The Is and the Ought
As amazing and perspective-shifting as complex systems theory was, several questions remained. I was having a problem with the “is/ought” connection. Many who critique naturalism wonder how we move from what is to what ought to be. In science (and in the worldview of anyone who reaches their conclusions through observation and evidence) we may have a number of descriptions about how things are, but this seems to tell us nothing about how they should be. How can description ever lead to prescription all by itself?
But the more I thought about it, the more I began to think this may not be an issue so unusual or unique to naturalism. It could be that the formalized approached of empiricism simply makes the puzzle more overt.
For example, if you look at traditional religion, you will find that all of its oughts seem to emerge from the is of its worldview as well! If you believe in supernatural realms and beings which have opinions about us and take actions that affect us, that is necessarily going to lead to prescriptions for how we ought to live1.
But this issue was too important for me to be so contented. The ‘eternal rewards and punishments’ approach is not that which all traditions employ. So I continued to wonder: could it be possible to find a way to connect the is of Nature to the ought of a naturalistic ethics?
As I wondered this sometime around 2005, I was in the midst of more deeply exploring ancient philosophy. I was particularly amazed to see passages describing the natural world that almost perfectly mirrored the principles described in complex systems theory. I need to be clear here, I am not talking about the kind of simile or comparing of concepts that people do to link things which are only comparable in their mind or to illustrate a point.
For example, we could say, “In baseball if you aren’t staying alert, an opponent could steal a base. In the same way, we must be alert in the workplace to keep our competitors from getting one up on us.” Of course, baseball and the workplace have no real connection but our minds can draw parallels, given similar concepts. The use of such comparisons can help to illustrate. But… this is not what I am talking about when I talk about complexity science and ancient philosophy.
What I am saying is that the very same exact subjects and phenomena discussed in Stoicism and Taoism are literally the subjects of study and phenomena being described by complex systems theory (with, of course, more rigorous math, a formalized scientific method, and the benefit of centuries of further observation).
I’ve gathered a few interesting points of comparison between Stoicism, Taoism, and complex systems theory below. I have grouped them into four general categories regarding complex systems: (1) general descriptions, (2) self-organizing, (3) non-linear, (4) order/chaos dynamic, and (5) emergent properties. Consider the following...
(1) GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS
Taoism:
“Li was used to describe nature as organic pattern, translated as the markings in jade, the grain in wood, and the fiber in muscle.”2
“The Tao is a certain kind of order, and this kind of order is not quite what we call order when we arrange everything geometrically in boxes, or in rows. That is a very crude kind of order, but when you look at a plant it is perfectly obvious that the plant has order. We recognize at once that is not a mess, but it is not symmetrical and it is not geometrical looking.”3
Stoicism:
“That will apply to the world at large (macrocosm) and also to the soul of humans (microcosm).”4
“[Heraclitus] urges us to pay attention to the Logos, which governs all things and yet is also something we encounter every day.5
...the proponents of Stoicism... used [Logos] for the immanent ordering principle of the universe... Nature and logos are often treated as one and the same; but Logos is nature's overall rational structure…”4
Complexity Science:
“A Complex System is any system which involves a number of elements, arranged in structure(s) which can exist on many scales.”
“These go through processes of change that are not describable by a single rule nor are reducible to only one level of explanation, these levels often include features whose emergence cannot be predicted from their current specifications. Complex Systems Theory also includes the study of the interactions of the many parts of the system.”6
(2) SELF ORGANIZING
Taoism:
“The Tao is not something different from nature, the birds, the bees, the trees, or ourselves. The Tao is the way all that behaves... Therefore though they look very different, they are in fact inseparable. They arise mutually.”2
Stoicism:
“The sleeper, whose vision has been put out, lights up from the dead; he that is awake lights up from the sleeping.”7
“Now the world is 'an everliving fire', and therefore there will be an unceasing process of eternal flux.”4
“Within the cosmic order determined by the Logos are individual centers of potentiality, vitality, and growth. These are ‘seeds’ of the Logos.”5
Complexity Science:
“...change occurs naturally and automatically in systems in order to increase efficiency and effectiveness, as long as the systems are complex enough… Such responsiveness occurs even when the elements and system are non-organic, unintelligent, and unconscious as long as the system is complex...”6
(3) NON-LINEAR
Taoism:
“You cannot find the controlling center of it, because there isn't any. Everything is a system of interrelated components, all interdependent on the other... This complete system of interdependence is Tao.”2
Stoicism:
“The non-destruction of one’s coat is not fated simply, but co-fated with its being taken care of, and someone’s being saved from his enemies is co-fated with his fleeing those enemies; and having children is co-fated with being willing to lie with a woman.”8
Complexity Science:
“Linear change is where there is a sequence of events that affect each other in order as they appear one after the other. In contrast, in non-linear change, one sees elements being changed by previous elements, but then in turn these changed elements affect the elements that are before it in the sequence.”6
(4) ORDER/CHAOS DYNAMIC
Taoism:
“Light and dark, high and low, sound and silence - all are only experienced in terms of their polar opposites.”2
“The Chinese word used for chaos, hun, means mixed, mingled, and confused. It describes a state where nothing is separated from the rest, a primordial mud of everything... To Lao Tzu, this primordial singularity was only preceded by Tao, the principle by which the chaos was later divided into all things... Out of this primordial chaos and by the principle of Tao, Heaven, Earth, and all other things appeared... Creation is constantly taking place, as all things appear, wither, and disappear, later to reappear in other shapes.”9
Stoicism:
“Nature is constantly dividing and uniting herself, so that the multiplicity of opposites does not destroy the unity of the whole... And these two ways are forever being traversed in opposite directions at once, so that everything really consists of two parts, one part traveling up and the other traveling down.”4
“Heraclitus... viewed Nature as a harmony of opposing tensions, ‘Men do not know how what is at variance agrees with itself. It is an attunement of opposite tensions, like that of the bow and the lyre.’”10
Complexity Science:
“Thus even though there is logical development from stage to stage, there is an increasing inability to predict what will actually be the next development. This uncertainty of predictability is called chaos.”
“Thus, one can then see how a tiny change in a condition can eventually lead to a huge number of different possible results.”
“The classic illustration for this is the idea of how the flapping of butterfly wings in one part of the world can contribute to the evolution of a hurricane in another part of the world.”6
(5) EMERGENT PROPERTIES
Taoism:
“Tao indicates a reality which is vibrant, spontaneous, orderly, and more than the sum of its individual components.”11
“Both knowledge and experience are real,
but reality has many forms,
which seem to cause complexity.”12
Stoicism:
“...all things are mutually woven together and therefore have an affinity for each other—for one thing follows after another according to their tension of movement...”13
Complexity Science:
“So what is this emergence exactly? Generally it is defined by saying ‘the whole is greater than the sum of the parts’.”
“In other words we cannot predict the outcome from studying only the fine details. Examples include cellular metabolism, ant colonies, organism development, snowflakes.”6
So, it appears that modern complexity theory is a rigorous continuation of a centuries-long journey that extends all the way back (at least) to the likes of Heraclitus in the West and Siddharta Gautama in the East. They too began with observation of the world around them, and noticed these patterns, relationships, and systems.
In light of this, if we are to look again at the is/ought conundrum, we have here examples of several ancient descriptions (is’s). But these traditions encompassed whole systems of thought which integrated logic, physics, and ethics (oughts). As described above, we can see, in some of these ancient systems, parallels to modern naturalistic understandings of the world. It is reasonable, then, to ask: how did they connect their is’s to their oughts?
At the time I was beginning to study the overlaps of these traditions, I had been conversing with a number of students and professors in several religious forums. I posed the question in a variety of them, “Can someone please recommend some readings that connect observations about the nature of the world to prescriptives for living?” I was then led to the writings of Taoist philosopher Chuang-Tzu. In reading Chuang-Tzu I began to see just how facts about the world could lead to ethics.
I read as much Chuang-Tzu as I could get my hands on14. As I read, I took careful notes with special emphasis on the ways in which he described the workings of nature (within Taoism) and how he drew larger lessons (prescriptives) from this. I then consolidated all of my notes, calling out quotes and their meanings, as best as I could suppose them given the context. After that, I created what I called “The Condensed Chuang-Tzu” where I took those elements and organized them by topic.
Looking over Chuang-Tzu’s teachings, they seemed to fall into the following four areas which I called:
On Checking Perceptions & Assumptions
On Coming to Terms
On Ethics & Behaviors
On Dealing with One Another
In the first section (checking perceptions), these principles weren’t so much about connecting natural observations with ethics, but were foundational concepts about how to accurately form understanding about the natural world. This included: staying humble, being cautious and mindful of the interconnected nature of things, withholding judgments and bias, avoiding simplistic claims for complex things, and so on.
The section on coming to terms included lessons about coping with the unpleasant aspects of the world. Some of these consolations included: recognizing that all beings and things have an important role to play, all good and bad things come from the same natural principles, and recognizing that we will never know or control all things. These were very obvious observations about how the world works, viewed through a lense of how internalizing that knowledge can help us deal with suffering.
The third section featured Chuang-Tzu’s teachings on ethics and behaviors. It tied together the notion of truth and integrity with the ability to accurately gather and share information for our benefit. It also pointed to the obvious signs of our insignificance in relationship to all of the universe. He suggests this realization can be a source of maturity and a suggestion that we move beyond self interest.
"But now that you have emerged from your narrow sphere and have seen the great ocean, you know your own insignificance, and I can speak to you of great principles."
--Chuang-Tzu, Autumn Floods
In the fourth section I collected the lessons which referred to how we deal with one another. It advocated patience and waiting for the right time to follow the flow of events rather than roughly cutting against the grain. He referred to the natural instincts and proclivities of people to suggest a bottom-up means of organizing society over a top-down approach. His observations of animals in their natural habitat influenced how he approached the question of what is the natural way for humans to live in order to be most healthy and happy.
In this exercise, I came to see more clearly how Chuang-Tzu reached prescriptives by starting with natural observations.
More than Analogy
Earlier (see "The Emerging Science"), I described comparisons between many different phenomena in the world, and how the field of complex systems theory saw commonalities between them. The underlying mathematical relationships and interactions in these systems make it clear that when we speak of the economy, society, the ecosystem, individual organisms, the brain, storm systems, etc. that these are not mere analogies. The awe-inspiring epiphany of complexity science is that it identifies something fundamental about how matter organizes itself in the world. It conveys universal truths.
Were it not for my previous exposure to complexity science when I came to Chuang-Tzu, I might have thought his entire work was a series of analogies only. And Chuang-Tzu can be read that way. There is usefulness in analogy as an explanatory or comparative tool. But it is a mistake to think that analogy is evidence; that analogy can prove a relationship or assertion.
This was a common mistake made in the way Socratic philosophers reached conclusions in ancient Greece. Their approach was rational and logical, and they did incorporate observation in their endeavor to understand the world. That is why they got so far and brought civilization to a level never before known. But it would still be more than two thousand years before the European Enlightenment would make clear, with a formalized scientific method, just how crucial measurable evidence was in discovery of genuine empirical knowledge. So, throughout the dialogues of Socrates one can see an over-reliance on analogy as a kind of 'proof'.
If Chuang-Tzu's references to the Way of Nature were merely taken as analogy, they would still be helpful and useful illustrations to understand the ways he's looking at various kinds of relationships and the effects of living in one way or another. But we would be left with the task of proving that his assertions are correct when we leave behind the analogies of nature and move into human psychology and sociology.
However, when we see that the subject matter, and even many conclusions, of Taoism is essentially consistent with those of complexity science, it starts to appear that this work is already being done. Suddenly, Chuang-Tzu's writings seem less like nature analogies, and more like a reasonable explanation of how universal truths about the way the world works apply to our own lives.
In addition, the ancient style and translation barriers have the effect of putting Chuang-Tzu in what amounts to sacred tongue, which gives it extra utility in transformative spiritual practice.
The Linchpin
In examining Chuang-Tzu's approach, the key or linchpin that holds together observations of Nature and ethics or prescriptives, becomes apparent. In order for these to be connected, one must also accept the standard for evaluation of an ethical proposal - which is its utility or effect on the very endeavor of our practice: human flourishing, eudaimonia, or True Happiness15.
With flourishing as foundation, one can see a new kind of 'logical operator' come into relevance. That is, the "ought/if" operator16.
In logic, the "if/then" operator is inseparable. Were you to say, "If I go to the shop." Without responding to, adding to, referencing, or implying anything else, that would be an incomplete statement. It would be neither true nor false but simply nonsensical. The statement only makes sense if one includes the "then" portion of the operator - for example, "If I go to the shop, [then] I will buy a cake."
Similarly, "ought/if" is an inseparable operator. It is neither true nor false, but nonsensical, to only say without further implication, "I ought to go to the shop." It is only complete if the statement is, "I ought to go to the shop if I want to have a cake." Of course, in common language we often do make incomplete statements, but what we are referring to is generally implied or mutually understood.
Earlier I mentioned the “ought/if” operator. It is similarly nonsensical to say (and only say or mean), "I ought to be kind" or "I ought not murder." These statements are not true. They are not false. They are simply gibberish.
Some philosophers have said that the very idea of a virtue or ethical truth, is that they are 'oughts' to and of themselves. In other words, it is simply an inherent truth. They say the truth of "you ought not murder" is a fundamental property, without need of a why. I propose that no rational being can accept this under any circumstance than cultural indoctrination or upbringing.
Ironically, the people who insist on this inherent truth approach tend to prefer objective ethics and criticize subjectivity in ethics. Yet, it is this very position that puts us back into subjective territory.
Without the inseparability of the "ought/if" operator, there can be no connection between is and ought - between Nature and our Way of Living. In such a world, no argument or evidence can be formed as to why we, individually or as a society, should or should not have any ethics or values. It all then becomes a subjective political struggle, based only on who can dominate, destroy, or hornswoggle whom.
Ethics are objectively true (or false) statements, but they are objective statements about human beings and the effects of their actions on their own well-being…
You ought to do x, if you want to be happy.
This can easily be mistaken for hedonism, until we remember our true definition of happiness. And when we do, we see its distinction from pleasure. Remember the importance of understanding true benefit and true harm. This is essential to ‘getting’ the linchpin.
For now, we'll move forward, inspired by the example of Chuang-Tzu. For us here today, what aspects of Nature, as understood in the modern era, are relevant to our practice - to the pursuit of flourishing? .