I have been trying to nail down what it is that I see differently to most other people involved in 2R, and I am realising now that it has a lot to do with the fact that my philosophical background is strongly analytical, with far less emphasis on the continental tradition. This is partly why I do not see 2R in terms of a progression from modern to postmodern to metamodern. That is Hegelian thinking, and I am no more committed to that than I am to anything else derived from the Continental tradition. From my point of view that entire branch of philosophy was based on a mistake. That doesnât mean none of it is relevant at all, but it does mean it should not dictate the framing of our thinking about 2R. Another approach is possible.
I have spent many years trying to come up with a way of defining what is wrong with the existing ideological systems of the West. The problem I started with was the fact that nobody can figure out how to replace capitalism. Other people see the book Capitalist Realism as a major step forwards. From my perspective it is just more Continental whingeing and non-answers. It berates Western society for failing to imagine an alternative to Capitalism, while not even attempting to do so itself. How exactly is that helping? So I asked myself what exactly it is that is wrong with capitalism and the answer appears to be that the whole thing was created under the assumption that growth is sustainable and desirable. We need to start with a different assumption â one that isnât detached from reality. We should start by acknowledging that growth isnât sustainable and that we need to completely rethink economics for a post-growth era. We donât even need to mention capitalism. And we donât need to come up with a post-growth economic system either â all we need to do is change the terms under which the debates take place, both in politics and academia, and ultimately throughout Western society. If nobody is permitted to assume growth is the answer, then we will be forced to invent that part of the new paradigm. A way forward becomes possible. This way forwards involves a completely new start â not a synthesis between previous systems and certainly not any âoscillationâ. We need analytical thinking, not continental thinking. And the question is what does post-growth economics look like?
There are two other things which need to go, both of which I have been banging on about since I arrived here. One of them is metaphysical materialism, and in this case the groundwork is already partly complete. Thomas Nagel has provided it in Mind and Cosmos, where he uses a very similar procedure. He doesnât try to synthesise materialism and something else. Instead he says âOK, materialism is false. Science still works, but it needs to be re-sited on a new, non-materialistic foundation. How can we go about that? What does a new start look like?â The question here is what does post-materialistic science look like?
The other is postmodern anti-realism. We donât need to get rid of the whole of postmodernism, any more than we need to get rid of the whole of materialistic science or the whole of capitalism. Rather, we need to get rid of the false foundational assumption, which in this case is a hostility to objective truth and realism, and the rejection of the search for a unifying theory of everything (or âmetanarrativeâ). So the question here is something like what does postmodern thinking become if we re-embrace realism and commit to ecocivilisation as the great societal goal of the West?
These three questions canât be asked in isolation. Instead, they have to be asked at the same time, and we must seek answers which take account of all of them. It is no use creating a post-growth form of economics which fails to take account of post-materialistic science and realistic metamodernism. It all has to fit together, because 2R is all about joined up thinking.
My point is that this whole way of thinking is much more analytical than continental. It gets straight to the heart of the matter and allows us to ask the questions we actually need to ask. From my perspective, this is the only way forwards that stands any chance of actually working. It will have consequences â it draws lines in the dirt which separate which ideas make it into the new paradigm, and which donât. Some people will either be forced to change their views, or theyâll be âoutside the ecosystemâ. But that too has got to be part of this paradigm shift â the rubber has got to actually meet the road somewhere, and the whole purpose of thinking about it this way is that Iâm defining where those places are. Perhaps there are more of them. Iâd be very interested if anybody can suggest what they might be. Is there anything else we can conclusively reject from this new system?
To be clear â the three things I am rejecting arenât being rejected because of a value judgement. They are being rejected because they are wrong. Growth-based economics is based on an absurd foundational premise. Materialism is logically incoherent. Postmodern anti-realism is false because structural realism is true. So here we are defining a new start point based entirely on logic and reason â there is no morality involved. I am not rejecting these things because they are bad but because they are wrong. For me, this is the beating heart of 2R. Summed up in one sentence, 2R needs to be about fixing our broken relationship with the truth. It is about learning how, both as individuals and as a society, we can start reconnecting with reality.
And if you are thinking âbut this is impossibleâ then my response is that it only seems that way because of a wrong turn Western philosophy took at the height of the modern age: Kantâs claim that science cannot tell us anything about noumenal reality. This was the point of the schism between continental philosophy on one hand and analytic philosophy and science on the other â the fork in the road. 2R needs to bring those two roads back together again.