Frank Herbert Invented the Perfect Philosopher

On Philosophical Sages and Zensunni-Mentats

A beautiful piece by Hilary Clarcq of Hayt the Zensunni-mentat for the Folio edition of Dune Messiah

What is philosophy? Who counts as a philosopher? What should a philosopher be like? What do philosophers actually do?

These kinds of questions of metaphilosophical questions, that is, philosophical questions about the field of philosophy itself. In fact, the term ‘metaphilosophy’ is a point of contention within the metaphilosophical field—should we really call philosophical questions about philosophy ‘meta’ questions? Don’t these kinds of questions about the nature, scope, method, subject matter, definition, etc., of philosophy fall well within the first order scope of philosophy itself rather needing to be pushed up a level to a ‘meta’ philosophical level?

This is a point that philosopher, Timothy Williamson, argues in his book, The Philosophy of Philosophy. I think he’s right! But it’s still easier to say ‘metaphilosophy’ than ‘the philosophy of philosophy’. Phil of Phil is not bad but what if you get a philosopher named Phil working on these questions? Phil’s phil of phil is just too much.

Dr. Williamson and I talk about philosophy of philosophy vs. metaphilosopher in this Parker’s Pensées episdoe starting around the 4-minute mark:

But all this to say, there are questions in philosophy about philosophy itself. Philosophy does this to every other discipline, that’s why everyone who earns a PhD doctorate earns a PhD in X—it’s a doctorate in the philosophy of X—which is hilarious when you think of a PhD in philosophy: a doctorate in the philosophy of… philosophy.

So, it’s a thing. Cool. Who cares?

I cares!

I’m a major philosophy nerd and it’s important for me to know what philosophy is if I’m going to be talking about it publicly. But defining philosophy is notoriously difficult. Delineating the proper scope of philosophy is a little bit easier than solving the problem of definition but not by much. I’ve found that giving a characterization of what an ideal philosopher should be like is the easiest way to start talking about the philosophy of philosophy. Not just “what do philosophers do” but “what should philosophers do?”

So, what should philosophers do?

Well, here’s where Frank Herbert’s Dune Messiah came into my life and completely reinvigorated what I think philosophers ought to be and do. In short, philosophers ought to be Zensunni-Mentats.

Check out my ParkNotes video on the Zensunni-Mentat here, but I will also explain it a bit below:

In Herbert’s Dune Universe, humanity has gone out from earth and has colonized lots of planets. Our myths have changed and many of our religions have fused together—things like Zen Buddhism have merged with other things like Sunni Islam. So Herbert gives us the Zensunnis.

The Zensunnis are desert wanderers. They are the ancestors of the Fremen people of Arrakis. They are particularly sagacious and are chalked full of riddles, adages, aphorisms, and other sententiae.

Herbert also gives us the mentats, who are human beings that function like digital computers. In the Dune universe digital computers are outlawed after the Butlerian Jihad where humanity rebelled against artificial intelligence which was being used by the elites to enslave the non-elites. So, anything even approaching a thinking machine is completely illegal and taboo. Hence, no computers. But that role of crunching numbers and giving logical analysis is still immensely important to human flourishing and to the strategizing needed to navigate the complex political life in the Imperium. So, humanity starts training children with the natural proclivity to become human thinking machines, mentats. Mentats are like über analytic philosophers who can rip off tons of calculations, crunch massive odds, and then spit out the results with a philosophical analysis all in seconds. It’s wild.

In the sequel to Dune, Dune Messiah, Herbert gives us this character named Hayt who is a reincarnation of a character who died in the first book. Hayt has been grown in an ‘axlotl tank’ from some of the cells of his former self’s cadaver by this technological faction that really skirts the line of taboo and illegal technology. This faction is known as the Bene Tleilax or the Tleilaxu. In re-growing this character as Hayt, the Tleilaxu decided to make him a mentat so he would be more useful to his intended master, Paul Atreides. But they also thought it would be funny to train him as a zensunni philosopher as well—someone who would speak in riddles and adages and aphorisms.

So the Tleilaxu created a Zennsuni-Mentat philosopher and inadvertently solved the biggest puzzle in the philosophy of philosophy. Hayt is a wise counselor who is capable of giving a syllogism or an aphorism, a complex logical analysis or a veiled truth hidden in an adage or maxim. He’s a philosophical sage who uses wisdom to read the room and chooses to play the Zensunni or the mentat depending on what his thinks will best serve those whom he’s meant to aid. That is what a philosopher should be like!

In the wisdom tradition and philosophy-as-a-way-of-life side of philosophy, sometimes this kind of duality is called the ‘philosophical sage’ but I don’t think this language does justice to sages or philosophers. To call someone a philosophical sage is to imply that sages aren’t inherently philosophical? “This one is a philosophical sage, unlike those others.” And conversely, what is a philosophical sage supposed to connote? That this philosopher, this wisdom lover, actually is wise, unlike all those others? It just an inadequate term but I like what it’s attempting to pick out—it’s attempting to pick out the Zensunni-mentat that Herbert brilliantly captures with his fictional categories.

The ideal philosopher is a Zensuni-mentat. They are able to give a wise saying when the situation calls for it and they are able to give you a Bayesian formula for why you should prefer x to y when that’s fitting (I hate that I just wrote that because Bayesian epistemology is horrible but I recognize my own limitations and biases may be prejudicing me against it). The ideal philosopher should use wisdom to determine what’s best for their audience in the moment—what do they need? Do they need to figure this out on their own? Here’s a gnomic statement to help then wrestle through and find their own cognitive rest. Do they need me to clearly demonstrate the argument and get them to the conclusion with iron clad reasoning? Here’s a full derivation with all the steps. This approach means a philosopher needs to master both traditions, the analytic side with their emphasis on logic and rigor, and the wisdom tradition side, with their emphasis on sententiae. But even more than that, the Zensunni-mentat has to use wisdom to know which side to speak from and when for the sake of the flourishing of those they’re there to serve.

I love that so much. Is it a completely unreal expectation? Maybe, but it’s an idealization. This is the ideal philosopher. Will any philosopher live up to it? I think Christ has but good luck following him perfectly. The Zensunni-mentat is the north star, the ideal philosopher that all lesser philosophers should be aiming for.

Philosophers should try to be Zensunni-mentats.

I have more thoughts on sages and philosophers and I’ll share more from a major project I’ve got cooking in the coming months but for now if you want to read more check out these previous posts and make sure to watch my ParkNotes video on the Zensunni-Mentat: