The purpose of this site is to present my work, worldview, and ethos in a clear and concise manner, to set my diverse writings within an overall view of life so as to make their significance and meaning clear through their interconnection. I am also concerned to extend and entrench my lifelong commitment to the idea of an educational grassroots, which took practical shape in the form of my e-Akademeia initiative. Whilst I have now ended the e-tutoring, I wish to continue to share with others the material, ideas and insights I have gained from a lifetime of continuous action and reflection. 

​

Beginning with my work in economics at Masters level (Industry and Europe 4 volumes) and continuing through my period of doctoral research (Critical Studies in Rational Freedom), I have sought to develop the idea of ‘rational freedom.’ The 'rational' tradition sees freedom as a common endeavour which conceives the freedom of each individual to be conditional upon and co-existent with the freedom of all individuals. I have developed this concept through a close analysis of a number of the key thinkers (Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Dante, Spinoza, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Habermas). This concept does not entail a notion of totalizing reason, enclosing the world in some technocratically controlled nightmare, putting life on ice. The very opposite, in fact. In restoring the connection between reason and freedom, I look to replace the theoretico-elitist model of knowledge, power and politics with an active and thoroughgoing democratisation that emphasises the common moral reason that exists within each and all.

​

My sources for this conception may, at first, seem bizarre. After all, aren’t Plato, Aristotle et al the origins of the top-down conceptions of philosopher-rulers? I see something more in this 'rational' tradition. I see the possibility of the rule of philosophy. I therefore affirm the rule of reason with its ethical component firmly in place, and with due place given to the warm, affective ties and solidarities that bind individuals together in community, to proximal human relations, and to sympathy, empathy, intuition, emotion, and feeling. The key principle that I take from the conception of 'rational freedom' is the idea that the freedom of each individual and all individuals is interdependent, entailing notions of reciprocity, interaction and solidarity that, within specific social relationships, complement, and even go beyond, the lawful and institutional incarnation of reason and freedom. This view conceives freedom differently from the individualist liberal tradition. The 'rational' concept views freedom as something relational and communal, with freedom conditional upon the quality and intensity of individual connections and interactions.

​

I would define the concept of 'rational freedom' concisely this way: Human beings are social beings, meaning that individuality and sociality are two essential aspects of the one human nature. Freedom, even personal freedom, is a communal societal freedom which is actualised only through the internal interconnection of individuals within a network of interpersonal relationships. The 'rational' conception, therefore, enjoins us to identify the form or forms of the common life to secure the conditions of  collective freedom, and thereby remove the potential of the freedom of some being achieved at the expense of the freedom of others, thus ensuring the unity of the freedom of each and all. The freedom of each individual requires that all individuals be free, and all individuals can only be free in the social context of a moral and political community. It is this communitarian or collective component that is absent in the individualist conceptions of freedom. I have examined this tradition through a number of key thinkers, each embodying freedom in different ways - Plato's Republic, Aristotle's Polis, St. Thomas Aquinas' moral community, Dante's De Monarchia, Rousseau's Social Contract, Hegel's Sittlichkeit etc. Some emphasise legal bonds, affirming the state as an ethical agency concerned with achieving unity. I extract the 'rational' core of these diverse sources to argue that universality and commonality need to be forged within the social relationships of the everyday lifeworld. This gives rise to an associative civic public (what may also be called the Ecopolis, in light of the biospheric conditions of a flourishing life). But the central thread uniting these diverse thinkers is this, that freedom is achieved through the unity of individuals as against their separation. I therefore affirm that freedom, even personal freedom, is meaningful only within a social and institutional fabric. And a moral fabric, an ethical grounding that is more than subjective choice/value judgement.

​

The practical restitution of social power from the institutional-systemic sphere abstracted from human life is the realisation of 'rational freedom' as an ethicality, commonality, and universality forged within the social bonds of associative civic space. I therefore conceive the ecological community as the ethico-rational society in which the conditions of the free development of individuals is placed under a conscious common control, a social bond as against the alien bondage of an abstracted lawful-institutional rationality. I therefore argue for the possibility of achieving an internal social-moral coordination as against an external institutional-systemic constraint.

​

Which begs the question: why 'rational'? Spinoza argued that 'the more man is guided by reason, the more he is free'. We have learned to modify the claims made for reason in light of psychology, biology and ecology. We are, in the words of Alasdair MacIntyre, 'dependent rational animals,' our rationality, sociality,  and animality are bound together. None of this, however, severs the connection between reason and freedom, just renders it more complex. My argument here develops the implications of the unity of each and all that is adumbrated above. All individuals lose when the system breaks down. That 'system' is the public life humans require as social beings. System breakdown denotes the collective irrationality that issues from the uncoordinated and overriding pursuit of individual rationality on the part of human agents of varying degrees of power. To achieve the ecologically benign rational society requires that we move from zero sum games - in which the gains of some imply the losses of others - to a non-zero situation - in which all benefit in some way from any gains made, and no-one loses. Confronted by growing environmental threats as the result of incremental individual actions, we are charged with the task of bringing about non-zero sum society or, even better, the positive sum society in which actions proceed to the benefit of all. History is littered with badly governed societies which, instead of realising possibilities for a win-win outcome, have carried on with bad practices until a common ruination is visited upon all. This destructive outcome is as a result of certain particular interests succeeding in institutionalising their power in such a way as to be able to immunise themselves from the sanctions others may pass against them, thus locking society as a whole into practices that bring about a lose-lose outcome for all. The situation is irrational and anti-social, and is against the interests of all, including the rich and powerful themselves. Everybody - the rich and powerful included - loses when the system fails. The problem is that if some specific interests are powerful enough to be able to ignore the sanctions against them, then they can put their immediate particular interest above the long-range common good that benefits each and all. The continuous failure of global environmental negotiations makes clear the extent to which our political life is subject to systemic imperatives deriving from overweening private power. There are too many vested interests pursuing their own ends, divorced from the general interest, thereby subverting the common good that unites all. This demonstrates the extent to which unregulated particular rationality generates a collective irrationality. This is the predicament we find ourselves in politically when it comes to tackling the climate crisis. The 'rational' solution is to build sufficient clusters of co-operators within the system as to make non-cooperation irrational, with sanctions meaning that the particular interests are no longer powerful enough to refuse cooperation. Only through such a coordination of particular interests can we hope to succeed in generating and sustaining a collective rationality at institutional and policy level.

​

This is the key question of politics. And addressing the growth dynamic of the economy is at the heart of answering it. We live under an economic system that simply must keep expanding monetary values, however destructive that may be with respect to planetary boundaries. Devising institutions so that there is an identity rather than a split between private good and social good is key to restraining the appetites for expansion. This reconstruction of the motivational economy and institutional infrastructure goes to the heart of our economic order. We need to forge social identities and communities of practice that give social content to rational and moral appeals to the common good. The worlds of science and religion are united in making these appeals with respect to achieving a more respectful relation to our earthly home. My argument is that 'Being' requires a 'Place' in which non-zero-sum situations dominate, developing a tendency to generate much more positive sums than negative sums, enhancing tendencies to mutual benefit whilst inhibiting free-riding, exploitation, and parasitism. In a condition of 'Being and Place', individuals flourish together as social beings in being associated within larger and richer webs of interdependence. My 'rational' argument integrates our relative moral independence and our social and natural dependency within an overall human and planetary interdependence. Both organic and social evolution involve the playing of ever-­more-numerous, ever-larger, and ever-more-elaborate non-zero-sum games with the potential for generating positive outcomes - or negative - depending on how the game is played. Playing the game well depends fundamentally on the core elements of the tradition of 'rational freedom' I develop - virtues as qualities for successful living, character-construction, modes of conduct, reciprocity, (co)responsiveness, mutuality, solidarity, the ability to see and act in favour of the long-range collective good. The chief limitation of games theory is that it tends to assume the very things that need to be changed - individual assumptions, incentives, and motivations. I seek to change these very things. My conception of 'rational freedom' may be located in the tradition of virtue theory. I develop this as a conception of ecological virtue, placing an emphasis on character, conviction and commitment. I develop the collective moral responsibility we require in terms of a (co)responsiveness on the part of ecologically virtuous citizens. As against elitist notions of an environmental philosopher king, I envision an Ecopolis composed of an active and informed public of eco-citizens.

​

The constant growth of material I have produced since I obtained my PhD in 2001 represents my continued effort to deepen and enrich my vision of a moral ecology. This vision stresses the relationships between the human community and the natural community and our participation in those relationships as thinking, choosing, acting beings. Ecology as a science concerns natural principles and processes. In addition to these, I ask what it is to be human. We are more than bones and sinews, muscles and blood. We may be nothing without them, but we are far from being everything with only them. I therefore seek to integrate the moral, psychological and, indeed, spiritual dimensions into biological and ecological concerns in order to address the key existential question as to what it means to be a human being on this our earthly home. What does it take to satisfy the hungry and the thirsty? Food and water, most obviously. But people hunger and thirst for so much more than basic material satisfaction. We need to call back the soul. And nourish it. Without food and water, humans can last barely a week or two; without hope in the heart and soul, they cannot survive for any length of time at all.

​

Here I follow Aristotle and the way he made the soul essential to healthy functioning. Aristotle’s concept of eudaimonia is central to my philosophy for living. Eudaimonia is often translated as ‘happiness’ but is better understood as ‘flourishing’, ‘fulfilment’ or ‘well-being’. I argue that morality is a matter of skill and practical knowledge with respect to transcendent standards. The point is that living a good life, which I take to be a life in an ecological society, is a matter of integrating 'knowing how', 'knowing that' and 'knowing why'. There is such a thing as moral truth, and 'knowing that' is important in mooring our thoughts, actions, decisions and beliefs in truth-claims concerning right and wrong, good and bad. Such things are neither relative nor conditional upon assertions of power or what ‘works’. At the same time, ethics is a matter of practical reason, and practical reasoning is involved in enabling us to determine the shape and character of the good life, learning how to conform the will to ultimate reality.

​

I argue that human beings are embodied rational creatures. I argue for embodiment and embededness. I think that eudaimonia is to be sought in the intersection of the true, the good, and the beautiful, the three transcendentals. What matters is how we can make truth-claims appetitive and affective. I emphasise the self-organising properties of the animated universe, showing how meaning, agency, values, purpose, and consciousness emerge within the ceaselessly creative universe. I also argue for the orienting and enthusing properties of the transcendent. I believe that Plato pointed us in the right direction when he argued that the true, the good and the beautiful go together. There is more to the world than fact. Science is now talking the language of ethics and the good life. And I position my own work in relation to this developing field, sharing its concern that human beings should come to be at home in the living universe (with the rider that life continues after physical death ...) I am developing a comprehensive vision of a moral ecology in my work. The central theme of my research concerns the connection of place and identity through the creation of forms of life which enable human and planetary flourishing in unison.