Tingsten speaks of “truth” as if it consists only of “facts.” This seems like begging the question.
Hayek’s proposal that the MPS be named the Acton-Tocqueville(-Burckhardt) Society is relevant here, as it would have invited discussion not just of history, but of these three particular historians. They certainly did not shy away from passing judgment, or from discussing the topic of judgment and history.
With this context in mind, we can guess that Antoni criticized the positivist trend in historical writing in the early twentieth century that largely displaced the “moral” approach of Victorian authors.
Perhaps Antoni argued that the playing field of history had been ceded to relativists and immoralists who then filled the vacuum in the discourse, thereby facilitating the corruption of the public and laying the groundwork for the rise of regressive ideologies. Cassirer (_The Myth of the State_, 1946) proposed a similar theory regarding the decline of rationalism in philosophy. This kind of argument also bears some resemblance to Hayek’s complaints about the baleful effects of historicism in economics and behaviorism in psychology.
Jack Bladel
I am sorry that I did not provide the context for the Tingsten quote. Below is his intervention in full. Paul Turpin’s restatement with slightly altered punctuations is correct.
The larger context is that it was a session on how to do history. Some of the larger points of debate were: should historians stick to academic style history, or also popular history? Should history draw moral lessons, or be neutral? Can the desire for portraying things truthfully while drawing moral lessons be achieved in the same work? The last is what Tingsten was responding to. We do not know what Professor Antonio said at the beginning of the session that prompted Tingsten’s comment, because the paper Antonio presented was not preserved.
My reading is that Tingsten is trying to promote truth in history over myth-making of the type that serves, e.g., nationalist aims.
**
Professor TINGSTEN: I don’t agree with Professor Antoni. I think we have better historians now than in the 19th century. But we haven’t the same number of brilliant generalisations of history. Study of detail, with truth as the only criterion, is much better now. I think this is of some importance. I think there is a lot of good popular history, in Sweden, England, and U.S.A.: Trevelyan, Becker, Nevins, etc.
It has been said that “If myths are not put forward by philosophers, then they will be put forward by other people, and then they will be worse myths. Therefore they should be put forward by philosophers.” But I don’t think this is true.
It is not always so simple to combine history as truth plus moral values. I think it would be better to concentrate on truth, and not on moral values.
From: Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Paul Turpin
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 12:49 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] trying to track down another quote
May I restate with slightly altered punctuation?
Herbert Tingsten said, "It has been said that 'If myths are not put forward by philosophers, then they will be put forward by other people, and then they will be worse myths. Therefore they should be put forward by philosophers.' But I don’t think this is true." [a quotation within a quotation]
Assuming this transcription is correct, perhaps both Rafael Galvão and David Mitch are on point here: the inner quotation (as it were) expressing the cultural touchstone sense of mythos, and the outer quotation expressing Singer's disagreement with it, perhaps alluding to something like Popper's critique of the noble lie.
Even so, there's still plenty of ambiguity in what is attributed to Tingsten ("this"?). I would want more context even to hazard a guess; did the gathering at Mont Pelerin (or Tingsten himself), for example, see as its purpose to help dispel the fog of myth, so that myth had the sense of false belief?
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 1:57 PM Rafael Galvão <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
I didn't find the quote's source, but I doubt the original author, whom Tingsten quotes, was using the word "myth" in the negative sense, of an untrue and potentially harmful story. I've been studying mythology and one thing that students of mythology, from anthropologists, historians of religion to literary critics, argue is that myth shouldn't be seen only as a (noble) lie, but rather as an expression of the culture and the narrative of a people - the difference between "mythos" (narrative and folk knowledge) and "logos" (rational knowledge) that started with Greek philosophy.
Lauri Honko, a Finnish mythologist that defended a historical approach to it, for example (The problem of defining myth, 1972, p. 8) wrote, “philosophers who have been eager to abolish myth have realised that a vacuum is immediately created if the contribution made by myth to culture is explained away”. But this idea of myth had been present earlier, so he might be quoting from this earlier literature (see the first section of Bruce Masse et al, "Exploring the nature of myth and its role in science"). Thus, myths continue even in the secular age in many forms, either fiction, marketing (the branch of marketing research named "storytelling" is basically constructing myths as narratives for products) and other places including economic-related ones, such as entrepreneurship (as reference I can indicate the analysis made by Anu Harju and Johanna Moisander of the secular apotheosis of Steve Jobs in "Fans on the threshold: Steve Jobs, the sacred in memorialization and the hero within"; economists have started to study narrative more, such as Mary Morgan's early message in the list showed). So I can imagine Tingsten telling the others that they needed a myth, in the sense of having a narrative that might be inspirational or unifying.
Em ter., 16 de mar. de 2021 às 16:02, David Mitch <[log in to unmask]> escreveu:
Dear Bruce: I don't have an exact citation, but the quote you cite seems to have strong overtones of
the "Noble Lie" in Book III of Plato's Republic----an intentional untruth propounded by elites to maintain
social harmony. Karl Popper seems to have taken on Plato's Noble Lie concept in the Open Society
and its Enemies. So it would not seem surprising if Tingsten would express objections to the concept
at the opening Mont Pelerin Society meeting. This might be one avenue to explore further in researching
your quote.
Best
David
On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 1:52 PM Bruce Caldwell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear SHOE list:
I have another quote I am trying to track down. Herbert Tingsten, a Swedish political scientist who had recently become the editor-in-chief of the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter, attended the 1947 Mont Pelerin Society meeting and at one point in a discussion said,
It has been said that “If myths are not put forward by philosophers, then they will be put forward by other people, and then they will be worse myths. Therefore they should be put forward by philosophers.” But I don’t think this is true.
Does anyone have any idea what he might be quoting from or referring to? It was an ad lib quotation from memory, so it is probably not exact. It may be from a Swedish source. Or it may have been said to him by a friend, or he may have just read it in the newspaper, or something like that. Who knows, he may have just made it up! Any help anyone might be able to give will be much appreciated.
Bruce Caldwell
--
David Mitch
Professor of Economics and Chair
Affiliate Professor, Asian Studies
University of Maryland, Baltimore County
email: [log in to unmask]
Paul Turpin
Emeritus Professor of Communication
University of the Pacific