the rose of knowledge
commentary on an Aeon article by King and Rudy about the “ends of knowledge”
And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.
Rachel King and Seth Rudy have an article1 at Aeon about the “ends of knowledge” that introduces some of their research and survey results and invites us to rethink the structure of the contemporary university.
Below is a quick summary of the article with a few cursory notes. A great deal more could be said on this topic, of course, but I will content myself to offer my own considered proposal at the conclusion of this post together with an invitation to readers to share any thoughts they may have.
After sketching a history of how the “ends of knowledge” were conceived in the past, and how these conceptions transformed over time, King and Rudy describe their research into the subject in which they queried other academics vis-à-vis the latter’s notions of the ends of their disciples. King and Rudy did not stipulate a precise definition of the term but rather, according them them, allowed the respondents to interpret the question as they saw fit. According to the researchers, the responses organized organically into four interpretations each of two questions (my comments in parentheses):
what does “end” mean?
end as telos (brahmin caste attitude, purpose, logos2)
end as terminus (kshatriya caste attitude, completion of research program, thymos3)
end as termination (vaishya caste attitude, termination of gainful employment, epithymia4)
end as apocalypse (existential, eschatology, synthesis of foregoing though also likely pre-conditioned by the mimetic alarmism among academics)
what should “end” mean vis-à-vis knowledge?
But in answering the question of the ends of their disciplines, our contributors fell into another set of four groups, which cut across the three-part university division of the humanities, social sciences and natural sciences.
“One group took the approach of unification: how could the author’s field achieve a unified theory or explanation, and how close is the field to that goal?” (philosophy, visionary)
“A second group argued that the purpose and endpoint of knowledge production is increased access, and that such access is key to social justice.” (left wing activist)
“Discussions of utopian and dystopian outcomes comprised a third group” (politics)
“while a fourth located their ends in the articulation and pursuit of key concepts such as race, culture and work” (analytic philosophy).
While to question of how best to reimagine the structure of the university is infinitely fascinating, I can’t say that the authors offered much by way of substance as to how this might look other than the vague call for disciplines of knowledge to be “reoriented around emergent ends rather than inherited structures.” I think we need something like the following compass rose, around which departments can be organized by their inherent, and not emergent, teloi (plural of telos, or “end”):
Truth, Aletheia/Episteme
Beauty, Kalon/Poesis
Goodness, Agathon/Ethike
Craft, Techne
The article introduces their volume, The Ends of Knowledge: Outcomes and Endpoints Across the Arts and Sciences (2023).
on the threefold soul:
Freud’s tripartite theory of the soul is largely just a scientific (or pseudo-scientific, if we follow Popper) reworking of the Classical conception of the soul that is present already in Plato’s dialogues. In the Republic, for instance, Plato lends imaginal elaboration to his theory of the soul according to the following scheme:
(1) the rational element or λογιστικόν (logistykon), symbolized by the form of a human
(2) the emotive element or θυμοειδές (thymoeides), symbolized by the form of a lion
(3) and the desiring element or ἐπιθυμητικόν (epithymetikon), symbolized by a many-headed monster or hydra
Let’s call these logos, thymos, and epthymia, respectively, for short. The purpose of Plato’s metaphor is to indicate that a proper order or relationship amongst these three elements of the soul is the key to a good life. In brief, the rational soul or logos fulfills its function by identifying ends that are good and educating the the epithymia in its desires while ordering the emotional soul or thymos to repel any obstacles to their realization. In other words, the lion and the many-headed beast are meant to serve the man. Cormac Jones elucidates the true nature of these dynamics, which Plato intimated and strove to depict, but did perhaps not fully comprehend:
Thinking of epithymia and thymos in terms of attraction and repulsion — which struck me as completely correct — blew open doors for me in my mind, and all of a sudden I could see a host of connections. I’m not going to be able to write about all of them at once, but let me at least give a couple insights. Thinking of thymos in terms of a repulsive power is major. When you are sitting on your couch and craving ice cream, it’s the epithymetic faculty that does the craving, that locks its powers of attraction onto the object of its desire. It’s your thymic faculty, however, whose job it is then to repulse all the obstacles between you and the object of your desire. If there is distance between you and your freezer, your thymos repulses that obstacle by getting up and overcoming that distance. Your thymos thereby is the provider. Your logos, meanwhile, is supposed to be overseeing this whole volitional process… but you know, sometimes in this passionate life, things just don’t work out that way. The undertow of desire can pull the logos under and make it serve its whims. Or the madness of anger, the drive to repulse all obstacles for the sake of supremacy over others, may likewise subjugate the logos to achieve this aim alone.
As Plato attempt to illustrate in the dialogue, internal conflict is the result of disorder amongst these dynamics of the soul. The Republic largely consists in an extended conceit in which the state or republic is made to represent the soul. Thus, the condition of internal coherence, or “justice,” is represented by a harmonious republic while internal disorder is represented, in turn, by tyranny and civil war.
A similarly threefold concept of the soul is also present in Paul’s letters in the New Testament, where he speaks of anthropos somatikos, anthropos psychikos, and anthropos pneumatikos. These terms can be roughly translated as “carnal man,” “psychic” or “soul man,” and “spiritual man,” despite that we lack very clear concepts of any of those words in our time. What, for instance, is the difference between the soul and the spirit, according to the popular conception? Perhaps Freud has taken a step towards regaining some of the significance of these concepts. It is possible to see the birth of psychoanalysis as the reversal of a trend toward reductionism that had seen the 3-part man become the 2-part man (i.e. beginning from the 8th Ecumenical Council or 4th Council of Constantinople in 869 AD1and continuing with the Early Modern thinkers like Descartes) become purely biological man (i.e. beginning with Darwin’sThe Descent of Manin 1871).2
Many people today still speak in this way, when they, for instance, equate “human nature” with “the human genome,” or invoke evolutionary biology to explain ever facet of human life. Perhaps we will begin to see a richer concept of the human being in our lifetimes. I would be happy to see such a development and I try to contribute in the ways that I am able.3
see footnote №2
see footnote №2
Fascinating connection between Freudian conceptions of psyche and Plato’s tripartite soul.