Essay: Swift's Gulliver Travels VS. Pseudointellectualism

A critique of pseudo-intellectualism and scientism
as displayed by Jonathan Swift in his Gulliver’s Travels

by Omar García Pérez

In this essay, I will talk about how Reverend Jonathan Swift (1667–1745) critically addresses pseudo-intellectualism in his Gulliver Travel’s (1726), an acute satirical novel which, by using a  humoristic, ironic, sarcastic and parodistic style in its narrative, is regarded as a classic book and unique work of social criticism; one which not only derides topics like warfare, politics, and features of unjust human behavior, but also challenges the detrimental aspects of speculative science and rationalist misinterpretations of reality, as displayed in the Third Part of the story.

With the purpose of contextualizing, I must first define what I mean by pseudo-intellectualism, which here is to be understood as the false pretension people has when they believe themselves to be extremely intelligent or knowledgeable, though, in reality, they are not (Webster, 2014). This concept might be related to different tendencies, but this time, it will be specifically identified in two topics that are explicitly satirized in Swift’s novel; namely, 1) the rationalist movement, 2) speculative science and 3) scientism; all of which will be explained and analyzed in context.

First, it should be noticed that Swift was aware of the strong debate between the rationalists and empirists of the epoch. Rationalists were intellectuals that prioritized reason over experience, whereas empirists prioritized experience over reason. There were several types of rationalism, but Radical rationalism, proposed that human reason is alone “the unique path of knowledge”, the ultimate guide for the affairs of life, and the only valid thing to determine what is truth, to understand reality and to establish social organization (2007:94). This became popular among intellectuals in the so-called ‘Age of Reason’, it flourished again with the coming of Positivism, and today it might be best referred to under the name of a modern trend called scientism, i.e. the pretension that everything can be explained by “science.”

We can read Swift explicitly disliking such position in his treatise “Remarks Upon the Rights of the Christian Church”, where, he referred torationalists Socinus, Thomas Hobbes and Baruch Spinoza, as "the former enemies to Christianity.”  In another treatise in which he defends the doctrine of Trinity, Swift also stated that “It is an old and true distinction, that things may be above our reason without being contrary to it. Of this kind are the power, the nature, and the universal presence of God, with innumerable other points.” (Swift, 1841:142).

Thanks to Swift’s Drapier’s Letters we also confirm that our writer was well-acquainted with one of the fathers of empirism: Francis Bacon, whom with he unmistakably sympathized (1724, Ch.).  Since the beginning of the 17^th century, Bacon had taken care of differentiating between two important concepts that are too often ignored or undifferentiated by many. He conceived natural philosophy (i.e. science) as “divided into Speculative and Practical," (speculative science and empirical science), and he stressed “the necessity of keeping these two branches distinct” (1605, Ch. III). In this scheme, empirical science is the one that corresponds to the scientific method as such, because the kind of phenomena studied through it, can actually be observed by the senses in the present time, and experiments can be conducted in order to successfully prove and rightly interpret reality. In contrast, there is also what has been called speculative science, characterized by a type of inquiry that, by means of hypotheses, ventures to speculate about past or future phenomena. The difference is really great when one considers that past or future speculation, and reason without experience, cannot be observed, and therefore, cannot totally be proved. In this sense, not all human speculations are untrue, but, for sure, many – if not most of all – are. This by no means means that these men considered conjecture or inquiry as unimportant, because their work demonstrates that they actually acknowledged their value. However, the dependent relation between them is recognized, and experience is emphasized.

Bacon prioritized empirical science, rather than speculative reasoning, and this influence is shown in the Voyage to Laputia, in which Gulliver repeatedly addresses speculative science in a critical way. In this line of thought, Swift lampoons their wild, nonsensical speculation that theoreticians show in their attempts to predict catastrophic destructions of the earth (like the swallowing of the earth by the sun), judicial astrology, or the functioning of the magnet at the bottom of the island. Notably, these rationalists also questioned the universal order and design of things, and attributed humans’ survival to matters of chance, which let them with no peace, and left them with a tormented spirit that infused them with a fear of a sudden annihilation. Clinging to a theory of chaos, “these people are under continual disquietudes, never enjoying a minutes peace of mind.”

Empirism tells another story, because, empirists agree that human experiences are evidently limited. But scientismists (advocators of scientism), argue that human reason has no limits, that it can understand it all, and that it can measure it all by means of the “scientific method.” This arrogant idea totally neglects Bacon’s – and Swift’s – differentiation between the Speculative and Practical sciences, and the irony is deeper when, in the story, the professor who has forty pupils in the Academy of projectors says that he is engaged “in a project for improving speculative knowledge, by practical and mechanical operations.” With no doubt, this professor, who believed he had “all the words of their language” in little bits of wood, is a scientismist who was unable to perceive self-deceptive reasonings and the limits of personal experience. What he did was, it seemed, his attempt of making up a “theory of everything”. It resembled the group of blind men trying to determine colors without seeing the, and experiment with them by simply manipulating and guessing upon paper. Laputians tried to explain and transform even the most abstract elements – like oxygen - in materialistic bodies.

Another satirical point against rationalistic speculations is that they were often presented as infallible, even though they disengaged themselves from experience, and were mistakenly believed to be superior or more important than empirical thought. Moderate rationalism (exemplified by Blaise Pascal, René Descartes, and Leibniz), was another type of rationalism which had regarded human reason equal in dignity to religion, philosophy, theology, and empirism as well. But this was not the rationalism of Laputians. They were rather opinionated, and it is notable that the King of Laputians “discovered not the least curiosity to inquire into the laws, government, history, religion, or manners”, apparently denoting his individualistic, prejudiced and demoralized rule.

The parody also displays how the speculative thoughts of these radical rationalists can keep a logic in their own discourse, though this alone does not make them true or infallible. In reference to this, a notorious writer would respond that even “the wildest mystic uses his reason at some stage; if it be only by reasoning against reason” (Chesterton, 2013:III); and another minister like Swift would say that reason is but “an instrument to justify man's defensive ways of thinking” (Martin Luther King Jr., 1964:251). In the Voyage, this is symbolized with the appeareance of Laputians. Their mind was biased toward one direction; his vision, one-sided and self-absorbed, as we are told in a symbolism of physical appearance in Chapter II: "Their heads were all reclined, either to the right, or the left; one of their eyes turned inward, and the other directly up to the zenith.” They might have been very skillful with the treatment of precision instruments, yet, they were self-centered in their own reasonings, not knowing how to treat the heart of people and apply their knowledge to live a truly effective and social life.

In conclusion, the Voyage to Laputa may pass into history as a chapter that raises a profound criticism against the idealization and absolutization that radical rationalists tried to make to justify their own wild speculations by means of a scientific disguise. This is something that Jonathan Swift, in his humourous style, surely wanted to express about his perception of false intellectualism: irrationality disguised as rationality.

Nowadays, the debate “rationalism vs. empirism” continues for some people, though under other names and more sophisticated perspectives. But the truth is that many have not heard or comprehended Swift’s critique upon speculative science and scientism. Speculative intellectuals like the mathematician Hermann Bondi, (president of the Rationalist Press Association), said, for instance, that "science doesn't deal with facts...", there are other figures like Stephen Hawkins who just recently claimed that the entire universe could possibly be destroyed by a cosmical explosion all too soon, (Rubble, 2014) and we are still constantly bombarded by a sensational press that promises groundbreaking advancements and improvements, but keeps on causing the same disappointments projectors caused. It is in this panorama, books like Gulliver’s Travels are still absolutely valid in their criticism, and might help, as a flapper, for many that need to come back to their senses and recognize the value of acting and leading a simpler and more practical life.  Like Gulliver, we can consider leaving behind the isle of pseudo-intellectualism and scientism:

“I was very desirous to leave it, being heartily weary of those people. They were indeed excellent in two sciences; but, at the same time, so abstracted and involved in speculation, that I never met with such disagreeable companions.” 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

• Bacon, Sir Francis. (1605). The Advancement of Learning. A Library of Universal Literature, Ed. by Joseph Devey. Online Library of Liberty. Accessed: September, 2014.http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1433
• Chesterton, G.K. (2014). Delphi Complete Works of G. K. Chesterton (Illustrated). Delphi Classics.  (Part Three: Thought and Belief. Anti-religious Thought in the Eighteen Century).
• King Jr., Martin Luther. 1964. A Martin Luther King Treasury. Educational Heritage.
• Kosciejew, Richard John (2014). Analytic and Linguistic Trends. AuthorHouse.
• Merriam-Webster Inc. (2014). Pseudo-intellectual. Access date: September, 2014   http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/pseudo%E2%80%93intellectual
• Reilly, Patrick (1982). Jonathan Swift, the Brave Desponder. Manchester University Press. ISBN: 9780719008504
• Rubble, Kimberley (2014). Stephen Hawking Believes Higgs Boson Particle May Destroy Universe. Liberty Voice. Sep. 8, 2014. http://guardianlv.com/2014/09/stephen-hawking-believes-higgs-boson-particle-may-destroy-universe/
• Smith, Raymond J.. 1691. Swift's art in Gulliver's travels. University of Wisconsin--Madison
• Swift, Jonathan. Gulliver's Travels into Several Remote Nations of the World: Transcribed from the 1892 George Bell and Sons edition. The Project Gutenberg eBook. http://www.gutenberg.org/files/829/829-h/829-h.htm
• Swift, Jonathan; (1814). The Works of Jonathan Swift: Miscellaneous poems. Edited by Sir Walter Scott. A. Constable.
• Swift, Jonathan; (2010). Gulliver’s Travells. Ignatius critical editions. Edited by Kearney, Dutton & Pearce, Joseph. Ignatius Press.
• Swift, Jonathan (1724). The Drapier’s Letters. Letter IV: A Letter to the Whole People of Ireland. The Literature Network. Accesed: September, 2014. http://www.online-literature.com/swift/drapiers-letters/4/
• Swift, Jonathan (1841). The works of Jonathan Swift, containing papers not hitherto publ. With memoir of the author by T. Roscoe, Volume 2. Oxford University.