![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Bertrand Russell, in A History of Western Philosophy, Chapter XXX:
It is clear that "inquiry," as conceived by [John] Dewey, is part of the general process of trying to make the world more organic. "Unified wholes" are to be the outcome of inquiries. Dewey's love of what is organic is due partly to biology, partly to the lingering influence of Hegel. Unless on the basis of an unconscious Hegelian metaphysic, I do not see why inquiry should be expected to result in "unified wholes." If I am given a pack of cards in disorder, and asked to inquire into their sequence, I shall, if I follow Dewey's prescription, first arrange them in order, and then say that this was the order resulting from inquiry. There will be, it is true, an "objective transformation of objective subject-matter" while I am arranging the cards, but the definition allows for this. If, at the end, I am told: "We wanted to know the sequence of the cards when they were given to you, not after you had re-arranged them," I shall, if I am a disciple of Dewey, reply: "Your ideas are altogether too static. I am a dynamic person, and when I inquire into any subject-matter I first alter it in such a way as to make the inquiry easy." The notion that such a procedure is legitimate can only be justified by a Hegelian distinction of appearance and reality: the appearance may be confused and fragmentary, but the reality is always orderly and organic. Therefore when I arrange the cards I am only revealing their true eternal nature....
If I am given a series of photons---say, a beam of sunlight---and asked to inquire into their polarizations, I will interpose a polarizing filter, whose axis I may orient as I please. Regardless of my choice, half of the photons' polarizations will flip parallel to that axis, and pass thru in that condition; the other half will flip perpendicular to it, and be absorbed. The photons came in with their polarizations every which way; but to inquire what they were in detail, I have to perform an objective transformation of objective subject matter.
George Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Three, III:
"What are the stars?" said O'Brien indifferently. "They are bits of fire a few kilometers away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out...."
"For certain purposes, of course, that is not true. When we navigate the ocean, or when we predict an eclipse, we often find it convenient to assume that the earth goes round the sun and that the stars are millions upon millions of kilometers away. But what of it? Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that? Have you forgotten doublethink?"
Our mathematicians are equal to producing a formalism in which an electron is treated as a particle or a wave or a cloud, as circumstances require. Why not include political circumstances?
It is clear that "inquiry," as conceived by [John] Dewey, is part of the general process of trying to make the world more organic. "Unified wholes" are to be the outcome of inquiries. Dewey's love of what is organic is due partly to biology, partly to the lingering influence of Hegel. Unless on the basis of an unconscious Hegelian metaphysic, I do not see why inquiry should be expected to result in "unified wholes." If I am given a pack of cards in disorder, and asked to inquire into their sequence, I shall, if I follow Dewey's prescription, first arrange them in order, and then say that this was the order resulting from inquiry. There will be, it is true, an "objective transformation of objective subject-matter" while I am arranging the cards, but the definition allows for this. If, at the end, I am told: "We wanted to know the sequence of the cards when they were given to you, not after you had re-arranged them," I shall, if I am a disciple of Dewey, reply: "Your ideas are altogether too static. I am a dynamic person, and when I inquire into any subject-matter I first alter it in such a way as to make the inquiry easy." The notion that such a procedure is legitimate can only be justified by a Hegelian distinction of appearance and reality: the appearance may be confused and fragmentary, but the reality is always orderly and organic. Therefore when I arrange the cards I am only revealing their true eternal nature....
If I am given a series of photons---say, a beam of sunlight---and asked to inquire into their polarizations, I will interpose a polarizing filter, whose axis I may orient as I please. Regardless of my choice, half of the photons' polarizations will flip parallel to that axis, and pass thru in that condition; the other half will flip perpendicular to it, and be absorbed. The photons came in with their polarizations every which way; but to inquire what they were in detail, I have to perform an objective transformation of objective subject matter.
George Orwell, in Nineteen Eighty-Four, Three, III:
"What are the stars?" said O'Brien indifferently. "They are bits of fire a few kilometers away. We could reach them if we wanted to. Or we could blot them out...."
"For certain purposes, of course, that is not true. When we navigate the ocean, or when we predict an eclipse, we often find it convenient to assume that the earth goes round the sun and that the stars are millions upon millions of kilometers away. But what of it? Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy? The stars can be near or distant, according as we need them. Do you suppose our mathematicians are unequal to that? Have you forgotten doublethink?"
Our mathematicians are equal to producing a formalism in which an electron is treated as a particle or a wave or a cloud, as circumstances require. Why not include political circumstances?
