Neats and Scruffies

The journey through philosophical thought reveals two primary categories of thinkers, along with a few who fit into a third category.

On one side, we find philosophers like Plato, who preferred order, clarity, and a structured approach—everything has its designated place, as highlighted in his Republic. For these thinkers, the pinnacle of understanding is found in mathematics, particularly geometry, which represents spatial mathematics. Mathematics is characterized by its purity, accuracy, and predictability; when applied correctly, the outcomes are always certain.

We can refer to these thinkers as neats. They include influential figures like St. Thomas Aquinas, René Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Bertrand Russell, and the early Ludwig Wittgenstein. Formal logic, a hallmark of modern thought, epitomizes neatness. In my teaching experience, I encountered students who enrolled in logic courses to avoid mathematics, only to find themselves grappling with the precision of language and categories instead.

Neatness undeniably plays a vital role in our society; without it, engineering, electricity, aviation, computers, and the Internet would cease to exist. The disappearance of neatness would likely dismantle much of our technological landscape.

However, neatness has its limitations. This leads us to the second group of philosophers we can label as scruffies.

Scruffies perceive the world as inherently messy—in language, life, and reality itself. They view the neatness espoused by others as contrived and lacking authenticity. For them, formal methodologies apply only to mathematics and its direct applications, as life beyond these realms is fundamentally disordered and unpredictable—akin to a perpetually disheveled room.

Consider the messiness of relationships or politics—far from neat!

The original scruffies were the Sophists, a term derived from the Greek word for "those who know." Aristotle viewed them differently, branding them as purveyors of false wisdom for profit. The Sophists charged fees for teaching the art of argumentation and personal finance management, a practice that continues in various forms today.

In Plato’s Republic, we see a scruffy argument unfold in the second chapter, where the Sophist Thrasymachus boldly claims that "justice is the will of the stronger party." Socrates challenges this notion, leading Thrasymachus to concede that experts in various trades, including justice, aim to benefit their respective domains—not merely themselves.

In essence, Socrates argues that if Thrasymachus's assertion holds true, those advocating for justice based solely on power would ultimately harm the state, not serve it. Thus, he suggests dismissing Thrasymachus's claim.

This overview omits intricate details, but it’s worth noting that Thrasymachus was unimpressed and departed from the conversation, leaving the question of just governance as one of the central themes of the Republic. This quandary has endured for over two millennia!

Scruffiness Through the Ages

Another prominent scruffy was Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527), who approached political power empirically, focusing on its practical realities rather than being constrained by moral imperatives rooted in Platonic or Christian ideals. He posed probing questions, such as whether a ruler should be loved or feared.

Contrary to the myths surrounding his name, Machiavelli did not advocate for cruelty. His approach was to understand politics as it is, leaving moral prescriptions to theologians, who often distract from practical needs.

Machiavelli’s perspective aligns with that of other notable scruffies like Michel de Montaigne (1533–1592). During the early Age of Exploration, he reflected on the diverse beliefs encountered and questioned the validity of European perspectives.

While he could have justified European superiority through technology, he recognized that such prowess has its own challenges. This realization suggests that the scientific-technological worldview might not ultimately be the definitive perspective.

Other scruffies from more recent times include Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, and Nietzsche. Scruffies typically resist rigid abstraction unless they have crafted it themselves or can manipulate it freely.

Kierkegaard’s existentialism critiques Hegel's systematic approach, emphasizing his individuality and refusal to conform to predefined historical forces. Dostoevsky’s "mousehole" man, from Notes from Underground, grapples with the constraints imposed by society and questions the existence of free will amid bureaucratic systems.

Nietzsche's exploration of ethics reveals that modern moral philosophy, heavily influenced by Christian doctrine, has attempted to retain Christian values without their divine foundation. He argues that contemporary ethics often clings to outdated ideals of equality and altruism, which he finds absurd.

Nietzsche calls for a revaluation of all values, challenging the morality traditionally suited for the oppressed. He advocates for a reimagined ethics rooted in strength, adaptability, and mastery—an ethos aligned with a Darwinian understanding of survival.

God and Neats

In this philosophical clash, Christianity aligns itself with the neats. The concept of the Triune God embodies the essence of neatness, presenting a universe governed by order and benevolence. This begs the question: does the devil side with the scruffies? Can neatness exist independently of a supernatural foundation?

Historically, various candidates have been proposed, such as Plato’s Forms, Aquinas’s natural law, and Kant’s logical frameworks. Yet, none carry the authoritative weight of God, who is a personal entity, unlike the abstract constructs of others.

For scruffies, this emphasis on abstract systems can feel disingenuous. They question whether understanding these systems inherently validates them, arguing that mere comprehension does not confer legitimacy.

So, what lies at the heart of their disagreement? It revolves around the fundamental nature of existence, our role within it, and whether an underlying order—or lack thereof—exists.

This enduring debate has shaped Western thought since its inception. Is the universe governed by a predetermined set of rules established by a higher power, or is it a construct of cultural narratives shaped by influential figures?

Truth, Justice, and Their Origins

As Richard Rorty, a prominent late-twentieth-century scruffy, posits: is truth discovered or constructed? Neats argue that truth is revealed from an external source, while scruffies contend that all truths, including justice and morality, are human-made.

Perhaps we are more adept at crafting our realities than we realize.

It’s essential to clarify that when scruffies claim truth and justice are constructed, they do not imply that these concepts are arbitrary or easily manipulated. Instead, they represent established conventions, deeply rooted in cultural evolution and societal needs.

Challenging these conventions can be difficult, particularly when confronting long-standing injustices, as seen in the ongoing struggles against discrimination.

While individuals may not single-handedly create truths, collective cultural understanding drives the evolution of these concepts. Philosophical discourse should not only reflect abstract theories but also engage with the practical realities of human existence.

In summary, neats advocate for predefined ethical principles and rules that govern existence, rooted in divine or natural laws. In contrast, scruffies view these structures as illusions, albeit useful ones, emphasizing that life’s rules are inherently human constructs.

Some scruffies assert that societal norms are based on myths perpetuated by those in power, serving to maintain control and comfort. Modern political philosophers like Leo Strauss have furthered this perspective.

Science: Order or Chaos?

What role does science play in this discussion? Can it provide clarity? The mention of evolutionary psychology raises questions about whether science uncovers truths or creates them.

This leads to the thoughts of Paul Feyerabend (1924–1994), a philosopher who argued against rigid methodologies in science. In his work Against Method, he claimed that significant scientific advancements often defy conventional methods, relying instead on experience, intuition, or even propaganda.

Feyerabend contended that scientific progress is not bound by strict rules but is shaped by the values and motivations of those in the scientific community.

He advocated for pluralism and urged respect for diverse traditions, cautioning against imposing Western methodologies on non-Western cultures.

Who Are the In-Betweens?

While much focus has been placed on scruffies, we must also consider the in-betweens. These thinkers challenge the dichotomies prevalent in Western philosophy—mind and body, reason and emotion, left and right.

In reality, these concepts exist on continuums rather than rigid categories. Degrees of neatness and scruffiness can be observed across philosophical thought. Plato, Descartes, and Kant represent the pinnacle of neatness, while Feyerabend embodies scruffiness.

Aristotle, for example, synthesized some of Plato’s neatness but acknowledged the complexities of ethics, suggesting that while general rules can be useful, precision cannot be expected in all matters.

David Hume further emphasized the complexity of human experience, questioning the neatness of causality. He argued that beliefs regarding cause and effect stem more from custom than objective reasoning.

Charles Sanders Peirce, another in-betweener, promoted pragmatism, asserting that philosophical truths must be connected to practical action and problem-solving.

Finally, Ludwig Wittgenstein urged philosophers to examine the practical use of language, warning against the potential for language to mislead us. He believed that philosophy should enhance our understanding of everyday life rather than indulge in abstract debates.

Language: A Double-Edged Sword

Returning to Plato, we see that Thrasymachus’s assertion that "justice is merely the will of the stronger" encapsulates the scruffy perspective that justice is constructed rather than discovered.

Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and other scruffies highlight that power dynamics shape our understanding of complex terms like justice. Rorty and Feyerabend viewed these concepts as culturally embedded, yet believed in the possibility of progress.

Ultimately, the manipulation of language by those in power poses risks. The wealth and influence of oligarchs enable them to shape narratives, often to their benefit.

Philosophers who remain vigilant to these dynamics may offer valuable insights into navigating the complexities of our world, illuminating the subtle ways language can be wielded as a tool of control.

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Steven Yates is the author of What Should Philosophy Do? A Theory (Wipf and Stock, 2021). He resides with his wife and two cats in a remote area near Concepción, Chile.