A critique of pseudo-intellectualism and scientism
as displayed by Jonathan Swift in his Gulliver’s Travels
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
17th 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.
