Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by earwicker
The Constitution of Knowledge by Jonathan Rauch
4.0
Rauch begins with Plato and ends with Plato, but he is considerably more optimistic about the possible success of Truth than Plato is. More often than not, Socrates leads his students into aporia, a dead end, and this is a key element of Platonic epistemology. Rauch's Constitution of Knowledge understands this, but it also believes that it can rise above it by a process of what Nietzsche and Kierkegaard call "levelling." The existentialists view this as a kind of subjective obliteration and a clear threat to human significance. Through a process of compromise, individual existence is watered down and attentuated into a socially mediated homogeny. And so with knowledge.
The conceit of this "constitution" is that there is a Republic of knowledge, a system of checks and balances that governs what Truth ultimately is. And in a practical sense, this is the way that the knowledge factory works -- the institutions of knowledge process conjectures and opinions the way that governments process policy. But I think Rauch should make a finer distinction between the Truth and what are merely facts. Facts can certainly be adjudicated in an institutional fashion. I doubt Truth can be. This is Plato's point, and it's one that Rauch doesn't entirely acknowledge. Plato's Republic ultimately fails and the argument falls into aporia. The Republic ends with a myth, not the Truth. There's a very human reason for that. (Rauch does acknowledge that "reasonable" people can also be religious, but he does this in a way that brackets religion and irrationality. This is like dismissing Book X of the Republic as a spurious afterthought.)
Where Rauch is undoubtedly right is that the conversation must continue, and that censorship and "cancel culture" are inimical to knowledge of any kind, subjective or institutional. True enough. This is a thoughtful and well-reasoned book, and while I have my quibbles with it, it promotes and advocates for a conversation that must continue.
The conceit of this "constitution" is that there is a Republic of knowledge, a system of checks and balances that governs what Truth ultimately is. And in a practical sense, this is the way that the knowledge factory works -- the institutions of knowledge process conjectures and opinions the way that governments process policy. But I think Rauch should make a finer distinction between the Truth and what are merely facts. Facts can certainly be adjudicated in an institutional fashion. I doubt Truth can be. This is Plato's point, and it's one that Rauch doesn't entirely acknowledge. Plato's Republic ultimately fails and the argument falls into aporia. The Republic ends with a myth, not the Truth. There's a very human reason for that. (Rauch does acknowledge that "reasonable" people can also be religious, but he does this in a way that brackets religion and irrationality. This is like dismissing Book X of the Republic as a spurious afterthought.)
Where Rauch is undoubtedly right is that the conversation must continue, and that censorship and "cancel culture" are inimical to knowledge of any kind, subjective or institutional. True enough. This is a thoughtful and well-reasoned book, and while I have my quibbles with it, it promotes and advocates for a conversation that must continue.