Reason's Limits and the Future of Freedom
Both Hume and Grossman compel us to acknowledge that our freedom—and well-being—is intrinsically tied to our capacity to cultivate virtuous passions.
In Session 1 of our study of David Hume, we examined his ideas on the self and discovered we may be devoting effort to prop up a self that doesn’t exist.
In Hume, Session 2, we explored his argument that “Reason alone can never produce any action, or give rise to volition.” Instead, our “passions” come first, and then we use “reason” to justify what our emotions have decided. Our inner work involves devoting attention to our passions so that they become more virtuous.
Arguing against one of the most common misconceptions in all of philosophy, Hume taught that to rely on reason to control our passions is to bet on the wrong horse.
Hume’s insight about the primacy of passions is not an abstract philosophical point but carries profound implications for understanding political obedience and the very future of freedom.
We have previously considered what it would mean to New York City to elect Mamdani as its mayor.
The Wall Street Journal recently published short opinions about the rise of Mamdani. One columnist wrote:
For two generations, America’s young people were taught to think of their country as a hellscape of predatory capitalism and of their world as a cold and godless moral vacuum. For students raised on that outlook, socialism offers meaning and excitement.
He's right. Today’s education system and Mamdani’s pronouncements stir anti-Western civilization passions. And although we might tweak the columnist’s list of what counter passions should be stirred, he’s right that reason wouldn’t do the trick: “The only antidote to that outlook is its opposite: gratitude to family, to nation and, ultimately, to God.”
Another WSJ columnist is more optimistic. He wrote, “Socialism remains at odds with human nature. The good news for the rest of us is that the world is still mostly composed of rational people.”
Hume, ever the gentleman, would not laugh at this columnist’s hope, but he might shake his head and say, Over 300 years ago, I explained why you would be wrong to rely on reason to subdue passions.
Do not count on reason to overcome the misguided passions of voters. This is why, in my previous essay on Mamdani, I explained my grave concern about the 2028 presidential election if a severe recession or depression occurs between now and then.
Remember from Hume, Session 2, he cautioned, we are a “slave of [our] passions.” Knowledge alone of moral truths or economic principles won’t prevent irrational decisions. And when a sufficient number of voters are driven by the lower passions--in the case of NYC, the desire for something for nothing and Jew hatred--reason won’t save us from the worst outcome.
Rational arguments or appeals to facts are simply insufficient when strong "passions" have taken hold. Let’s look at a historical case, too.
The vast majority of the approximately 1.5 million Jews murdered in the Ukraine during World War 2, were not murdered in the gas chambers but by bullets. They were shot not only by the Nazis but by their former fellow citizens collaborating with the Nazis.
In his searing Soviet-era novel Life and Fate, Vasily Grossman revealed the passions that support totalitarianism, sparing neither fascism nor communism.
As a journalist, Grossman was there in the aftermath of the genocide of Jews in Ukraine by Nazis and their Ukrainian civilian collaborators. Grossman describes how the Nazis (abetted by the crimes of Stalin) had first to stir feelings of hatred towards Jews before citizens would follow orders.
Grossman sets the stage with a matter-of-fact description of how infected cattle are disposed of. This is the mindset the Nazis were inculcating.
Before slaughtering infected cattle, various preparatory measures have to be carried out: pits and trenches must be dug; the cattle must be transported to where they are to be slaughtered; instructions must be issued to qualified workers.
If the local population helps the authorities to convey the infected cattle to the slaughtering points and to catch beasts that have run away, they do this not out of hatred of cows and calves, but out of an instinct for self-preservation.
Jew haters are not necessarily bloodthirsty, so to gain compliance, special campaigns stirred passions to shape the mindset of the general population:
Similarly, when people are to be slaughtered en masse, the local population is not immediately gripped by a bloodthirsty hatred of the old men, women and children who are to be destroyed. It is necessary to prepare the population by means of a special campaign. And in this case it is not enough to rely merely on the instinct for self-preservation; it is necessary to stir up feelings of real hatred and revulsion.
Grossman explains how Stalin’s previous use of hatred assisted Germans: “At an earlier date, in the same regions, Stalin himself had mobilized the fury of the masses, whipping it up to the point of frenzy during the campaigns to liquidate the kulaks as a class and during the extermination of Trotskyist–Bukharinite degenerates and saboteurs.”
The result of such campaigns is that “the majority of the population obey every order of the authorities as though hypnotized.” Yet, more is needed. In such a totalitarian atmosphere, Grossman writes, “There is a particular minority which actively helps to create the atmosphere of these campaigns: ideological fanatics; people who take a bloodthirsty delight in the misfortunes of others; and people who want to settle personal scores, to steal a man’s belongings or take over his flat or job.”
“Most people, however, are horrified at mass murder.” Yet Grossman observed, “One of the most astonishing human traits that came to light at this time was obedience.”
A mindset of obedience was fostered, trumping other human virtues. Grossman wanted to teach this history lesson. He pondered, “[Did] a new trait…suddenly appear in human nature?” Grossman answers his question, “No. This obedience bears witness to a new force acting on human beings. The extreme violence of totalitarian social systems proved able to paralyze the human spirit throughout whole continents.”
Grossman explained how dividing people into the “worthy” and “unworthy” was justified by the trick of redefining humanitarianism:
A man who has placed his soul in the service of Fascism declares an evil and dangerous slavery to be the only true good. Rather than overtly renouncing human feelings, he declares the crimes committed by Fascism to be the highest form of humanitarianism; he agrees to divide people up into the pure and worthy and the impure and unworthy.
Grossman, whose novel was finally published in 1980 after a microfilmed copy was smuggled from the Soviet Union, rightly warned that the future of freedom depends on our individual choices:
Does human nature undergo a true change in the cauldron of totalitarian violence? Does man lose his innate yearning for freedom? The fate of both man and the totalitarian State depends on the answer to this question. If human nature does change, then the eternal and world-wide triumph of the dictatorial State is assured; if his yearning for freedom remains constant, then the totalitarian State is doomed.
So let’s put together Hume, the WSJ opinions, and Grossman. An “innate yearning for freedom” is insufficient when we have been both miseducated and lack a moral compass. Our passions will then run wild. When we have carefully considered Hume, we know we should be very concerned about the future.
Grossman's historical account serves as a horrifying testament to Hume's philosophical assertion. The wholesale "paralysis of the human spirit" and the widespread obedience to heinous acts, despite innate human revulsion, directly demonstrate that reason and inherent morality are indeed impotent against deeply stirred and manipulated passions.
Both Hume and Grossman compel us to acknowledge that our freedom—and well-being—is intrinsically tied to our capacity to cultivate virtuous passions.
And what about our own future? For one, our personal well-being is tied to societal flourishing.
Hume helps us see that we are not going to reason our way out of our addictions. I’m using the term addictions broadly to include emotional addictions--anger, worry, depression, etc.
But is there something we can do to experience more free will? We will continue that conversation on Saturday in Session 3 on the wisdom of David Hume.
Please consider becoming a paid subscriber today to support this work and receive all sessions of Mindset Shifts U.
