaning of the term "political agnostics" - e.g. is this a group for politically active atheists & agnostics? Quite a few people have objected to the idea that one should be "agnostic" - in the sense of ambivalent or apathetic - on political issues that could have big impacts on many people's lives. Others have questioned whether it's even psychologically possible to be truly "agnostic" - in the sense of unbiased or objective - on contentious political issues. This meetup is meant to address these confusions & concerns.

First off, it helps to know how philosophers define the term "agnostic" (and its opposite, "gnostic") and how it can be subdivided into "strong" and "weak" versions. "Gnostic" indicates the possessesion of some form of esoteric or transcendant knowledge. "Strong agnosticism" is the position that the truth or falsity of a gnostic claim is forever unknowable to anyone. "Weak agnosticism" can either the humbler position that you personally don't know whether X exists, but you don't deny that someone else could know. Or it could indicate the somewhat stronger position that no one knows whether X exists right now, but it may become verifiable in the future as we learn more. (This is similar to "weak atheism" where a person does not believe in God but doesn't claim to know definitively whether or not a deity exists.)

How can we transfer the term "agnostic" into the political realm? One place to start is with the political philosopher Eric Voegelin, who defined gnosis as "a purported direct, immediate apprehension or vision of truth without the need for critical reflection; the special gift of a spiritual and cognitive elite." Voegelin saw philosophical parallels between the ancient philosophies of Platonism & Gnosticism which claimed knowledge of a "transcendental" reality and communism & fascism which also claimed a form of ultimate knowledge but were more concerned with transforming "immanent" reality, i.e. the political world.

Voegelin's political take on "gnosticism" is similar to the concept of "ideal theory" in political philosopy, i.e. a range of theories which specify the optimal societal structure based on idealised assumptions which while unrealistic can arguably still provide a guide for improvements in our non-ideal world and possibly serve as a goal or end-state we could reach in the future. Critics of ideal theories often oppose them on the grounds that they assume a level of detailed knowledge about complex systems we can't possibly have, at least not now. Other critics reference James Madison's famous quote: "If Men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls would be necessary." These critics propose a range of "non-ideal theories" that account for real-world constraints and try to aim for a society that isn't perfect but is relatively good, considering the alternatives.

When we talk about being "politically agnostic" in this discussion, we'll explore several positions characterized by skepticism towards political knowledge:

(1) APATHY/CYNICISM: In its "strongest" form, political agnosticism could mean denying the possibility of any knowledge of what qualifies as a good society or what public policies could improve the human condition. A strong political agnostic would probably be completely apolitical, although they could theoretically adopt a political ideology through a "leap of faith" if they felt it would somehow make their life better or happier. If they valued their own self-interest, a strong agnostic's political actions would be entirely guided by what benefits them personally, although they might feign altruism to win social approval. They may be cynical and assume all political debate is merely a cover for people pursuing their narrow self-interest. (This is called the "self-interested voter hypothesis" in political science and doesn't appear to hold up empirically for most voters - most people think they're helping society or at least their identity group or party.)

(2) REALISM: In a more "moderate" version, political agnosticism would merely mean that one doubts that anyone has Voegelin's type of "gnostic" knowledge of politics, and thus one would be suspicious of any political prophets or master texts that claim to furnish an infallible roadmap to utopia and likewise of anyone claiming they should be entrusted with absolute power. This moderate sort of agnosticism would be similar to what the economist Thomas Sowell called the "constrained vision" of politics - i.e. the belief that human nature is essentially unchanging and that humans are naturally somewhat selfish & ignorant. Those with a constrained vision of politics often describe themselves as "realists", value law & order, and believe compromise is essential because there are no ideal solutions, only trade-offs. The constrained vision of the political realists suggests we can still know what "dystopias" are from history, and that we'd be better off hedging against really bad outcomes (e.g. tyranny, genocide, world war, economic depression, hyperinflation, famine, etc.) instead of trying to create a utopia.

(3) PRAGMATISM: In its "weakest" form, political agnosticism could merely mean a form of "political pragmatism" that is suspicious of purist ideologies. One could accept that all knowledge is provisional but still believe in the possibility of progress, albeit typically through incremental reforms rather than revolutions. Pragmatists tend to believe human beings can be improved - in their behavior if not their inherent nature - through education, social programs & just law enforcement. Pragmatists tend to favor a scientific approach to both ethics & politics where trial & error are used to reform society & gradually advance towards a utopia we can never quite reach.

A NOTE ON SOME RELATED MEETUPS:

The 1st section of today's outline deals with moral philosophy, and it mentions the ways in which moral uncertainty can justify certain elements of classical liberalism. We explored these topics in a previous meetup entitled "Locke & Mill Revisited" - see Part 2 on J.S. Mill's "harm principle" & how it relates to Cass Sunstein's "libertarian paternalism" and Part 3 on Locke's case for religious toleration & how it relates to Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance".

The 1st section of today's outline also mentions "reflective equilibrium". This concept was mentioned in the Intro section of a meetup we had back in August entitled "Is 'Cancel Culture' a Real Threat?" We explored how the deliberation & discussion necessary for "reflective equilibrium" relates to freedom of speech & the press, as well as to Karl Popper's idea of the "open society".

The 2nd section looks at "political agnosticism" in the context of the conservative movement in the mid-20th century. We looked at the elements of "classical liberalism" in Buckley-era conservatism in the 1st section of a meetup back in Oct. 2020 entitled "Is Constitutional Conservatism Dying?"

The 3rd section looks at "political agnosticism" in the context of the progressive movement in the late-20th/early-21st century. We looked at the elements of "classical liberalism" in post-Cold War liberalism in the 2nd & 3rd sections of a meetup back in Oct. 2020 entitled "Is Social Liberalism Dying?"

The 4th section of our outline mentions a group of public intellectuals known as the "Intellectual Dark Web" (IDW). We looked at them in a previous meetup back in Aug. 2022 entitled "What Is Responsible Heterodoxy?" where we considered the development of "heterodox" intellectual spaces in recent years and the debates around why some members of the IDW have arguably become grifters after falling prey to "reflexive contrarianism" and "audience capture".

***

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the debates in psychology, ethics, political philosophy & public policymaking that relate to agnosticism, realism & pragmatism. As usual, I certainly don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending our discussion.

The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about about 53 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details. You can browse and look at whichever ones you want, but don't worry - we'll cover the stuff you missed in our discussion.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. As you can see, I've listed some questions under each section to stimulate discussion. We'll do our best to answer most of them. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

***

I. THE PSYCHOLOGY & MORAL PHILOSOPHY OF AGNOSTICISM:

  • DO SOME PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAITS LIKE OPENNESS, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, COGNITIVE RIGIDITY/ FLEXIBILITY, NEED FOR CLOSURE, AMBIGUITY AVERSION, RISK TOLERANCE, AND UNCERTAINTY AVOIDANCE PREDISPOSE US TOWARDS OR AWAY FROM ACKNOWLEDGING MORAL COMPLEXITY?
  • CAN WE DISTINGUISH AGNOSTIC POSITIONS LIKE "MORAL SKEPTICISM" & "MORAL UNCERTAINTY" FROM "MORAL NIHILISM" WHICH DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF MORALITY OR "MORAL RELATIVISM" THAT DENIES THE EXISTENCE OF A UNIVERSAL, OBJECTIVE MORALITY?
  • CAN AGNOSTICS BASE THEIR MORALITY ON COMMON MORAL INTUITIONS OR EMPIRICAL OBSERVATIONS OF HUMAN PREFERENCES & WELL-BEING WITHOUT REFERENCE TO GOD OR A COSMIC ORDER?
  • ARE PHILOSOPHERS LIKE WILLIAM McASKILL ON THE RIGHT TRACK WHEN THEY SUGGEST THAT WE COULD ADDRESS MORAL UNCERTAINTY BY LOOKING FOR AGREEMENT BETWEEN DIFFERENT ETHICAL SYSTEMS, OR BY PUTTING MORAL ISSUES TO A VIRTUAL VOTE BY REPRESENTATIVES OF DIFFERENT ETHICAL SYSTEMS?
  • IF WE'RE UNCERTAIN ABOUT WHOSE LIFESTYLE IS MORE VIRTUOUS, WOULD THIS JUSTIFY JOHN STUART MILL'S "HARM PRINCIPLE", I.E. ONLY USING FORCE TO STOP PEOPLE FROM HARMING OTHERS?
  • CAN RELIGIOUS & POLITICAL TOLERANCE BE JUSTIFIED BY MORAL UNCERTAINTY & THE REALITY OF MORAL PLURALISM? ARE MORAL EMPATHY (I.E. UNDERSTANDING OTHER'S MORAL BELIEFS) & WILLINGNESS TO COMPROMISE VIRTUES IN THIS CASE?
  • IF WE NEED TO USE DELIBERATION TO ATTAIN COHERENCE & STABILITY IN OUR ETHICS (I.E. "REFLECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM"), DOES THIS JUSTIFY AN "OPEN SOCIETY" WITH FREE SPEECH & A FREE PRESS?
  • DOES MORAL UNCERTAINTY ALLOW FOR "MORAL CONSTRUCTIVISM" - CREATING MORALS? IF SO, DOES IT ALLOW FOR "PRAGMATIC ETHICS" - USING TRIAL & ERROR TO IMPROVE MORALITY?
  • IF WE ACCEPT MORAL PRAGMATISM, SHOULD WE TREAT TRADITIONAL MORALS FOUND IN MANY CULTURES AS DEFAULTS (A LA CHESTERTON'S FENCE) SINCE THEY'RE THE PRODUCTS OF PARALLEL CULTURAL EVOLUTION?

1a) Arie Kruglanski, "The Price of Certainty" (video - 6:46 min.)

1b) David Corey w/ Yuval Levin & John Inazu, "Can American Politics Survive Pluralism?" (video - 1:06:07, listen to 6:00)

.
II. THE COLD WAR ERA'S CASE FOR AGNOSTICISM IN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY:

  • WAS ERIC VOEGELIN RIGHT THAT MARXISM POSITED A FORM OF TRANSCENDENTAL KNOWLEDGE OF POLITICS COMPARABLE TO PLATONISM & GNOSTICISM?
  • WILL SECULAR SOCIETIES ALWAYS BE TEMPTED TO "IMMANENTIZE THE ESCHATON" (I.E. CREATE HEAVEN ON EARTH) AS VOEGELIN CLAIMED?
  • WAS KARL POPPER RIGHT THAT "HISTORICISM" (HISTORICAL DETERMINISM) INVOLVES UNFALSIFIABLE ASSUMPTIONS & IS UNSCIENTIFIC? SHOULD WE BE SUSPICIOUS OF THOSE WHO CLAIM TO BE "ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF HISTORY"?
  • IS POPPER'S "PIECEMEAL SOCIAL ENGINEERING" A BETTER ALTERNATIVE TO RADICAL SYSTEMIC CHANGE? IS THIS AKIN TO WHAT JUSTICE LOUIS BRANDEIS CALLED "LABORATORIES OF DEMOCRACY" - OR DOES THAT INVOLVE COERCING THOSE WHO DISAGREE ONCE THE "BEST" POLICY HAS BEEN "DISCOVERED" THROUGH TRIAL & ERROR?
  • WAS MICHAEL OAKESHOTT CORRECT IN PREFERRING "NOMOCRACY" (NEUTRAL RULE OF LAW THAT TRIES TO MAINTAIN ORDER) TO "TELEOCRACY" (JUDICIAL ACTIVISM THAT TRIES TO DIRECT SOCIAL CHANGE)?
  • DOES THOMAS SOWELL OFFER AN ACCURATE EXPLANATION OF THE LEFT-RIGHT POLITICAL SPLIT IN HIS BOOK A CONFLICT OF VISIONS? IS THE BURKEAN VIEW HE CALLS THE "CONSTRAINED VISION" A FORM OF POLITICAL AGNOSTICISM?
  • WAS SOWELL'S REJECTION OF LEFT-WING SOCIAL ENGINEERING DUE TO HIS "TRAGIC OPTIMISM" OR DID HE FALL PREY TO "CYNICISM", AS MATT McMANUS ARGUES?
  • HAS BURKEAN CONSERVATISM DECLINED IN THE G.O.P.? IF SO, IS IT DUE TO THE DECLINE OF THE ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICANS IN THE 1960s, THE RISE OF RIGHT-WING EVANGELICALS IN THE 1980s, THE INFLUENCE OF THE NEOCONS IN THE 2000s, THE RISE OF TEA PARTY POPULISM & TRUMPISM IN THE 2010s, OR SOMETHING ELSE?

2a) Thomas Sowell, "A Conflict of Visions" (video - 3:41 min.)

2b) Joe Scarborough & David Brooks, "Conservatism Was About Humility And Moral Formation" (video - 9:54 min, listen to 5:50)

.
III. THE POST-COLD WAR DEBATE OVER POLITICAL PRAGMATISM & EVIDENCE-BASED POLICYMAKING:

  • IS NILS KARSON RIGHT THAT POLITICAL PRAGMATISM OUTSIDE THE U.S. IS MOSTLY THE RESULT OF THE FAILURE OF KEYNESIAN POLICIES IN THE 1970s & THE ADOPTION OF "NEOLIBERAL" MARKET REFORMS IN THE 1980s-90s THAT MADE WELFARE STATES SUSTAINABLE?
  • CAN POLICY BE BASED PURELY ON EVIDENCE WITHOUT UNDERLYING IDEOLOGY, OR DOES THE TECHNOCRATIC APPROACH INEVITABLY REFLECT THE BIASES OF SOCIAL ELITES?
  • DO POLITICIANS SOMETIMES RIG THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROCESS OR CHERRYPICK RESULTS TO PRODUCE "POLICY-BASED EVIDENCE MAKING"?
  • IS HENRY FARRELL RIGHT TO SAY THAT PRAGMATISM DOESN'T ALWAYS MEAN MODERATISM & SOMETIMES REQUIRES RADICAL SOLUTIONS TO DISMANTLE BARRIERS TO "UNFORCED INQUIRY"?
  • WAS JONAH GOLDBERG WRONG TO DRAWN PARALLELS BETWEEN EARLY 20th CENT. AMERICAN PROGRESSIVISM & PRAGMATISM AND FASCISM? IF SUCH AN IDEOLOGICAL LINK EXISTED IN THE PAST, IS IT STILL WRONG TO CHARACTERIZE TODAY'S PROGRESSIVES AS "LIBERAL FASCISTS"?
  • ARE PRAGMATIC PROGRESSIVES STILL PRONE TO TECHNOCRATIC HUBRIS, EVEN AFTER REALIZING THAT MARXIST IDEAS LIKE A COMMAND ECONOMY WERE DOOMED TO FAIL? DO THEY UNDERESTIMATE THE ROLE OF GENETICS & DEEP CULTURE IN SOCIAL PROBLEMS & OVERESTIMATE THE INFLUENCE OF EDUCATION & SOCIAL SERVICES TO HELP?
  • IN RETROSPECT, WAS OBAMA A RADICAL IN MODERATE'S CLOTHING, AS JONAH GOLDBERG THOUGHT, A "ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICAN" AS CORNEL WEST CALLED HIM, OR SOMETHING ELSE?
  • HAVE LIBERAL MODERATES LIKE ADAM GOPNIK, JAMES TRAUB, JONATHAN CHAIT & MARK LILLA SUCCESSFULLY MADE THE CASE FOR A PRAGMATIC & UNIVERSALIST LIBERALISM IN THE 21st CENTURY, OR ARE THEIR CRITIQUES OF "IDENTITY POLITICS" & "CANCEL CULTURE" JUST SEEN AS UNDERMINING THE LEFT'S MULTIRACIAL COALITION & EXPOSING IT TO RIGHT-WING ATTACKS?

3a) Nils Karlson, "Pragmatism vs. Ideology" (video - 16:29 min, start at 11:18)

3b) Jonah Goldberg, "Which One Are You: Ideologue or Pragmatist?" (video - 5:11 min.)

.
IV. POST-2016 DEBATE OVER ENLIGHTENED CENTRISM, CLASSICAL LIBERALISM & THE "INTELLECTUAL DARK WEB" (IDW):

  • DOES POLITICAL AGNOSTICISM INEVITABLY LEAD TO STATUS-QUO BIAS & "BORING CENTRISM", OR ONLY IF ONE FALLS PREY TO THE "BALANCE FALLACY"? CAN CENTRISM BE RADICAL AND/OR ENLIGHTENED?
  • ARE QUILLETTE'S "CENTRIST MANIFESTO" & THE NISKANEN CENTER'S ESSAY "THE CENTER CAN HOLD" JUST REWARMED THIRD-WAY NEOLIBERALISM, OR ARE THEY PRESENTING SOMETHING NEW?
  • HAS THE IDW DEMONSTRATED THE BENEFITS OF CIVIL DIALOGUE, OR MERELY FORMED THEIR OWN ECHO CHAMBER?
  • WHY WAS "CLASSICAL LIBERALISM" EMBRACED BY SOME MEMBERS OF THE IDW? DO THEY HAVE A DECENT GRASP OF THE UNDERLYING POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY, OR IS IT MOSTLY JUST A PLACEHOLDER?
  • DID THE IDW WRONGLY DISMISS POSTMODERNISM'S SKEPTICISM OF "META-NARRATIVES" & EMBRACED SCIENTISM, AS NICK GILLESPIE ARGUES?
  • DID THE IDW'S BREAKUP IN 2020 SHOW THE DANGERS OF "REFLEXIVE CONTRARIANISM"? AS "PEAK WOKENESS" PASSES, DO WE NEED TO MOVE PAST CRITICISM & TOWARDS SYNTHESIS, AS DAVID FULLER ARGUES?

4a) Kyle Kulinski, "Steven Pinker Thinks ‘Radical Centrism’ Is New & Genius - It’s Neither" (video - 11:36 min, listen to 7:30)

4b) Reason TV w/ Nick Gillespie, "Libertarian Postmodernism: A Reply to Jordan Peterson and the Intellectual Dark Web" (video - 40:09 min, listen to 16:00)

............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Agnostic
Intellectual Discussions
Intellectual Dark Web
Political Cafe
Political Philosophy

Members are also interested in