The term "modern" sometimes portrays a false sense that we are at a more advanced stage of history than our predecessors; and can connote that we are destined to move "ahead" rather than backwards; which, in terms of society and civilization may or may not be true. The man largely responsible for embedding teleology, or pre-determination, in the view of history is G. W. F. Hegel.
Hegel was a great philosopher and the teacher of Karl Marx. Hegel's philosophy is best distilled in his lecture notes, which have been collected by his students and can be found in the volume entitled The Philosophy of History. It is nearly impossible to exaggerate how profound were the effects of Hegel's philosophical revolution of embedding temporality, or the effect of time itself, on history. Marx co-opted Hegel's philosophy and used it as a critique of Industrial Society and "capitalism" and added greatly to the millenarian fervor surrounding the "inevitable collapse" of the world order and the next phase of societal organization termed socialism or communism.
The psychological effect of Hegel and Marx's use of history as social critique was devastating for those who sought wisdom in the philosophy of the ancients. Hegel's philosophy had rendered the past nearly obsolete as a source of ideas. Hegel's view of time was one like a tide that carried us near the crest; we are always behind when the wave crashes and we don't feel the effects of history until it is spilling back upon us. Only "big men" of history, like Napoleon, or as Barack Obama surely fancies himself, can sit on the crest of the wave and see the rocks coming. Thus the big man of history is not the maker of transformative change, but rather the usherer in, or "preparer" of change, or as one famous talk show host puts it, "the Messiah."
But there is something fundamentally wrong about this point of view. Firstly, it dismisses the ideas of the past as obsolete. This view of the past is shared by the formal philosophical school of Pragmatism, which is the philosophy of choice for arrogant technocrats who view scientific, utilitarian thinking as eminently "modern," and see those still hung up on Enlightenment principles (even extricated from the period's characteristic exuberance) as dogmatists and antiquated rubes.
Secondly, we must bear in mind that Hegel was an uber-statist who wanted to justify a change from the Enlightenment status quo. Hegel saw the unity of the people and the state as the end goal of history. Thus, private property and free markets must necessarily go by the wayside, since they are barriers in the way of state control.
Thirdly, Marx wanted to bring about a world revolution first, and sought the philosophical justification for it only afterwards. Marx thus cherry-picked Hegel's philosophy (the famous line Marx uses is "stands him on his head") and used it to form his own dehumanizing method of the "dialectic" of history; this posits men as pawns of material forces, which Marx, miraculously, is able to see through.
These philosophies of the statists are luxuries for them to adopt, as the prosperity brought forth from unleashing men to pursue their rational self-interest has provided a fountainhead of wealth that the parasites persistently pilfer from. Yet the self-restraint from excess that guides the self-interested man who grapples with material reality does not penetrate the minds of the statist parasites; thus statists are content to pillage civilization with ever-increasing brazenness as they revel in the smug satisfaction of knowing that when it all collapses, it will accrue to their greater power and their greater glory to "save" the people from themselves.
Statists are additionally materially insulated from the consequences of their own disastrous policies; which are founded on incorrect ontology and teleology. These narcissistic men feel like they can continue to pluck fruits from the tree of enlightenment and rationality without philosophically replenishing the tree. In this regard, Hegel's philosophy seems to fit, as history will once again crash back upon us; but it is key to acknowledge that no "progress" will necessarily result from our fall. The demise of Western civilization is the crashing of a civilization that is a victim of its own success; the result of a people so prosperous they take it for granted and neglect the philosophical sources of their prosperity. Before a nation or a people become materially corrupt, it becomes philosophically and spiritually corrupt. The former condition is merely a later-occurring manifestation of the latter.
What has led to "modernity" as we know it was the rediscovery by the Scholastics of the ontology and epistemology of Aristotle, and the scientific method as formulated by the likes of Francis Bacon and epitomized by the quintessential scientist Isaac Newton. Aristotle recognized objective reality, and formulated a proto-scientific method of perceiving it and building knowledge. In no way was the scientific method ever predicated on consensus; Newton's calculations of the laws of motion and gravity would be true whether the UN appointed a panel to recognize them or not. The ensuing scientific revolution in medicine and engineering created the conditions for "modernity" that are inexplicably lamented by leftists; this contradiction of wanting the destruction of one's own civilization, one that has begotten so much good for mankind, smacks to me of ideological subversion. It should be pointed out to leftists that even if science has given rise to weapons of terrifying destructive power; the ends of science are not determined by science itself, but by other philosophical considerations - such as a self-interested appreciation of humanity.
What is needed is a Renaissance or rediscovering of philosophy as an organizer of how we perceive reality (ontology), organize knowledge (epistemology), and treat our fellow human beings (ethics). Contrary to common belief, ontology, epistemology, and ethics are interrelated, as Ayn Rand discusses in The Virtue of Selfishness. In my view, it is crucial to sweep away Hegel and Marx's false teleological view of history and adopt one that approaches philosophers of every era on a level terrain of ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment