Francis Bacon - "Idols of the Mind" and the Scientific Revolution

In 1620, the English scientist, philosopher and statesman Francis Bacon published Novum Organum (New Organon), work considered by many as the beginning of the scientific revolution. Its publishing marked a turning point in the way scientific research was perceived, establishing what is known today as the "scientific Baconian method". It promoted a new approach, based on closely observing phenomena, formulating hypotheses and demonstrating them through experiments.

A special part of this work was dedicated to the presentation of the so-called "idols of the mind", images and beliefs that influenced the way in which people saw different things, preventing them from capturing the true essence of these things and from appreciating them at their real value.

By exposing the "idols", Bacon showed the future generations of scientists what to avoid and what path to follow if they want their achievements to contribute to mankind's general progress.

The Four Idols of the Mind in Bacon's Vision

Until the end of the 16^th century, the dominant idea in science was that research was conditioned by applying the same principles as the previous generations and respecting some generally accepted truths. In the New Organon, Bacon pleads against this approach, showing that it led to a general stagnation in almost all fields and made innovations impossible.

He identifies the "idols" the human mind worships and analyses each of them, presenting them as obstacles staying in the way of progress and warning scientists to avoid them.

l  "Idols of the Tribe" - This category of false representations of reality derive from the essence of mankind as a race. People who are influenced by them tend to consider the human individual as the essence of all things, rather than to carefully observe nature and take their answers from there.

l  "Idols of the Cave" - They are represented by the experiences each individual accumulates during his or her life. The problem with these experiences is that they are not the result of direct observation or research, but they are induced by reading books or as a part of the educational system. This is the main reason why Bacon recommends those who are passionate of a certain science to stay away from these "mind idols".

l  "Idols of the Marketplace" - These come from an inappropriate use of language when it comes to naming natural things or phenomena. The author of the New Organon says that, just like the precision of the terms is very important for a commercial partnership, it is also very important for science. The main idea is that, naming things in a way that can create confusion in people's minds has a dramatic negative impact on the progress of society.

l  "Idols of the Theatre"- They stem from people letting their passions influence their research, distorting the results. Bacon illustrates the idea with the examples of Plato, whose philosophical system was influenced by his religious beliefs and of Aristotle, who regarded philosophy as a "servant" of logic.

The Idols Are Not to Be Followed, but Rather “Silenced”

According to the author of the New Organon, "silencing" the idols is the first step to a relevant study and research aiming towards innovation and scientific progress. From this point of view, direct observation, doubt and experimentation should be the "deities" worshipped by the human mind.

Thanks to them, questions can be formulated and hypotheses can be demonstrated through complex, pertinent experiments that consider all the possibilities, and not just those derived from a system of generally accepted beliefs. Bacon's opinion, as expressed in the book, was that the right answers can only be found and progress can only be achieved by doubting and questioning everything.

The "Idols of the Mind" in Today’s Society

The "idols theory" served as basis for the technological innovations that initiated the so-called "industrial revolution", shaping the world as we know it. Although almost four centuries have passed since Novum Organum was published for the first time, most of the ideas it promotes are still valid today.

The "idol of the tribe" is almost totally silenced, because the young generations no longer follow the path of their predecessors, and this is a good thing in most of the cases.

The precise terminology and the proper use of language (as a result of the access to education granted to the masses) have also diminished the importance of the "idol of the marketplace".

However, people still rely on the "idol of the cave" in enlarging their base of knowledge and discovering new things. This is not necessarily bad, because nowadays scientists do not assimilate information blindly, but interpret it and correct potential errors.

As for the "idol of the theatre", its influence is only resented as far as interests and passions are concerned, and its impact on scientific research can be considered a positive one.   

References

Bacon, F. (2000). The New Organon (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy)

L. Jardine & M. Silverthorne (Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

“Existentialism is a Humanism” and Jean Paul Sartre's Contribution to Existentialism

Philosopher, writer, literary critic, political activist and biographer, Jean Paul Sartre is one of the main representatives of the philosophy of phenomenology and existentialism, his revolutionary thinking having started many controversies that have marked the evolution of the 20^th century philosophy. 

One of his greatest merits is having contributed to the foundation of existentialism, and his work, “Existentialism is a Humanism” is a real reference point for the existentialist philosophy. His whole thinking is built on the idea that existence precedes essence. But does this idea contradict the essentialist principle that essence precedes existence? An overview of Sartre’s theory is necessary before giving such a radical verdict.

Does Existence Precede Essence?

Sartre’s theory according to which existence precedes essence involves elements like freedom and responsibility as far as the human choices are concerned. According to this theory, the human beings and their reality exist before and above any concepts of value or morality. People are born as blank slates; humanity does not have any universal, predetermined ethics or principles.

Without an essence or definition of what being human means, people must form their own perception on existence, by assuming control over it and taking responsibility for their actions and choices. In other words, human beings gain or build their essence through the choices they make, through their actions. This process of living is the definition of radical freedom.

What Does Radical Freedom Mean?

For Sartre, each human being is unlimitedly free, but it is not the ability to act the one that defines this freedom. Freedom is a form of spontaneity. The accent does not fall on the physical or social constrains influencing our decisions, but on the fact that we have the freedom to choose, we are actually forced to choose. The essence of our freedom are the choices we make, the fact that we cannot avoid making choices, no matter if they refer to what we eat, how we dress or more important aspects, like our education, our relationship with the people around us.

For Sartre, a person’s life is an original, authentic project unfolding throughout time. The individual is not fully aware of this project, but rather changes it, influences its progress with every choice made.

The radical, authentic dimension of Sartre’s notion derives from the fact that the consequences of our freedom of choice are felt at a universal level. By choosing to take one step instead of another, we influence not only the rest of our life, our future, but also that of the people around us, who, in turn, influence the future of others.

Every choice we make starts a wave of repercussions that propagates throughout the universe, influencing the essence of the human nature, so we are free to choose, not only our own fate, but also that of the entire universe.

Does Existence Precede Essence or Does Essence Precede Existence?

The antithesis between the two theories is obvious, up to a certain point. While Plato, Aristotle and their essentialist followers applied this principle to any specific entity, Sartre only applies it to human beings.

He actually accepts the essentialist theory for objects, but considers the purpose they serve as essence and stating that, had it not been for that purpose, they would not have been created in the first place.

Sartre’s vision does not leave room for divinity, or, at least, is based on the principles that even if God existed, things would not be any different. The human beings, in his perception are the only ones responsible for their actions and the consequences these actions have.

Although Plato, for example, puts essence above existence and promotes the existence of the divine, of perfection, he does leave room for freedom up to a certain extent. In his theory, essence (referred to as Ideas) is lost at birth, and human life is actually a quest to rediscover it. However, not all human beings rediscover it, or, at least, not to the same degree (philosophers being superior to laborers, for example). According to the philosopher, each person’s soul has a rational side and an irrational one, reason and desire related to the material world. While serving the soul means not giving in to desire, does that not leave the possibility for one to pursue desires? Does that not leave room to freedom and choice? Indeed, while Plato’s theory does not give credit to freedom and responsibility, these elements are among the ones founding Sartre’s theory.

Ethical Implications of Sartre’s Existentialism

Sartre emphasizes in Existentialism and Humanism that authenticity, freedom, is accompanied by an ethical normativity. If we are to act authentically, how can we assess what this means for the ethics of our choices?

Being and Nothingness includes numerous statements that emphasize a criterion of universality partly similar to Kant’s. It is not surprising, considering that the approaches of both philosophers are based on the value of a radical notion of freedom.

As Sartre points out, when choosing, the individual acts, not only on himself, but on the entire humanity. Although Sartre does not believe in a priori values, the choice the individual makes creates values just as the artist creates beauty.

The values created by exercising our freedom gain a universal dimension, meaning that they would make sense to anyone placed in the same situation. This universality is expressed differently from one authentic project to another. Sartre later calls this the ‘singular universal’.

At a closer look, in the French philosopher’s perspective, there are no predetermined values, no a priori definitions of good, bad, beautiful, etc. All these notions are created by the individual, through the choices he makes.

If we had a God, we could blame him for our lack of courage in certain situations, for our selfishness, for our failure in seeing how our actions would impact the lives of others. Also, religion promotes, in general, altruism, peace and love and convinces people to follow these principles with the promise of an afterlife.

Without all this, there is no telling what people will put first, if they will pursue their goals at all costs or focus on what their actions would mean for the people around them. There is no telling whether they will perceive that great responsibility as their fault for not succeeding to build a better life, materially and socially speaking, or as a duty to protect the people around them and serve the interests of the society they live in.

But let us not forget that, for Sartre, the responsibility each human being takes when acting one way or another (the acknowledgement of the implications each choice has) is so great that it leads to anguish. The impossibility to control the actions of the people around us and the knowledge that their own choices will impact our life leads us to despair.

In the end, our choices could be influenced by the anguish and despair we resent and could be made taking into account what is best for those around us, for the universe, in the hope that the others would take into account what is best for us.

Conclusions

Justified or not, Sartre’s theory is built in an optimistic tone. We are the result of the choices we make, we are the only ones responsible for them and we are immensely free. These being said, even if not everything works out the way we would want it, we can still take comfort in our unlimited freedom.

Did you find the paper useful? Do you need to write a similar paper and you could use some help? Email me at mihaela.c.olaru@gmail.com and I will gladly help you! I guarantee your paper will be 100% original and compliant with your teacher's requirements!