Summary of the 5 March, 2001 Meeting of the HKPC's Kowloon Branch

Topic: Rigour vs. Insight: Two Perspectives on Philosophising

Introduced by Roy Butler and Steve Palmquist

Moderated by Edmond Kung

Edmond began by explaining that tonight�s introduction will take the form of a debate, with Roy defending his position first, Steve defending his second, followed by each giving a brief response.

Roy began by explaining the background to the debate. He regards his approach to philosophizing as being fundamentally different from Steve�s, at least as it is applied in the context of philosophy café meetings. Steve prefers to encourage participants to share and defend their opinions in the hope of gaining mutual insight, whereas Roy prefers an approach that focuses more on rigour. This difference eventually gave rise to the formation of the two separate branches that now exist, as a way of testing out the pros and cons of each approach. A few months ago a discussion of the differences and relationship between insight and rigour arose on the HKPC discussion list, but came to an end when Roy found himself unable to devote the time necessary to respond to a detailed message Steve had posted. Later, Roy suggested and Steve agreed that they should continue their debate in a public forum, such as this. At this point, Roy circulated a copy of Steve�s last email message, with his own detailed responses shown in blue type, interspersed between Steve�s comments. Roy talked through about one third of his handout before running out of time. He emphasized that �Steve has failed� in his attempt to show that insight is necessary for philosophy and that Roy�s defense of rigour was inadequate.

Steve began his part of the introduction by noting that he and Roy had agreed that the main focus of the discussion would be on what is the best method of philosophizing in the context of a philosophy café. He asked everyone to keep this in mind, even though most of his introduction would be devoted to a broader discussion of the relationship between the concepts of rigour and insight. After circulating his handout, Steve talked through it, point by point. He portrayed the two as complementary aspects of philosophizing that must work together in order to produce �good philosophy�, and he emphasized that, although in certain contexts Roy is quite right to say that concern for rigour must be primary, in the context of a philosophy café, insight should take the lead.

Both Roy and Steve gave very brief responses. Roy clarified his disagreement with Steve by stating that insight should play no role whatsoever in any legitimate philosophy. He insisted: �Insight represents the abandonment of philosophy.� Steve replied simply by exclaiming that, if we were to follow Roy�s advice, we would have no philosophy at all!

Simon began the question time by asking both introducers whether their introductions were examples of insight or rigour. Roy said this is a question that ought to be asked and answered afterwards, not now. Steve responded that he attempted to make his introduction a model of both, like all good philosophy should be.

Daniel asked Steve whether an insight could come as a conclusion to a philosophical argument, or whether it always comes first, like a sudden and unexpected jolt. Steve replied affirmatively, saying that this is sometimes the chronological order of occurrence, though in most cases strictly logical arguments do not produce surprising outcomes of the type that are properly called �insights�. Jeff disagreed, pointing out that Pythagoras did reach his insights by using this method. Steve said he was not so sure about this. The process we think we are witnessing when we read a book, for example, is often quite different from the process the author actually went through in order to put his or her thoughts down in that form. Rather than insight coming as the conclusion of a logical argument, a more common occurrence is that an insight breaks into a person�s awareness only after he or she has thought long and hard on an issue, a process that includes the construction of numerous rigourous arguments. The latter may have prepared the way for the insight, even in Pythagoras� case, even though the insight itself did not initially arise as a strictly logical outcome of the argument as such.

Grace asked Roy to clarify his view of the relationship between religion and philosophy. She pointed out that these two are typically regarded as having some significant areas of overlap. �Do you deny this?� she asked. Roy replied that religion is not philosophy and philosophy is not religion. Religion requires faith, whereas philosophy does not. Rose asked Roy to give his definition of philosophy. Roy replied that it is disciplined inquiry into the nature of reality, good, and evil.

Simon asked Steve whether he intended to identify insight with revealed knowledge. Steve said no, and explained that at first an insight is but an opinion, which awaits testing in various ways. Although at the moment of insight a person will feel subjectively certain that it is true, some insights do turn out to be incorrect. One of the main purposes of philosophy is to encourage us to examine our insights, so that we can have reasons for regarding some as constituting �knowledge� and others as not attaining this status.

Austin expressed some dismay over certain aspects of the responses given in Roy�s handout. For example, he asked Roy to clarify what he meant when he responded to one of Steve�s arguments by simply stating: �How very Chinese.� Roy replied that this refers to specific recent press reports regarding the Chinese government�s way of responding to Hong Kong Government officials, especially during the years when Chris Patten was Governor. Roy further clarified that his emphasis on rigour should not be taken to imply that philosophy is not useful for life; it is, but in order to appreciate its usefulness, we must �change hats�. Austin asked whether the rigour of doing philosophy gives Roy any insight into how he should live his life. Roy replied �no�.

Yvonne pointed out that Einstein always claimed that he lived on the �edge of certainty�. We should led by our insights, she claimed. We need insights first and then we need to apply rigour to them, otherwise we�ll have no place to go in our philosophizing.

Roy claimed that Steve had changed his definition of insight in course of responding during this discussion so far. Originally, insight was portrayed as an eruption into rational thought; but now Steve is portraying it as a gradual process that leads naturally into rigour. Steve replied by pointing out that there is no necessary conflict here. Roy�s claim is itself actually a pure insight that is totally devoid of rigour. Like so many of the claims he made in the responses contained in his handout, it is presented as an undefended, unargued statement of truth that seems so self-evident to Roy that he appears to see no need to defend it with reasons. For example, Roy has not explained what type of difference he sees between these two ways of explaining the relationship between rigour and insight, nor has he stated why he thinks the two are necessarily incompatible. Steve explained that he regards his two portrayals of this relationship as different yet fully compatible alternatives, either one of which may properly describe certain real-life examples. He added that he would be fully prepared to change his position on this if Roy could present him with rigour reasons to do so.

At this point, Edmond suggested we break up into small groups. When the meeting was reconvened, Austin began by summarizing some of the points raised in his group�s discussion. �Rigour vs. insight� is not a well-formed statement of the topic, he argued, because the two are not mutually exclusive. Roy�s attachment to rigour appears to be itself a kind of religious fervour. That is, it is an example of what he has himself rejected as �insight�. His group members think that if there is no insight, then there will be no progress. Rigour is attractive to some because of their fear of life and its inherent uncertainties. It is very difficult to have a rational thought without emotion being attached to it in some way. For example, brain scientists have done tests in which they suppressed the emotion centres of a person�s brain and have found that as a result the subjects have been unable to reason. In general, Austin continued, his group tended to agree with Steve. At first he was somewhat disturbed by what appeared to be some rather loose thinking. But then he (Austin) realized that this is not only typical but inevitable in a philosophy café setting. Too much rigour will result in a suppression of open discussion, because other people�s insights will tend to become irrelevant or unwelcomed.

Jame then shared that his group also started out by agreeing with Steve�s position, but then realized that Roy�s view also carries some weight. They ended somewhere in between the two. When people throw out their insights, their backgrounds are coming into play, and as a result each participant tends to apply rigour on their own, as they sit there comparing their own position on the issue under discussion with the other positions being defended. In this sense, they sided more with Roy�s view, in the sense that the more participants are able to do this (apply rigour internally as the discussion is going on), the more successful the meeting has been. If philosophy is �love of wisdom�, then this implies that we have to love the process of being rigourous in order to be philosophical at all! Jame furthermore convey his group�s impression that people tend to prefer the Kowloon Branch meetings, because the Fringe Branch meetings are often too difficult. Yet they agree that sometimes the Kowloon Branch meetings could be more rigourous. As a possible solution to this problem, Jame suggested that some future topics could be made narrower and/or more concrete, more well-defined.

Austin responded that he has had a similar response to his participation in the two branches. The Fringe Branch discussions typically use bigger words than the Kowloon Branch meetings, yet in the end the former usually end up being less insightful than the latter. Daniel added that, ironically, there can also be more rigour displayed at the Kowloon Branch meetings, precisely because the topics are more accessible, more easily grasped by ordinary people (i.e., those who have not had formal training in philosophy). Pia noted that she tends to get a lot of insight from the Fringe Branch meetings. Steve pointed out that Pia has a B.A. in philosophy, so Daniel�s comment does not apply to her situation. Daniel agreed that this is an important point. Teachers of undergraduate philosophy courses often focus more on simply encouraging their students to learn to think, without worrying about conveying too much technical philosophical knowledge. The same seems to apply to a philosophy café setting.

Pia suggested that in her experience, both branches have both insight and rigour, but in a different order of priority. For the Kowloon Branch, insight comes first and hopefully leads to rigour, whereas for the Fringe Branch rigour comes first and hopefully leads to insight. She added that insight typically takes more time to obtain, not less time, when compared to rigour. Louisa compared this situation to ballroom dancing, pointing out that different couples are free to practise the art in different ways. Austin agreed, noting that the essential difference between different dancers is rooted in their personalities, as seems to be the case with this debate as well. He added that he enjoys participating in the Fringe Branch meetings very much. Daniel suggested that the conclusion we are coming to may be that the two branches simply aim to employ different styles and that both can be appropriate. Simon, however, disagreed with the implication of the ballroom dancing analogy, that there is no objective right or wrong on this issue. There is. In ballroom dancing the woman is led by the man. This is a fixed principle that is not altered.

Yvonne then suggested that a better analogy would be that of the writer, artist, or composer. Pia added that philosophical reasoning is primarily a way of thinking. Guy found this claim alarming, however, because �a way� sounds too exclusive. But Pia pointed out that this �way� includes a great deal and is not, in fact, exclusive in that negative sense. Going back to the ballroom dancing analogy, Jeff added that there are specific rules in a dance contest, and that the judges take these into consideration when assessing different couples� performance. But he also pointed out that the key to a successful dance performance is in team cooperation, and that as a matter of fact, in some couples it is the woman who is the better dancer, not the man. The two interact together in a dynamic process, just as rigour and insight do. And out of this process the deepest and best insights will arise.

At this point Daniel stated that, although he agrees with Steve�s claim that Roy�s extreme rejection of insight is misplaced, he remains unclear about Steve�s own view of insight. He asked Steve to comment further on the relationship between seeing a picture whole and allowing insights to break through. Steve replied that his sees the situation fundamentally as a two-step process. First, a person holding a previously accepted �perspective� (which he uses here as a technical term), often defended with a great deal of rigour, experiences an insight as a new �idea of the whole� that breaks into the old perspective, shattering it to pieces. But at this point, rigour must come back into the picture in order to establish a new, workable perspective. Jeff then read a quote on being open to new perspectives and conveyed his appreciation for both the Kowloon and the Fringe Branches.

Edmond asked Steve and Roy each to give a brief concluding statement of their responses to the evening�s discussion. Steve went first, stating that what disturbs him most about the whole debate is Roy�s total unwillingness to give even an inch of plausibility to any perspective other than his own. Despite the presentation of numerous persuasive arguments, he has not once admitted that insight can have a proper role in philosophy. The reason this strikes Steve as �disturbing�, rather than as just a strangely stubborn quirk, is that Roy has clearly and repeatedly stated that in his opinion Steve�s approach to leading philosophy café�s positively �lacks rigour�. He says this on the one hand while insisting on the other hand that without rigour one is not doing philosophy at all. This clearly implies that in Roy�s opinion, the Kowloon Branch meetings are not worth attending�at least, not for their philosophical content. And yet somehow (without explaining how), Roy denies that this is the implication of his position, and pretends to view the Kowloon Branch meetings as just another �equally legitimate� approach. But if he wishes to be rigourous, Roy cannot have it both ways. By contrast, Steve stressed that he willingly admits that Roy�s style of leading a philosophy café is a valuable one, legitimate in and of itself, because it combines rigour and insight, as all good philosophy should. Steve pleaded with Roy to use his conclusion to demonstrate a modicum of good will by admitting that insight, as Steve has so carefully defined it, is not necessary �religious� and �mystical� in any sense that makes it inappropriate for philosophy. In the absence of such a gesture of acceptance and mutual understanding of where the discussion has led, Steve felt it would be very difficult not to conclude that Roy was being intentionally offensive in his position.

Roy began his concluding statement by expressing regret over the fact that what was supposed to be a philosophical discussion had degenerated into a beauty contest. He stated that it has never been his position that being rigourous is more meritorious than being insightful. The Fringe Branch started simply because enough people agreed that there was a place for increased rigour.  He the then claimed that Steve has �succeeded in surviving the evening� without defining his main term, �insight�, but has instead defended several incompatible explanations of what it is. The  proper terminus of a philosophical debate, however, is a �conclusion�, not an insight. Going around �harvesting� other people�s insights is not a very meritorious philosophical occupation. Rigour, by contrast, is as indispensable to a philosopher as a scalpel is to a surgeon.

The atmosphere was so charged that virtually nobody left at this point, even though the meeting was technically over. Instead, Jeff spoke up and stated that the �scalpel� is an unfortunate analogy, because, whereas it is true that in the hands of a trained surgeon it can have a healing effect, it is just as true that if used by untrained hands, it can do more harm than good. If the same thing is true about rigour, then making rigour the primary tool of a philosophy café, which is attended almost entirely by people who have no (or very little) formal philosophical training, has some obvious and potentially grave dangers.

Numerous others continued this discussion for some time, including a clarification from Steve regarding Roy�s concluding comments on the �terminus� of a philosophical argument. Steve completely agreed with Roy that a �conclusion� is the normal terminus. He clarified that, when he responded to a question by saying that an insight might sometimes arise in this context, he was claiming that this can happen and sometimes does, not that it is the ordinary or even the proper terminus.

++++++++

After a brief discussion of various alternatives, such as �Rhetoric and charisma�, it was agreed that Yvonne would introduce the April meeting on the topic: �How much power is too much power?�

Posted with permission of the Author.  1997 - 2001 Hi-Tech Development Co., Ltd.  All rights reserved.