Or: The Necessary Sisterhood of Science and Philosophy
IT AIN’T ROCKET SCIENCE… BUT STILL in almost every single conversation someone ignores the incommensurability between “is” and “should”.
“We SHOULD be like nature…” “Like water…” “Like mushrooms…” “Like flocks of birds…” “Like beehives…” “Like ant colonies…” “Like forests…” “Like ancient people…”
Or
“We SHOULD be self-determined to fulfill psychological needs…” “psychologically safe…” “fearless…” “go with your heart…” “whole…” “flow…” “conscious…”
Or
“We SHOULD create equilibriums in entangled entwined complex living cybernetic dynamic regenerative generative whatever systems…” “adapt…” “sense…” “survive…”
Or or or…
It is hard to realise that an IS doesn’t make a SHOULD. Science is DESCRIPTIVE and seeks to derive general rules and predictions from past observations. Famously, an explanatory hypothesis remains true until proven wrong. But it can NEVER tell us what ought to happen in the future. Equally, there is no morality in nature. Nature cannot provide answers to organisational or societal questions about VALUES. Whatever ideas and ideologies we might project into nature, self-determination, systems, psychology, biology, physics, neuroscience etc etc are not per se sufficient to generate NORMATIVE directions for behaviour.
Herein lies an important truth. #LEADERSHIP requires conscious reasoning (including both metacognitive and emotional capacities) to understand what our future SHOULD look like. It implies discerning alternative options, based on our best possible UNDERSTANDING of truth (this is where science is critical), and to consciously apply VALUE FRAMEWORKS to judge which course of action is good, just and beautiful. And, of course, it also entails the commitment and capacity to enact the good, in order to actualise the potential of a situation.
Leadership therefore requires seasoned knowledge and experience, but also — especially in times of ubiquitous information — desperately needs more philosophy. The (sad) truth is: any leader who does not muster a basic understanding of (moral) philosophy, must fail.
