Creating and maintaining a free society is complex. Whether it’s a profession, a religion, a legal system, or any other kind of society, it relies on a foundation of self-policing discipline that helps its members keep it running properly and smoothly. These polices and discipline also permit innovations that enable the society to adapt to changing circumstances. Both elements are essential for a society to thrive and grow.[1] Where this does not occur, there is an inevitable decay. Nothing is more damaging to such a society than a deterioration of its fundamental values and the emergence of either moral inversion (upside-down morality).

Diverse Expertise in a Free Society

In his book, Meaning, Polanyi begins his discussion of the requirements of free society with an analogy from the administration of law and the search for justice. The book imagines a lawyer sitting in his office, pondering a specific case. Consciously, the judge is thinking about many aspects of the case, including the law’s precedents, the specific facts of the case, and his instincts about the justice of the parties’ causes, etc. Subconsciously, or tacitly, the judge is also bringing to bear all of his years of experience in the practice of law.

In his deliberations, the judge is generally an experienced member of the legal community, that group of experts responsible for administering the law in his society. Although this judge may be alone in his chambers, he or she is engaged in a kind of conversation with the parties in the case, their attorneys, relevant case law, and the entire tradition of law. The process of the judge’s thinking is a kind of internal dialogue in which he must weigh various views, precedents, the unique features of the case at hand, and other factors as he seeks to reach a decision.

In order to reach a fair decision, it is essential that the judge be free to exercise his own personal judgment. This freedom is not unlimited because it is also bounded by the law itself, the various cannons of ethics that govern lawyers and judges, and the political realities, the judge faces in deciding the case. It is an active judgment that involves the entire person.[2]

This process is not fundamentally different from those occurring in his society across a variety of professions. Scientists, seeking the truth, are part of a community bound by rules, procedures, and tradition. Business, although very different from an ethical point of view, is conducted according to its own traditions, rules, procedures, and laws. Medicine has its own professional standards.[3] Taking matters away from the widely-recognized professions, the same thing is true of electricians, plumbers, and others in the trades. They were first apprenticed as members of a trade; they learned certain techniques and processes; they came to understand the laws, codes, and rules that govern the free exercise of their professions, all until they had reached the requisite level of proficiency.

The Collectivist Error

In our society, there is a rich diversity of individuals, professions, trades, guilds, artistic communities, and educational institutions. They all carry out their activities according to their own rules, helping society to thrive and adapt to the constantly changing environment. One area where totalitarian societies fail is in their attempts to eliminate the freedom that allows professionals, tradespeople, and others to conduct their daily lives without centralized control. However, there is a price for this freedom: those who have it must uphold their standards of conduct, or external controls will inevitably be imposed.

During the most bizarre years of Soviet communism, nearly everything was managed by a central authority in Moscow. The result was a complete economic and social failure. Agriculture collapsed. There was industrial inefficiency. (There were either too many nails or not enough nails. There were either too many housing units or not enough housing units.) Time and time again, the bureaucrats in charge misjudged society’s needs. This was even worse in the area of the professions. As the Soviet Union began to direct scientific research, it often favored ideas that, from a scientific point of view, were nonsense. It was this particular defect in the Soviet system that led Polanyi to begin his own thinking about a free society.[4]

The Freedom that Supports a Free Society

If freedom is necessary for the functioning of society’s most important components, it is crucial to ask what kind of freedom is needed. In Western society, we often think of freedom as the ability to do whatever we want. In other words, we think of freedom as freedom for self-assertion. Freedom for self-assertion not the kind of freedom a scientist, lawyer, doctor, or other professional has when performing their duties. In this context, freedom means the absence of external restraints that allow an individual to exercise their judgment in their tasks, as long as they adhere to the professional and moral standards of their field.[5]

Polanyi is careful to distinguish freedom in a free society from mere self-assertion:

By a simple and obvious analogy, a free society must exist within the context of a tradition that provides a framework within which members of the society may make free contributions to the tasks involved in the society. The freedom of mere self-assertion can lead only to disintegration of our standards and institutions.[6]

Thinking of a free society as a carefully tended family garden is helpful: it thrives within a nurturing framework of shared traditions that guide and support everyone’s contributions. Without cooperation from those who tend the garden, simple acts of self-assertion can sometimes threaten the carefully maintained standards of our institutions. If many family members neglect their responsibilities, the entire project can collapse. Not long ago, I tried to save some azaleas dying in our front yard. It took years of effort and care, and one azalea was particularly weak. I went on vacation, and a family member who was supposed to water that azalea daily failed to do so. The azalea died. This illustrates what happens when members of a free society neglect their tasks diligently, morally, and effectively. Eventually, the culture or some part of it withers and dies.

Spiritual Foundation of a Free Society

When it comes to the needs of a free society as a whole, it is clear that such a society requires a spiritual foundation: a common belief in truth, justice, and beauty, which are the ethical standards by which people pursue their personal objectives within a community. This is true of every kind of community, whether it be scientists, scholars, lawyers, doctors, judges, artists, or even religious professionals. Without a general devotion to spiritual objectives, free communities cannot continue to exist.[7]

The path to a totalitarian society begins with the loss of these spiritual or, what I would call, noetic, transcendental values. Eventually, in the absence of the free and disciplined exercise of judgment, some central authority must begin to legislate and enforce standards for this society in order to maintain some kind of order. This results in an empty and meaningless society run by a set of rules that no one follows because they want to, but because they have to, enforced by a police state.[8]

Enclaves of Self-Policing Freedom

As indicated, a free society is made up of many sub-communities, each managing its own affairs according to its own rules, ideally in harmony with the broader needs of society. Polanyi helpfully describes this as a “bottom-up emergent order.” By this, he means that the overall order of society is shaped by the decisions of countless subgroups and individuals within it. This emergent order is something that no one could fully predict or plan.

Polanyi makes his point as follows:

It is our contention that a system that develops from the bottom up, through free interaction of its parts upon one another (subject only to a free, common dedication of its participants to the value of certain standard standards, principles, and ideal ends), is the only social system that can meaningfully be called free. The alternative is to control social affairs essentially from the top down, and so established a corporate order which is the essence of totalitarianism.[9]

This is one aspect of constructive postmodern thinking that is at odds with a mechanical view of the universe. A mechanical view of the universe treats it as something that has been built and is being built by conscious choice. It’s like a machine. An organic or postmodern view of the universe holds that the universe is unfolding from a quantum level throughout each of its levels as a process by which fundamentally independent parts emerge or evolve from prior states. This is true at the subatomic level, and Polanyi is asserting that the same phenomenon needs to occur at the level of society as a whole.[10] Societies develop and continue due to countless decisions of its members.

This highlights the issue of antisocial behavior and the tendency of groups to seek dominance over each other; in its most obvious form, it is the problem of oligarchy. The problem with oligarchy involves a small group of people, driven by their own self-interest—usually wealth—who take control of society. At this point, Polanyi’s use of the word “oligarchy” for all such cases differs from Plato’s understanding of the nature of oligarchy. Oligarchy is a degenerate form of aristocracy where social status is not based on achievement but on wealth and power. A danger of any kind of aristocracy, especially one of wealth, is the risk of degeneration into oligarchy.

A free society must avoid oligarchy, which is the rule of society’s affairs by a small group of powerful or wealthy individuals. However, it should encourage aristocracy, meaning leadership within its various sectors and over the whole that has earned such a position through merit and ability. I believe discussing Christian virtues like servanthood and love is helpful here. Without wise and moral educational institutions and moral training provided by churches and other religious groups, it seems inevitable that society will be governed by some elite oligarchic group—whether political, economic, military, or bureaucratic. Polanyi, who is generally cautious about expressing religious views, does not address the issue of love because it falls outside of his epistemological framework. However, from a practical standpoint, I think it’s unavoidable. Ultimately, without the self-giving servanthood that social love can encourage, maintaining a free society becomes very difficult if not impossible.

Dialogue and Mutual Adjustment

For a free society to last, it must achieve social harmony and progress through a gradual process of mutual adjustment. This system of mutual adjustment involves continual change as society reaches higher levels of harmony, flourishing, and meaning for its members.[11] Unlike reliance on raw power, this adjustment process uses dialogue, compromise, conversation, and the steady development of positive change for society. From this viewpoint, the modern approach of power-based social engineering is likely to fail and lead to some form of totalitarian regime.

The progress of this system of continual reflective adjustments cannot, of course, be known before it is known and therefore cannot (logically cannot) be planned for. But this does indeed seem to be the ontological situation of man in the world; if it is not so for all time, as it certainly seems to be, then at least it is his situation as of now.[12]

Here we see the practical implications of a rejection of the kind of millenarian perfectionism that characterizes every type of totalitarian regime: The attempt to create a perfect world in one fell swoop, as for example, Soviet communism tried to do, is doomed to failure. It flies in the face of human historical experience and our limited capacities. The result of any attempt to preemptively achieve a perfect or substantially better world will always be human suffering. Therefore, a wise society puts up with a certain amount of disorder and failure to achieve its deepest goals in order to protect its ability to freely adjust and create a better future.[13]

Conclusion

This is where I must pause for now. It would surprise me if I did not return to the issue of moral inversion. Not a day goes by without witnessing this remarkable phenomenon in academia, business, media, and government. It exists wherever people have abandoned traditional morality and started to create their own to justify the self-interest of their particular group. I am not convinced that our society will avoid the consequences; however, it can if good people work hard to uphold a kind of moral order and resist those who seek to undermine it.

Copyright 2026, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved 

[1] This entire blog is inspired by and largely drawn from Michael Polanyi and Harry Prosch, Meaning (Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1975), 198. This book was written shortly before Polanyi’s death in 1076 and brought to its final form by Harry Prosch. Meaning was the culmination of Michael Polanyi’s philosophic endeavors. In the book, Polanyi investigates the meaning of this work as grounded in the imaginative and creative faculties of the human person. There is some controversy surrounding the book and Prosch’s interpretation of Polanyi’s thought. This dispute, which centers on Polanyi’s religious convictions, does not affect this analysis. The relevant chapter is Chapter 13, “A Free Society.”

[2] Id, 198-199.

[3] Id, 199.

[4] Michael Polanyi, Science, Faith and Society: A Searching Examination of the Meaning and Nature of Scientific Inquiry (Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1946).

[5] Meaning, 202. Unfortunately, the legal profession increasingly sees the emergence of decadent judges and others who have embraced a kind of nihilism and do in fact believe that their positions are a license for unlimited self-assertion.

[6] Id.

[7] Id, 203. I have written of the noetic, gradually emerging realities of truth, beauty, justice, goodness, etc., in G. Christopher Scruggs, Illumined by Wisdom and Love (College Station, TX: Virtual Bookworm, 2025). It is not necessary to think of these as pre-existing qualities, but as gradually emergent qualities brought into existence by a community of inquiries, dedicated to the pursuit of truth, beauty, justice, or other values.

[8] Id.

[9] Id, 204.

[10] Id, 204.

[11] Id, 207.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

Over the past six weeks, I’ve taken a deep look at the issue of “moral inversion,” which refers to how moral reasoning and judgment seem to be deteriorating in our late modern/early postmodern world. This week, I shift gears from discussing this problem to exploring solutions. I started this series with a quote from a physicist and philosopher warning us that the modern worldview has now been replaced by a very different one, especially after Newton, which we often refer to as “the Enlightenment.” For three centuries, this worldview shaped Western civilization, but by the early 20^thcentury, it was challenged first among physicists and then more broadly among writers, artists, philosophers, lawyers, and others. Sadly, its full (and potentially positive) effects haven’t yet been fully explored in fields like politics and law.

What is a World View?

A worldview is an all-encompassing way of looking at reality and understanding the world.[1] We all need a way to organize reality and make decisions. What we believe about the fundamental nature of the world profoundly shapes how we think and act. For example, if I think the world is inherently unknowable and governed by invisible, angry, and irrational little green men, I will think and act differently than if I believe the world is an orderly creation that operates by regular laws embedded in nature.

From Newton’s time until the modern quantum revolution in physics, people organized their lives and conducted their thinking within a common worldview we call “mechanistic materialism.” As the term indicates, such a worldview holds that what exists is material and that the world operates something like a machine. What exists are physical objects (fundamental particles at the most basic level) and the forces that act upon them. The world is something like a gigantic four-dimensional billiard table with the balls “hitting” each other in subtle ways as they are acted on by forces.

With the advent of quantum physics, this worldview became outdated. At its most basic level, reality is not material. It is built up of disturbances or waves in a fundamental field, or what is called a quantum field. The world is not so much a machine as it is a gigantic, organic process of becoming. One way to look at reality is as a great river flowing out of a sea. The sea is a vast (infinite) field of multidimensional potential. Out of that sea flows (or unfolds as David Bohm puts it) the reality as we know it. Fundamentally, this reality is not material but rather disturbances in a quantum field. Our universe with its characteristics of space and time, of matter and energy, arises out of this quantum field.[2]

If the world is not solely or fundamentally made up of forces and matter, the way is open for a new and different kind of ontology, one that is not fundamentally materialistic. From a physical perspective, quantum physics indicates that the ultimate reality (the “ultimate being” from a scientific point of view) is that particles are not material bodies but disturbances in a universal field. There are even physicists who believe that the ultimate reality is information. In the famous words of John Wheeler, “The ‘it’ is a’ bit’.” [3] This means that ultimately the universe might be composed of information. However ultimate reality is to be visualized, science no longer supports a purely materialistic approach to solving problems, because reality is not fundamentally material.

Einstein’s Relativity Theory describes a deeply relational universe, in which time and space, ultimate attributes of reality in Newtonian physics, are known to be related to one another, and in fact cannot be separated. There is one “Space/Time Continuum.” At a quantum level of reality, there is a deep interconnectedness that is revealed and symbolized by so-called, “spooky action at a distance,” or what physicists call, “entanglement.” Reality is deeply connected at a subatomic level. Even at the level of everyday reality, there is a deep interconnectedness that is evident in so-called open systems and their tendency toward self-organizing activity—the so-called “butterfly effect.” [4]

Overcoming Moral Inversion

As mentioned, one implication of what some call “postmodern physics” is that the days of naïve materialism are over. We must not think of the world as fundamentally material or of non-material things as unreal. We must instead see a world made up of immaterial realities. Though not a political philosopher, the logician and philosopher, Charles Sanders Peirce set out to reconstruct a sound understanding of the world in post-Darwinian America—an account relevant to political thought. A distinction between “physical existence” and “reality” is fundamental to Peirce’s view of universal ideas. Things that lack physical existence, such as the equations of science or the theories of philosophers, are nevertheless real. They are noetic (ideal) realities, constantly refined and extended in meaning by human endeavor. As such, the ideal of justice and the feeling that the justice of a particular society is imperfect are part of a never-ending process of development that continues throughout human history.

The status of abstract notions, like justice, as real is essential in constructing a political philosophy that can respond to the issues of our society. As mentioned earlier, modern thought has been fundamentally nominalist. Concepts such as truth, beauty, goodness, and the like are considered mere names or labels humans put on their subjective preferences. This results in the inability of modern societies to reason about moral issues, for they involve matters to be resolved by power and confrontation, not by reason.[5]

Peirce believed that disbelief in the reality of universals was a defining weakness of modern thought, leading to the dysfunction we experience in our culture. The nominalism of contemporary thinkers undermines, among other things, the search for scientific truth, which Peirce was primarily interested in. Science depends on the critical analysis of a reality that scientists seek to understand, a reality existing outside the scientist’s mind. This understanding is expressed in the laws of science, which practicing scientists discover through research and analysis. In the same way, the search for Truth, Beauty, Goodness, and Justice requires that humans believe these exist, in some way, beyond the personal preferences of individual minds and the manipulative potential of human actors. In the words of Peirce, certain truths exist whether we want them to or not.[6]

Steps to Renewal of our Culture

Recover the Reality of Beauty, Truth, and Goodness. Michael Paul was known to say that all that was necessary for the recovery and maintenance of a free society was belief in the truth. Here is how he puts it in Science, Faith and Society:

A community which effectively practices free discussion is therefore dedicated to the four propositions (1) that there is such a thing as truth; (2) that all members love it; (3) that they feel obligated, and (4) they are, in fact, capable of pursuing it.[7]

While I believe recognizing the truth is central to keeping a free society alive, I feel it’s just as important for us to rediscover our belief in Beauty, Truth, and Goodness as real and meaningful parts of human life, essential to human floursinng. It’s fascinating how modern physics often treats beauty as a sign of truth—physicists often say the elegance of an equation is part of what convinces them a discovery is true. Albert Einstein once remarked that “the only physical theories that we are willing to accept are the beautiful ones.”[8] Additionally, Polanyi points out that goodness also plays a role; if we feel compelled to pursue the truth, it’s because seeking it is inherently good. In other words, our desire for truth is rooted in a moral obligation to pursue what is right and true.[9]

Tolerance for Opposing Views. Faith that there is such a thing as truth, even in an area as abstract as morality and politics, allows a person to tolerate opposing views. One of the reasons that I am writing these blogs on political philosophy, has to do with my concern about the growing intolerance of our culture. This growing intolerance allows, politicians and others who wish to influence the public to use what we sometimes call “negative politics” to gain power. It turns out that it’s much easier to get people to vote you for you or support you because they don’t like your opponent then because they agree with what you stand for. This is particularly true when you don’t really stand for anything.

Fundamentally, tolerance is the ability to put up with people you don’t agree with. It’s the capacity to listen to what may be an unfair or even hostile statement by an opponent in order to discover any sound points that may be being made, as well as the reason behind any errors. [10] This does not come naturally to people because we are irritated by views that we regard is frankly hostile or ridiculous. Our modern negative politics makes this almost impossible. Here’s the way Polanyi puts the importance of tolerance in a free society:

Fairness and tolerance can hardly be maintained in a public contest unless it’s audience, appreciates the candor and moderation and can resist false oratory. A judicious public with a quick ear for insincerity of argument is therefore an essential partner in the practice of free controversy. It will insist upon being presented with moderate claims, admitting frankly their element of personal conviction. It will demand this both in order to defend the balance of its own mind and as a token of clear and conscientious thinking on the part of those canvassing its support.[11]

Commitment to a Tradition

From the beginning, both the Enlightenment and the modern world were hostile to tradition. In the West, this hostility was initially directed against the Roman Catholic Church and its dogmas. It wasn’t long, however, before that hostility turned to any source of authority, including family, traditional governments, legal systems, and the historic systems of morality that made possible the growth of democracy in Western civilization. Nothing more clearly illustrated the dangers of Enlightenment anti-traditional views than the French Revolution and the murders committed by its participants. Wherever a revolutionary ideology has gained power, similar tragic programs have followed. This was true in Soviet Russia, Communist China, and Cambodia, and all around the world. It was also true in Nazi Germany and in other, so-called revolutions of the people.

Polanyi points out that all thinking takes place within some kind of tradition. He holds up science as a paradigm, but he also uses law as a paradigm for how people are trained to think within a particular tradition. For example, while practicing law involves specialized knowledge that can be passed down intellectually, it also involves skills, habits of work, relational skills in managing clients, and a host of habits and character traits that cannot be intellectually specified but must be learned under the tutelage of an experienced practitioner. Moreover, such life skills and habits can only be earned through an apprenticeship, where one generation trains the next in a personal relationship in which a mentor or guide teaches a subsequent generation.[12]

One of the great problems with the legal profession and government generally in the United States is the loss of confidence in the constitutional tradition of which we are apart. Under the pressure of radical thinking, and the inverted desire for a perfect society created by mechanical means, a legal profession is constantly under assault, and both judges and lawyers are forgetting the important task they have in creating adjust society.

Conclusion

I realized that this week’s blog is  too long. Therefore, I will conclude this log in another week. What I hope people will remember from this particular week’s discussion is (i) the need for a new World View that incorporates the reality of goodness, truth, justice, beauty and other intangible realities necessary for human life, (ii) the fundamental necessity of tolerance in a free society, and (iii) the importance of working within a tradition an incremental in incremental steps to improve the level of justice for all.

Although I can’t continue this week, it’s important to remember that a central aspect of postmodern science is how the world evolves through tiny, meaningful changes by everyone involved — from the tiniest quantum events to the largest social movements. We all play a small but important part in shaping the future, and we’re all connected on this incredible journey.

Copyright 2026, G. Christopher Scruggs, All Rights Reserved 

[1] See, Stephen Toulmin, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 2^nd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1970); Norwood Russell Hanson, Perception and Discovery: An Introduction to Scientific Inquiry (San Francisco, CA: Freeman, Cooper, & Company, 1969); Stephen C. Pepper, World Hypotheses: Prolegomena to Systematic Philosophy and Complete Survey of Metaphysics (Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1970).

[2] There are many ways of describing the emerging description of reality. I have used the paradoxical metaphor of a river emerging from a vast sea of potential, a metaphor that occurred to me as one way of visualizing the notion of “implicate” and “explicate” order advanced by David Bohm. See, David Bohm, Wholeness and Implicate Order (London & New York: Routledge, 1980).

[3] Wheeler, Archibald, “Information, Physics, Quantum: The Search for Links” in Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, (Tokyo, Japan: 1989)

[4] This is not the place to discuss these phenomena. For those who would like a deeper discussion, see John Polkinghorne, ed, “The Trinity and an Entangled World: Relationality in Physical Science and Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2010).

[5] Alisdair MacIntyre, After Virtue 2^nd ed. (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1984), 17.

[6] Charles S. Peirce, The Essential Writings Edward C. Moore, ed. (New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1972), hereinafter ECSP. For Peirce, the real is that which exists independently of our ideas of it, that is, independently of our perceptions, theories, or capacities. Id, at 57. These are noetic realities that exist not in material form but in the human mind. Such general ideas are not infinitely manipulable but subject to the rules of logic and thought appropriate to the subject matter. Id, at 60.

[7] Michael Polanyi, Science, Faith and Society: A Searching Examination of the Meaning and Nature of Scientific Inquiry (Chicago, Ill: University of Chicago Press, 1946), 68-69.

[8] I was not able to find an exact source for this quotation, but it is repeated in the literature. For a vast number of such remarks by scientists, see Joshua M. Moritz, “Beauty, Goodness, Truth, Science, and God” Feed Your Head (September 16, 2024) https://www.feedyourhead.blog/p/beauty-goodness-truth-science-and#footnote-anchor-9-148928409 (downloaded February 9, 2026).

[9] Paul Dirac, “Pretty Mathematics,” in International Journal of Theoretical Physics, v. 21, 8/9, pp. 603-605. 1982; Clara Mokowitz, Equations Are Art inside of a Mathematician’s Brain (Scientific American (March 4, 2014), https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/equations-are-art-inside-a-mathematicians-brain/ (downloaded February 9, 2026).

[10] Science, Faith and Society, 68.

[11] Id.

[12] Id, 56.