Conatus: REVISED EDITION by Tom Wallace - HTML preview

C O N A T U S

impressions of our experiences and how we acted on them) to symbol — where we try to relate this to other people. The message from this conflicted stance of partly acknowledging our contradictions and partly denying them is that the meaning, values and purposes that might offer a real alternative cannot spring from a scientific, coolly rational view of the universe, or from a detached and pragmatic philosophy. Science is needed, but not scientism, rationality but not rationalism. I think we need stories that embrace difference and understand how to wield power with compassion and benevolence.

Final Thoughts

We tell ourselves we are ‘rational actors’, that we take the common-sense view. This might, at one time, just have been a matter of shaking our heads at the folly of human nature. We might just happily observe the way the stories we tell ourselves develop and change over time — ‘live and let live’ seems like a reasonable and tolerant approach. But as we have gained technical know-how, the stakes have got much higher. We might feel an urgent need to change the story — or some part of it. We might feel that now the dominant narratives are taking on ominous consequences.

If we wanted to change the story, the book suggests, we are facing a tough job! People differ in their understanding of truth, the way truth is applied through values, meanings, morality, justice and law and finally we all differ in our aesthetic preferences. Trying to change any of this can result in our efforts back-firing and making people even more resistant to

293