Six Great Ideas
I wonder if anyone reads Mortimer Adler today. For a while he was an influential and also popular philosopher, often referred to as the Fat Man. That name referred to The Fat Men’s Great Books Group, an informal discussion circle in Chicago in the 1940s, co-founded by Mortimer Adler and Robert Hutchins, the President of the University of Chicago. The name came from its participants, who were wealthy and influential Chicago businessmen and executives and who were led by Adler and Hutchins to experience the ‘Great Books’ method of discussing classic texts, believing it would bring intellectual rigour and insight to the business elite and potentially bridge societal divides. The group was formed in 1943 after a prominent businessman, Wilbur Munnecke, had developed concern about the communication difficulties he observed among bright executives. The approach was seen as a way to unite academic thinkers and businessmen using the wisdom of classic literature, in part to temper the excesses of capitalism and at the same time to guide societal decisions.
Who was Mortimer Jerome Adler? Born in New York City in 1902, the child of Jewish immigrants from Germany, he dropped out of school at age 14 to become copy boy for the New York Sun. He soon returned to school, and went on to study at Columbia University, eventually completing a doctorate in psychology. However, a key moment in his life was in 1930 when Robert Hutchins, the newly appointed president of the University of Chicago, ensured he was hired as a professor in the philosophy of law, despite resistance from staff from within the university’s Department of Philosophy. Learning about the Great Books seminar inspired Chicago businessman Walter Paepcke to establish The Aspen Institute, and it was there Adler began to teach philosophy to business executives . With Hutchins he went on to set up the Great Books of the Western World program, in 54 volumes in 1952 A second edition was published in 1990, in 60 volumes.
The decision to include a book in the series required meeting three criteria: the book had to be relevant to contemporary matters; it had to be rewarding to re-read repeatedly; and it had to contribute to ‘the great conversation about great ideas’. The books weren’t chosen on the basis of ethnic and cultural inclusiveness. Historical influence was seen as sufficient to be added. Nor was it a requirement that the editors agreed with the authors’ views. The books were published under the auspices of the Great Books Foundation. In 1952, Adler founded and served as director of the Institute for Philosophical Research. He also served on the Board of Editors of the Encyclopedia Britannica, and succeeded Hutchins as its chairman from 1974.
If what was done back then was seen as a key stage in the awareness of key literature from the past, enthusiasm for an approach where ‘Great Books’ were identified and promoted has declined ever since the first edition appeared. Today it is easy to make fun of the idea of ‘great books’: many of those selected are now seen as the embodiment of various evils, from sexism to cultural hegemony, from conservatism to oppression. However, rather than indulge in criticism of the great books endeavour, there is still value in going back to read books published in earlier decades or centuries. How were the various titles chosen? Rather than trying to assess the complete range of publications, a good introduction to Adler’s approach can be undertaken by looking at his 1981 book, Six Great Ideas, (published by Collier Books, a Macmillan imprint).
In Six Great Ideas, Adler examines what he proposes as six foundational concepts, ones he saw as having shaped the pursuit of truth and meaning: these topics are Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Liberty, Equality, and Justice. Adler invites his readers to join him on ‘a reflective journey’, one where he intends to challenge their understanding of the principles that govern lives and society. He argues that these ideas form ‘the bedrock of human civilization, guiding our moral compass, our understanding of the world, our appreciation of art and culture, and our endeavours in creating fair and equitable societies’. He claims these ideas are deeply embedded in everyday life, and he argues they have continuing and enduring relevance. They are essential tools for navigating the complexities of contemporary life.
He explains his approach is to reveal, in straightforward language, the philosophical basis for these key terms, attempting to take these complex and important ideas and make them accessible to an intelligent (rather than an academic) reader. The book begins by putting the six foundational concepts he wanted to examine into two groups. Perhaps surprisingly, the first group comprises Truth, Goodness, Beauty, and the other three, Liberty, Equality, and Justice are left until later in his book. Today all six might be regarded as controversial, but it might have been easier to begin with truth, liberty and equality.
Adler begins by exploring the concept of truth, explaining how he sees this as the concept that is the cornerstone in the quest for knowledge, shaping the ways in which humans engage with the world. He suggests the pursuit of truth is not merely an intellectual exercise but is a fundamental element of human existence, critical to enquiry, discovery, and the advancement of knowledge. He also explains that the meaning of truth has changed over time, contrasting the views of the ancient Greeks who, he explains, viewed truth as an alignment with an eternal, unchanging reality, to modern thinkers who consider it in the context of scientific inquiry and empirical evidence.
For Adler, the relationship between truth and knowledge is central. Knowledge is seen as a pursuit of truth, seeking to understand and explain the nature of our world, and as the engine of progress. Indeed, he explains that truth is a pivotal concept, one that serves as the foundation upon which all knowledge is built. This is achieved through ‘correspondence’, which he defines as the alignment between thought and reality. In other words when a statement or belief accurately reflects the state of affairs in the external world, it is deemed true. This takes us back to knowledge, which is, by definition, justified true belief. For Adler this is critical: it is not enough for beliefs to be justified or logical; they must also be true. The pursuit of knowledge, therefore, invariably entails the pursuit of truth not as a philosophical exercise but as a practical necessity. A society that values Truth is one where individuals can rely on shared understandings and accurate information.
Are there challenges in attaining the truth? Adler observes that human perception, cognitive biases, and limited knowledge all serve as obstacles. To overcome them, he argues there has to be a rigorous and continuous process of inquiry, critical thinking, and verification. He asserts that the persistent search for truth is central to our understanding of ourselves and the world around us. That view might have seemed clear and simple in 1981, but it rested on an assumption that we all see the world in the same way. More than forty years later, it is clear that we don’t, and what is true for one group is not necessarily true to another. His view that there are unarguable truths is an assumption hard to sustain in our fractured times.
The difficulties of claiming certainty in relation to truth become all the more evident when Adler turned to his second key idea, goodness. For Adler goodness is a fundamental principle guiding ethical behaviour, the link to morality. This leads him to address some key questions: What constitutes a morally good action? What differentiates good from bad, or moral from immoral actions? Without meaning to do so, he has started to make us confront some tricky – even controversial – issues. Some of what he proposes is not particularly controversial: moral actions are those that align with ethical principles and the concepts of right and wrong, often considering the well-being and rights of others. Immoral actions, conversely, are those that violate ethical standards and typically result in harm or injustice.
However, from there he goes on to argue that goodness extends beyond personal issues to being a criterion for evaluating institutions and communities. If a society is to flourish, it must nurture and uphold goodness, and with this in mind he takes us into a much broader territory where goodness is linked to the need to promote justice, compassion, altruism, fairness and into creating systems that allow individuals to lead morally fulfilling lives. Adler is no fool, and he emphasises the challenges in consistently pursuing goodness. We are often faced with ethical dilemmas that require balancing competing interests and values. He suggests the pursuit of goodness demands critical reflection, empathy, and a commitment to ethical principles, even when it is inconvenient or challenging.
Now we have reached a key point: he observes that principles can’t be absolute, as each includes demands that can be contradictory. As a result there is a need to find ways to balance or accommodate conflicting requirements. If his intention had been to offer some ‘tools to navigate the complexities of modern life’, it seems he isn’t providing a map as much as outlining possible paths and likely alternatives. Adler acknowledges this and offers some (conflicting) ideas for the reader to consider. For example, he refers to Mill’s utilitarian approach which advocates pursuing the greatest good for the greatest number. In contrast he points out that Kantian ethics require adherence to duty and universal moral laws. It’s hard to follow a map when the guidance is inconsistent!
Perhaps a better way to read this book is to recognise that Adler’s intention was to make us think, and for us to recognise that there are ‘no easy answers’. Rather than seeking clear guidance from philosophers, our expectation should be that philosophical enquiry reveals territory to be examined, pointing out pitfalls, possibilities and uncertainties. What Adler does is to present us with ideas. Our challenge is to grapple with those ideas, to see what we can identify and confirm, and to make clear what isn’t going to be answered by logic alone.
If Adler’s intention was to encourage us to become amateur philosophers, and to think about the ideas and issues we confront, it was a strange choice to offer ‘beauty’ as the third great idea. Many would agree here the difficulties are evident: there is a lot of good sense to suggest ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’, a phrase with a long history in its various forms, certainly from John Lyly and Shakespeare in the 16th Century through to David Hume commenting “Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them ((in 1742). Incidentally, the wording about the eye of the beholder comes from Margaret Wolfe Hungerford in her novel Molly Bawn in 1878. This long history is persuasive.
In fact, Adler quickly slips away from attempting to ‘explain’ the concept of beauty but rather identifies it as an attribute that pleases the senses while also elevating the human spirit. Is he right? Does aesthetic experience not only provide pleasure but also “enriches our lives, allowing us to transcend ordinary experiences, and transform mundane reality”. Adler argues that in moments of shared aesthetic experience, people can find common ground, regardless of their cultural background. He suggests beauty plays a key role in elevating human thought, fostering connection, and driving creative expression. Really?
What this book from more than 40 years ago does is offer a stark reminder on how much has changed. In many ways, what Adler has to say is far from controversial. This becomes very clear later in the book when he turns to the second group of principles. In the Bookey summary we read Adler argues: “The principles of Liberty and Equality stand as cornerstones in the foundation of human rights. Liberty, as Adler asserts, is an essential element of human existence, signifying the freedom of individuals to think, speak, and act according to their own values and decisions without undue interference. This principle is deeply rooted in the philosophical traditions of Western thought, resonating through the works of thinkers like John Locke, who emphasized natural rights, and John Stuart Mill, who championed individual freedom as crucial for personal development and societal progress. Adler proposes that liberty fosters creativity, innovation, and personal growth, enabling individuals to pursue their paths and contribute uniquely to society. However, he admits it can’t exist in a vacuum; it must be tempered given the encroachment on other freedoms.
For him, this is where the principle of Equality comes in. Equality, he suggests, demands that all individuals be treated with the same respect, dignity, and moral consideration.” Fair enough, but we are about to reach compromise territory. Adler warns us that despite their intention to elevate human dignity and social fairness, Liberty and Equality can sometimes be at odds. For instance, he notes, the unfettered exercise of liberty by one individual or group may infringe upon the rights or freedoms of another, as seen in scenarios where economic liberties contribute to systemic inequalities. Likewise, efforts to enforce equality, such as through redistributive policies or affirmative action, can be perceived as limitations on individual freedom and meritocracy. Well, yes., and so?
We learn that it is possible to navigate these conflicts by encouraging a balance whereby both principles can coexist harmoniously. He advocates for a societal framework that maximizes individual freedoms while simultaneously safeguarding and promoting equal opportunities for all its members. He notes this balance is not easily achieved, “requiring continual dialogue, ethical consideration, and legal frameworks that adapt to evolving social needs and challenges. In real-world applications, the balance between Liberty and Equality is manifest in democratic governance, where laws and policies aim to protect individual rights while promoting social welfare. The U.S. Constitution, with its amendments and provisions, exemplifies this delicate equilibrium, striving to uphold freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly, while guaranteeing equal protection under the law”. Do you remember that simplistic, hopeful and long-lost view of the world?
When it comes to Justice, Adler highlights the contributions of John Rawls. Rawls’ theory of “justice as fairness” proposes two key. principles: the principle of equal basic liberties for all individuals and the difference principle, which maintains that social and economic inequalities should be arranged to benefit the least advantaged members of society. Rawls’ ideas, like Adlers, now seem so unrealistic. Were we more innocent back then?
Adler wanted his readers to recognise the profound impact that living in accordance with Truth, Goodness, Beauty, Liberty, Equality, and Justice can have — on ourselves, our relationships, and on the broader society. Rather than accepting his framework for the future, in contemporary society we are more likely to see those six ideas as forming a complicated straitjacket. Each constrains and is constrained by the others, and whatever direction we pursue, we soon bump up against major contradictions and confusions. Despite this, Adler deserves the last word: even if his six ideas can no longer be considered “essential tools for navigating the complexities of contemporary life” they remind us of ideas we mustn’t forget.
