|
|
|
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
Alexis de Tocqueville, a Frenchman, in his
classic, Democracy in America, relates
how democracy, in this case American democracy, eliminates opposing parties and thinkers who lead others in ideas
that separate one from another in ideologies to that of a monitory force, the pressure of deterministic thinking
and the conformism of public opinion rendering men weak. And this is our dilemma, as democratic society lacks the
ability to decipher the greats from those mediocre, forfeiting the ability to grow and transcend limitations in
the continual higher evolving consciousness of humanity and civilization. And when the populous, the pressure of
the one and only party in democratic equalitarianism, that of the rule of public opinion, when this decides to
devalue values, to homogenize Socratic inquiry into irrational charisma, relativism becomes the dominate force.
Thus, we have no standards. Those that attach themselves to values become the fundamentalists, religious fanatics
and biblical literalists from lack of depth and profundity, providing only veneer covering masking as meaningful.
While Tocqueville favored democracy over aristocracy, the observation he made was the leveling of values, the homogenization
of persons into a vast mist of chaotic nihilism, which impoverished alternative thinking. Instead of the ability
to see civilization outside the political regime, societal time era and the current established morality, the conformism
of public opinion provides an artificial substitute for intellectual stimulation with dogmatic answers based on
trivial facts. "In America, Tocqueville said, everyone is a Cartesian although no one has read Decartes, as
Americans are almost entirely importers of philosophy, with the exception of Pragmatism. One need not have read
a line of philosophy to be considered educated in America. It is easily equated with hot air."(1) And what is so utterly alarming about the whole thing,
is that America after W.W.II became the last of the great intellectual centers of the world from which the Europeans
had fled to. So the eventual leveling of superior thinkers and elevated ideas over other ideas, which leveling
took place primarily in the 1960’s, has brought relativism in its full course. It is true that advancements have
been made against racism, sexism and slavery, yet it was only with the very depth in the foundations of ancient,
classic and great thinkers in centuries of Western civilization that formed painstakingly the ability to transcend
such issues. To level such thinkers in equalitarian means bringing damage where only a reduced fraction of such
great depth can ever be reintroduced back into society once it is lost. And so what began with the rational inquiry
of Socrates, Plato and later Aristotle becomes lost in the irrational over rational in the act of value-creation,
which denies inquiry from centuries of both empirical and aesthetic means, into a rejection of such considered
outdated and subsequently discarded thinkers into modern thinkers of dogmatism with the homogenized pool of existential
and meaninglessness of new definitions into what the meanings are of success, happiness, joy and divinity. What
many see as repression and sublimation are what once were formerly noted as forms of divinity and sacredness
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
What Marx originally
wrote in his Communist Manifesto and The Capital consisted of what he truly believed to be science and
the study of the actual nature of things and not an ideology, something he believed all other political systems
consisted of. He had been influenced from Hegel in finding the scientific answer to man's nature and societal structures,
that of the outside force of historical and economically determined means. This of course was the opposite of Weber
who found tradition, reason and charisma as to what forms societies. For Marx it was historical and economic determination,
which was not another teaching based on ideas and humanly devised systems, but an actual science. Nothing of this
is any part of modern day Marxism, which became an ideology from the beginning with Lenin. For it was Nietzsche
whose teaching that no truth lives within history, language and conceptual thinking, therefore Marxism became another
ideology.
Interesting that the Right consists of the Artists, the creators, the non-equalitarians., the greats over the mediocre.
It is here that Nietzsche, Heidegger and Weber are from. It is the Left that consists of rationalism, equalitarianism
and capitalism. Marxism is not of the Right, but actually of the Left in the fulfillment of capitalism in equalitarianism
to its extreme.
What is ironic, is how the Marxists have claimed the great thinkers and artists of the Right as supposed supporters
of their Left cause. It was here that Freud attempted to analyze the unconscious, the "id" of Nietzsche
and subsequently found such neurotic tendencies from sexual and instinctual repressions caused from religion (primarily
Christianity) and capitalism. (Erich Fromm's Escape From Freedom). So if one simplifies all neurotic hang ups on capitalism and religion (Marx's stated "opium
of the people") then suddenly the Leftists can claim both Freud and Nietzche as their own. If they can do
this then they then can take in all the value producers, artists and creators from the Right as supporters of their
Leftist cause. Such artists despised the bourgeois mediocre life determined by merely self preservation and economic
gain, neglecting values and cultural and irrational creativity.
Marx's attack on the outer directed, tradition directed bourgeois, was similar to Nietzsche's depiction of the
"last man," a man of mediocre existence, having petty issues that dominate his life, nothing great nor
truly meaningful that can possible alter the structure of thinking in any significant way for the better. Yet Marx
considered the heroes as the working class, but back fired as such working class did not become conscious of greater
insight but instead increased the bourgeois mentality in extreme equalitarian means.
(1) Allan Bloom, The Closing of The American Mind, p.
378
|
|
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
What Socrates questioned was myths, was the pressure of the Athenian conformism of public opinion, that controlling
force which is found in democracy and freedom. His questioning led to such fictionally depiction's as Aristophanes,
The Clouds, where the ends of myths freed a man
of debt, while at the same time, freed his son of respecting him, thus he burns down Socrates school, his "thinkery."
The Socratic inquiry of open question, perhaps never achieving any absolutes, but nevertheless, an amazing ability
to always question, to seek with rational thinking what is justice, what is virtue and how truth itself is never
final but always in need of the rational mind over mythology and tradition, always in need of alternative thinking
and radical ideas, many contradicting roads to venture. Yet Socrates in The Clouds
is made to look like a fool. What kind of grown man sits around all day, at the
expense of the city, and just questions what virtue is? How is a theoretical man greater than the man of action?
Is is not foolish questioning such things? And in Plato's Republic there is the rule of the philosopher king and
yet the fact is Socrates was all theoretical, his political ideas were simply that, ideas, never to be incorporated
into the real Athens society, as Socrates was politically ineffective. Yet it is his ability to always venture
into alternative ideas, never resting in one ideology, one set of absolutes, always in doubt, perhaps even too
much, but never the less, with the ability to transcend myths that comfort those into beliefs that cannot be questioned.
Here is where Plato maintained the rational and the nonrational as two realities, both of inquiry, one of measurement,
the other irrational and non-explanatory, while Aristotle leaned toward strictly the rational. While Socrates thought
of this world of appearances and that of forms, Plato thought of the same but the other world being of ideas. This
two world system, that of the sensual and the super sensual is the basis of the entire teachings of Western Civilization
and exists in Eastern as well, that is up until Nietzsche, who inverted such teaching.
Socrates introduced the meaning of the philosophy; the meaning of sophos (wisdom) and the essence of philosophy
is not the possession of truth but the search for truth, regardless of how many philosophers may believe it with
their dogmatism, that is, with a body of didactic principles purporting to be definitive and complete. Philosophy
means to be on the way. Its questions are more essential than its answers, and every answer becomes a new question.
But this on the wayness, man's destiny in time, contains within it the possibility of deep satisfaction, and indeed,
in exalted moments, of perfection. This perfection never resides in formulable knowledge, in dogmas and articles
of faith, but in a historical consummation of man's essence in which begin itself is revealed. To apprehend this
reality in man's actual situation is the aim of philosophical endeavour. Karl
Jaspers, The Way To Wisdom, p.12
Here is where Machiavelli proved much more successful, in applying philosophy and rationalism into his political regime. He rejected
the Platonism of two worlds and the life of virtue needed to prepare for the next. Virtue is here and now, how
we deal with one another pertaining to this life, this world, this political regime, as his positivism of looking
to this world rather then the next, to incorporate man's selfish nature to live for this life and work to improve
what we have here and now was the precursor to modern day political science. He was opposed to diminishing our
lives now in preparation for the afterlife. Rather than fighting against the passions of human nature in repression
for virtue of an afterlife, it was time for a better life now, to cooperating with nature and philosophy could
control it. Only religious fanatics think a better life after death. So he could blame the ancients for equating
philosophy as simply theoretic, building imaginary republics (Plato's Republic) and principalities, while he knew
such to be built now, to be applicable to this world.
And so, Machiavelli was able to apply his shrewd and clever rationalism, his political science to Western civilization
and change the course of thought. Machiavelli felt philosophy can be used to conquer change, yet Plato thought
chance and fortune made it impossible to rule. He found the ancient philosophers as weak and timid, while he was
daring.
Like Socrates, Machiavelli was a wise man, the type of man who wrestled a few hours a day to seek knowledge and
"to don regal and courtly garments, enter the courts of the ancients and speak with them."
To truly understand Hobbes
is know that he was thinking of Aristotle and what each thinker saw in man, when he
developed his teaching, this is why it is important to know the classics and have depth of the major thinkers and
then one gets a better grasp on the later. The only way to understand our modern society, a society based on abstractions,
is to learn them and think them through from thinkers who did not share in such abstractions.
Hobbes achievement is the political science based on the doctrine of rights that has determined our present day
democracy, taking in our fundamental passions of self preservation, wants and needs, experienced by all men. Anotherwards,
if I protect the rights of others, they in turn will protect mine and thus I preserve "my rights." If
I desire peace to preserve myself, then I must seek peace in the whole thus we feed our own nature and contribute
to the collective, a regime founded on the inclinations of the members. Hobbes initiated the notion of rights,
and it was given its greatest respectability by Locke.
Hobbes saw the nature of man selfish and fearful, the fear of violent death what determined him the most. While
Descartes had proposed the humble doctor, one of Socrates examples of a reasonable artisan, who can bring men longevity
and the power of health, Hobbes had proposed that the policeman (ugh!), as they protect men against those who cause
death, thus being made effective in protecting men from his fear of violent death and so they can help men to ward
off the real dangers and face them and their fears of invisible powers and religious teachings.
Francis Bacon's assertion that the goal of science is to "ease man's nature," Descartes assertion that
science will make man 'master and possessor of nature, thus Descartes was the precursor to Hobbes and Locke.
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
|
|
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
John Locke, in relation to Hobbes, recognized
the "rights of man" in his political science. He believed that man's nature is selfish and, as Machiavelli,
that man must not fight his inclinations, but rather succumb to such in a system that contributes to the collective.
If I take care of my needs, then I will be better equipped to respect the needs of others. I must love myself first
before others. Anotherwards, the man who is industrious, earns his own keep, will thus be in a better position
to help others. So the self must come first in order to respect and contribute to the rights of others. In this
however, Locke believed that man must stop divining nature as sacred and fighting one another for goods and prosperity,
but rather man must conquer nature and use it to its full for his advantage. Man must cater to his inherent nature
of self preservation in rationalism, education, industriousness and work orientated existence. Locke emancipated greed and showed the illusory character of the countervailing motives. Life,
liberty and the pursuit of property are the fundamental natural rights, and the social contract is made to protect
these rights. These principles agreed upon, economics comes into being as the science of man's proper activity,
and the free market as the natural and rational order.
Rousseau bursts onto the scene right as the Enlightenment achieves the ultimate success.
Here Rousseau dampers such success from the primary start. His questioning of pure science and rationalism, his
attack on man's pure conquest of nature to achieve his self preserving nature. While he was very much in agreement
with John Locke in a civil society and in his political science, Rousseau recognized the nature of man as good
and in need of his return to nature, to virtues, to his higher being, unlike Locke whose entire political science
was based on the self preservation of man's selfish needs to have his rights and the conquest of nature to feed
such interior selfish needs. Rousseau's questioning of science, and rationalism and the need for man's return to
his inner nature, his unconscious self with the sentiment and romantic tendencies are his contributions to Western
Civilization. Man needs a civil religion in society that can counter balance his rationalism. Rosseau argued that
nature is good and man far away from it. So the quest for those faraway origins becomes imperative, and anthropology
is by that very fact founded. While Locke and Adam Smith looked for a political science, Rousseau looked for a
more creative sentiment to become whole with nature, thus we have political science and the humanities.
Jonathan Swift's doubts of the enlightenment
can be found in his novel, Gulliver's Travels. In
this, he attempts to reveal the absurdity of pure rationalism and reliance on science as the means to both objective
truth and political achievement of societal structure. The absurdity of complete objectivity, the lack of interior
irrationalism and passionate discourse leads to a dry and ridiculous society of measurable reality, while the real
essence of humanity is lost from awareness.
Freud's s applied science and logic to
Nietzsche's "Id," and what Rousseau deemed as the non rational sentiment of nature and man's true self
is just that; reductionism and rational absurdity. Freud's scientific analysis of the sentiment and virtue of Rousseau's
non rational, his analysis of Nietzsche's "id," takes the unconscious, the mysterious and chaotic center
and attempts to rationalize it. This reductionism, although valuable and beneficial in recognizing man's unconscious
center and mysterious self, along with obvious neurotic external symptoms, treats what is irrational with science
with empirical observation, thus missing the essence of the center itself. Religion, which is the attempt to establish,
maintain and incorporate sentimental and irrational being in man's existence is reduced by Freud as mere illusions
and neurotic escapism.
Weber recognized that values
are what forms man and his society, that culture and values are from the irrational center, far removed from science
and logic, outside of reason. And that it is the value producer, the man with charisma
(unfortunately this word became a
much used, misinterpreted and devalued word) that is what changes
humanity and civilization. Those with the ability of charisma, the value producers and inner directed authentic
beings are those apart from the science and logic of Freud and very much apart from the rationalism of Marx, while
closer to Rousseau and totally influenced by Nietzsche.
While Freud, influenced by Nietzsche, attempted to scientifically concentrate on the unconscious of humanity, Max
Weber, also influenced by Nietzsche, brought forth his view on what it is that determines the true changes in civilization,
that of value-producing and creative ability, in life-styles that are brought forth from the now misused word “charisma,”
that of a self creator and value producer. Those who truly created were the Buddha’s the Christ’s the Moses’, each
creating their own tables of values from themselves, not from a supernatural deity, nor from their ability of reasoning,
nor from tradition. Ultimately, Weber became the American influential champion of Nietzsche’s ideas in the act
of art and the death of rationalism and the need to non-conform in such creativity. Yet such creativity does not
live in all, and this is the problem with equalitarianism which levels those who contain such with those who do
not, restraining them from their natural inborn nature to excel at such creative genius and produce from themselves
what is apart from the rationalism and tradition of public opinion.
|
|
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
Nietzsche was the first philosopher to fully
bring forth an open attack on Socrates, and a violent attack at that. Man's ability to create took precedent over
his rationalism and unlike Plato’s two world system, that of the world of appearances and that of the true world
of ideas, Nietzsche rejected such in there being one world of appearances only. Yet this was not positivism, which
teaches everything we see it both true and real. For Nietzsche believed that all truth is only temporary in the
act of creation. “Art is greater than truth” in that truth itself is always in error. In this respect, Nietzsche
was a cultural relativist, one that saw created values and beliefs as something to firmly stand by and yet always
with the ability to destroy them from their temporary form into forward movement of continual creation in the present
moment of time that moves itself in an eternal return. Nietzsche was the first great philosopher to openly attack
Socrates, finding such rationalism as absurdity, for what Nietzsche called the Will
To Power was one monetary force where both rationalism and irrational passions
were derived from in need of sublimating, redirecting and overcoming oneself in self control as a creator and Overman. His rejection of romanticism was in that of rejection of
both the suicidal despair of Flaubert and Baudelaire and that of the rejection of the ego maniac, Wagner, who did
not truly create from his chaotic, irrational self, but lacked the true courage to do so and for this was only
an imitator. And yet only Dostoevsky, a cynical, hypersensitive man, but who had the ability to face his pain in
courage and meaning had value producing ability and became more meaningful to him than those other romantics and
that of the absurd rationalism of Socrates. Nietzsche felt that such rational inquiry was only a temporary fix
that ends up in absurdity that misses the divinity and the creative ability that is produced from the interior
irrational center of man.
In many ways, what Heidegger was for Germany, Weber was for the United States. His study of Nietzsche and subsequent attack on
Socrates and rationalism, brought him, as Nietzsche, in the study of pre-Socrates Greece. Both Nietzsche and Heidegger
felt that Plato and Aristotle were corrupted by the teaching of Socrates. What they seemed to overlook is that
it was Socrates himself that caused them to look the pre-Socratics. And it is here that reason itself was rejected
by philosophy itself. Thus the common thread of the whole tradition of knowledge by means of unaided reason had
been broken. The result could be seen in Germany's Weinmar Republic, the Three Penny
Opera and the subsequent endorsement of fascism and Heidegger, the head of the
philosphy dept. and the university support. This was from his critique of rationalism. The university, that is,
the young people of Germany and the commitment to philosophy was traded for the commitment to German culture, culture
being the idea of value creation over rational thinking. Allan Bloom relates Heidegger's teachings to be the most
powerful intellectual force in our times and the crisis of the German university effected such crisis everywhere,
particularly culminated in the 1960's in the United States. The new philosophic inquiry became the artist and the
poets, the irrational as found in pre-Socratic Greece. And in philosophy, the studies of phenomenalism and existentialism.
"Comparative literature has now fallen largely into the hands of a group of professors who are influenced
by the post-Sartrean generation of Parisian Heideggerians, in particular Derrida,
Foucault and Barthes.
The school is called Deconstructionism, and it is the last, predictable, stage in the suppression of reason and
the denial of the possibility of truth in the name of philosophy. The interpreter's creating activity is more important
than the text, there is not text, only interpretation. Thus the one thing most necessary for us, the knowledge
of what these texts have to tell us, is turned over to the subjective, creative selves of these interpreters, who
say that there is both no text and no reality to which the texts refer. A cheapened interpretation of Nietzsche
liberates us from the objective imperatives of the texts that might have liberated us from our increasingly low
and narrow horizon. Everything has fended to soften the demands made on us by the tradition, this simply dissolves
it.
This fad will pass, as it has already in Paris. But it appeals to our worst instincts and shows where our temptations
lie. It is the literary complement to the "life-styles" science I discussed in Part Two. Fancy German
philosophic talk fascinates us and takes the place of the really serious things. This will not be the last attempt
of its kind coming from the dispossessed humanities in their search for an imaginary empire, one that flatters
popular democratic tastes." Allan Bloom, The Closing of The American
Mind, pp. 379-380
UNDER
CONSTRUCTION
|
|
