“I am a sick man. ... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man. I believe my liver is diseased.” This is the opening line of the existentialist novel “Notes from Underground” by the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky (1821-1861).
Year ago, I was rereading this book on a day I had a doctor’s appointment. When the nurse called me back, I left the book on the table in the waiting room. Examination over, I returned to the outer office only to see a man reading it. “I’m sorry,” I said, “but that is my personal book. I left it here when I was called back.” He replied, “I was wondering why a doctor would have a book in his reception room that had such a bleak beginning.”
This bleak opening quickly gives way to the “Underground Man’s” equally bleak distinction between a “Person of Direct Action” and a “Person of Exaggerated Consciousness.”
People are also reading…
Persons of Direct Action act directly in the sense that they act without thinking. They act boldly precisely because their minds are “completely at ease” with no “trace of doubt.” The Underground Man is contemptuous of such persons, adding that the reason Persons of Direct Action are so active is because “they are stupid.” It’s possible to act quickly and decisively if one is certain of one’s own view and refuses to even acknowledge arguments for the other side. This is what one psychologist has called a “fascist state of mind” which tries to “empty the mind of all opposition.”
On the other hand, “Persons of Exaggerated Consciousness” are so conscious of the complexity of issues, so sensitive to the arguments that can be presented for every side of a dispute, that they cannot choose and act. They are immobilized by doubt and uncertainty. They are passive intellectuals overcome by questions and ambiguity.
Thinking first about individuals of direct action unencumbered by doubt, here is an example. When teaching, I tried to be conscious of and responsive to the body language of students. If some looked puzzled, I knew I needed to clarify. If some looked uninvolved, I knew I needed an illustration to capture their attention. If students seemed lethargic, I knew I needed to ramp up my energy as a way of ramping up theirs.
A few days into a semester, I had a freshman student whose body language exuded anger; that is the only way to describe his appearance. So, I stopped him after class one day and invited him to come by my office. As soon as he sat down and before I could even initiate a conversation, he said to me, “I know what you are doing in class.” “What is that?” I replied. “You are trying to get us to be critical of our beliefs.” “That’s right,” I said. “That’s a major goal of philosophy: to think critically about beliefs.” I think I remember the exact words of his response: “I’m not going to criticize my beliefs because I know I have the truth.”
Here was an 18-year-old Person of Direct Action. He knew he had the truth and was not about to consider that he might be mistaken. Let me quickly add that he was young, and philosophy and Baylor University did its marvelous thing. His dogmatism gave way to the life of the mind. He never took another course with me, but subsequently he came by from time to time, checked in and talked about courses he was taking with other faculty members. He had become a critical thinker, no longer a Person of Direct Action refusing to think hard about matters that matter.
What about the Underground Man’s other category, Persons of Exaggerated Consciousness? They are those “who think and therefore don’t do anything.” Instead of choosing or deciding, there is always one more thought to have, one more argument to think about, one more possibility to consider. I remember verging on this behavior when I was working on my doctoral dissertation. I was reading and thinking and worrying and one day my advisor gave me good advice. “Bob,” he said, “at some point, you must let your research and thinking give birth to some conclusions. You must start writing.”
Where all of this is headed, of course, is to the claim that the Underground Man’s two alternatives don’t exhaust the possibilities. The option need not be between an unthinking, dogmatic, decision maker and an intellectual, indecisive “mouse” (the Underground Man’s term).
It’s possible (unlike Persons of Direct Action) to acknowledge human finitude and accept the fact that we must live with ambiguity, doubt and the recognition that there are almost always arguments for the other side. But also (unlike Persons of Exaggerated Consciousness) to be people of action who, after their best efforts to get at the relevant evidence, courageously make reasoned commitments and decisions in the face of uncertainty.
The British philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) once argued that “to teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.” Sometimes I think that this may be the best description of a liberal arts education.
There is something compelling about the fact that particularly in those areas of life where value is involved, one must make uncertain judgments and then act courageously. But, equally crucial: Thought must precede the act.
Where do Donald Trump and Joe Biden fit into this discussion?