Hypothetical sympathy

The single most important sentence I read in my formal study of Western philosophy came from the Uber-philosopher and Nobel Prize winner, Bertrand Russell. Wonderfully, it’s a hidden gem, tucked away in Chapter 3 of his great tomb A History of Western Philosophy; in which he surveys the relatively obscure pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus.

“In studying a philosopher, the right attitude is neither reverence nor contempt, but first a kind of hypothetical sympathy, until it is possible to know what it feels like to believe in his theories, and only then a revival of the critical attitude, which should resemble, as far as possible, the state of mind of a person abandoning opinions which he has hitherto held”

So, one take-away from this sage advice is: you don’t have the right to criticise any theory unless you have understood it well enough to be a proponent of that theory. Or more briefly: don’t bash things you haven’t embraced.

Adopting this lens of hypothetical sympathy, let’s be honest, how common is it that we make an earnest effort to become so well-versed in views that oppose our own that we know what it would feel like to whole-heartedly believe them? Furthermore, how common is it that we even make an effort to thoroughly understand our own views?

How many self-proclaimed communists have actually read Marx? How many Darwinists have actually read Darwin? How many Christians have actually read the Bible? How many scientists can track the origin of the scientific method? Once something can be relied upon without significant negative consequences and there’s sufficient critical mass for social proof, things are just accepted. So never-mind understanding opposing viewpoints, we typically don’t even really understand our own.

Dangerously, since some of these beliefs form the bedrock of one’s identity, challenging these unexamined yet accepted theories can emotionally register as a personal attack. Lacking hypothetical sympathy, the intellectually afflicted think (perhaps unconsciously): it is easier to eliminate opposing viewpoints than to risk my ego crumbling.

History books are strewn with episodes where the brutish many seek to destroy the noble few in the name of bad ideas. Galileo was tried by the Inquisition for the heliocentric model. Semmelweis died in an asylum over the ridicule he received for proposing handwashing in hospitals. Abolitionists were ostracised for their views on slavery. Even early Christians faced imprisonment, torture and execution for refusing to worship Roman gods.

Wonderfully, despite what modern media might have you believe, we live in the most peaceful and tolerant time in history. Moreover, access to information has never been so widespread (hey, look at you reading this blog right now!) Surfing the tides of this tolerance and abundance, there hasn’t been a better time for hypothetical sympathy.

So the next time you hear something to which you have an emotional reaction of dismissal or rejection, take a moment to be mindful of that feeling then ask: what would it take for me to love that theory? Of course, some views ought to be challenged and displaced, but most views are more moderate than our triggered minds would have us believe.

Happy sympathising!