The mind of a fox. Clem Sunter

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ only source of knowledge is experience (foxy stuff). Kant drew on both perspectives to come up with his theory of synthetic a priori propositions like “every event has a cause”. He argued that this belief could not be divorced from experience but neither could it be derived from experience. It was part of our inherent nature to believe that every cause has an effect (and vice versa) in that it gives coherence to our perceptions. Hence, the concept of cause and effect transcended experience.

      The greatest mind of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein, was also a hedgefox. Like Plato, he believed that you could shed light on the mysteries of the universe by sitting in an armchair and contemplating the problem in a singleminded manner. You could even play thought experiments in your mind and see where they led. However, unlike Plato and like a true fox, he believed that all theories had to be grounded in fact and confirmed by observation. For example, in 1905 he presented his special theory of relativity, which included the famous equation E = mc². It was only in 1945 with the detonation of the atom bomb that the equation was verified. Likewise, in 1916, when he introduced the general theory of relativity, it contained the entirely new concepts of space being curved and light rays being bent in a gravitational field. These were subsequently confirmed in 1919 by observations of how starlight curved around an eclipsed sun. In brief, his two famous quotes sum up his philosophy of life: “God may be sophisticated, but He is not malicious” and “God does not play dice”. As he grew older, his hedgehog side came to the fore with his attempt to develop a unified field theory which explained everything. Then, when he failed, he tried to prove it was impossible. And when he failed to do that either, he worried that no-one else would ever lay the matter to rest!

      Einstein’s example implies that, if you are going to be a hedgefox, the prime time to be one is between the ages of 25 and 40. On the one hand, you still retain the arrogance of youth to challenge mainstream orthodoxies; on the other hand, you have experienced something of the world at large to see how diverse it is. Einstein was 26 when he announced the special theory of relativity and 37 when he launched the general theory. It is no coincidence that most of the great advances in physics and mathematics were achieved by relatively young geniuses. The Nobel Prize comes much later on, once the idea has become generally accepted. It must be hard to live with yourself if you were so much cleverer when you were young!

      Moving to the East, foxes make use of the Chinese philosophy of Yin and Yang in that they understand the need for balance between the many opposing elements we face in this world. We live in a state of permanent contradiction, wondering whether to be just or merciful; tough or gentle; bold or cautious; competitive or co-operative. Indeed, we’re perfectly happy to carry completely conflicting beliefs in our mind, skipping from one to the other. For instance, when tragedy strikes, we believe in predestination – what will be, will be. At other times, we believe that life is about what we decide to do of our own free will. Is the universe infinite in time and space, or did it start with a big bang and its boundaries are now expanding? One or other view must be right, but they can’t both be right at the same time. Kant called these paradoxes “antinomies”. He used them to justify his rejection of pure rationalism on the one hand and pure empiricism on the other. For a more homely antinomy, consider the wisdom contained in these two old sayings: “birds of a feather flock together” and “opposites attract”. We accept both of them! And then there is the antinomy which lies at the heart of capitalism. Individual companies want to crush the competition in order to maximise their own profits. Yet competition is good for society as a whole.

      Foxy judges and juries in particular have to keep opposites in mind as they listen to the persuasive arguments of the prosecution and defence. It is only when they’ve heard all sides of the case that they make a judgement of “guilty” or “not guilty”. Two-party democracies like the American one are supposed to offer alternative versions of the political truth to electors. Lately, the Republicans and Democrats have been awfully alike in their policies. It is only when you have disputes like the Florida recount that the knives really come out with the lawyers in tow. A foxy CEO of Coca-Cola Enterprises had this to say at a university commencement address several years ago: “Imagine life as a game in which you are juggling five balls in the air. You name them – work, family, health, friends and spirit – and you’re keeping all of these in the air. You will soon understand that work is a rubber ball. If you drop it, it will bounce back. But the other four balls – family, health, friends and spirit – are made of glass. If you drop one of these, they will be irrevocably scuffed, marked, nicked or even shattered. They will never be the same. You must understand that and strive for balance in your life.” But here’s the rub: success in work usually comes with single-mindedness. Another contradiction! As Business Week said in a recent issue: “The fundamental task of today’s CEO is simplicity itself: get the stock price up. Period.”

      In contrast to foxes, hedgehogs view the world through ideologically tinted spectacles which let in no other light besides that which is on the same wavelength as their idea. They’re excellent at selective reporting of the facts. Moreover, because they focus on their idea in isolation, they ignore the critical interdependencies that make up complete systems. Hence, they will often press so hard for an idea that they mess up the workings of the system as a whole. They don’t see the trade-offs, and so they run into the law of unintended consequences where the world is worse off than if they had not intervened at all. This happens particularly with hedgehog-like development agencies who impose their own solutions on local communities rather than finding out what they want in the first place. Ignorance of cultural differences is often at the heart of costly development mistakes. A classic case of the aforementioned law in action was the establishment of irrigation schemes in the Sudan which immediately led to an increase in diseases associated with water-borne bugs. The way the colonial powers drew the boundaries in Africa is hard to beat. On a different front, everybody said that casinos in South Africa would create jobs. They’ve had precisely the opposite effect. Wherever they’ve been erected, they’ve drained the local economy of money as poor people – seduced by the dream of becoming instant millionaires – have frittered away their hard-earned, meagre incomes on the slot machines. Consequently, local businesses and shops have suffered and have had to lay off staff.

      Nowhere can a hedgehog’s blinkered approach better be illustrated than in the environmental field. We all know that we cannot allow the environment to be destroyed – it must be preserved for future generations. Equally, we know that economic development is crucial for the improvement in life of the masses of poor people on this Earth. So, somewhere there has to be a compromise, as the phrase “sustainable development” implies. Neither deeply green hedgehogs who only press the environmental button nor dark blue hedgehogs only interested in economic growth have the answer. In fact, the best definition of sustainable development comes from a Norwegian fox, Gro Harlem Brundtland, who popularised the phrase in the first place. Not only was she Prime Minister of Norway, she also chaired the World Commission on Environment and Development which published the Brundtland Report in 1987 entitled Our Common Future. In it, sustainable development was defined as: “Development which meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability for future generations to meet their needs.” Beguilingly simple, but it says it all. Subsequently, more detailed definitions have been published, but they do not come close to this single pearl of wisdom. However, when all is said and done in the environmental debate, foxes acknowledge that extremists can advance the boundaries of knowledge through the Hegelian approach of thesis and antithesis leading to synthesis. Somebody has to push the edge of the envelope on either side to set new standards for the middle ground.

      Tiger Woods, for a different reason, can also be nominated as a philosophical fox. He is a student of what the Japanese call Kaizen – a striving for continual improvement to the extreme point of testing something until it breaks and then analysing why it broke. The results are thereafter assimilated into future designs and applications. In a similar way and like the navigators of old, the scientific method demands that a scientist, after establishing a hypothesis, continually tests it to disprove or reject it. If the hypothesis survives the trauma of testing, it is embraced as probable fact. As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous detective, Sherlock Holmes, once remarked to his faithful assistant Dr Watson: “How often have СКАЧАТЬ