(This
particular entry started as my light-hearted comment on the Nietzschean passage
in Jenseits 11, and in that capacity it was supposed to have stayed in
the Sources and Comments. But, promptly, I digressed from it into the
familiar territory of Philosophy and Science, picking up Philosophy
and Religion along the way, which might have turned this entry into
something fit for the Philosophy section, except that these matters are
so conspicuously entrenched in my International Justice piece, that it
has suddenly become more suitable for the futuristic/wishful thinking section,
provided that the unavoidable redundancy with several other sections is
understood, and excused.
No
matter what, I still have this wishful thinking left in me, that one day
religion might become compatible with both philosophy and science. At
least, I entertain this hope for Russian Orthodox Christianity, whereas I have
no such hope for American Protestantism, too self-important and politicized for
its own good; nor for Europe, where religion has become irrelevant; nor for
Roman Catholicism, which has become too involved in the priest sex abuse
controversy, and has lost too much of its former authority, to be effective in
endeavors of this nature.)
When
will our pusillanimous modern-day philosopher finally pluck his courage and
invade, with the intent to repossess, philosophy’s formerly own, but cowardly
relinquished domain of science? When will he also dare to apply his
supposedly philosophical brain to thinking about religion, not as some
foreign country to be left alone, but as a perfectly legitimate territory of
philosophical inquiry, given up for no good reason? No answer!
Perhaps,
it is too difficult to regain the erstwhile philosopher’s paradise, with all
those forbidding creatures (but by no means Seraphim!) guarding the
gates of the lost Eden? Well, difficult, but not impossible.
My
return to this commendable subject has been prompted, in this case, by a
fleeting comment I once made elsewhere, on Nietzsche’s critique of Kant. The
following is that comment; do not be surprised that it looks kind of
out-of-place in this section. It… sort of… is!
How
many more times would Nietzsche be willing to kick the shadow of the old Kant,
to punish him again and again for his arrogance and folly in chasing the
windmills of semantics in pursuit of the ephemeral synthetic aprioris?
As
he reminds us, again, in Jenseits 11, “Kant was
proud of his table of categories, saying: ‘This is the most difficult thing
that could ever be undertaken on behalf of metaphysics.’”
The
irony is of course that Kant’s “greatest achievement” turns out to be an
unwitting hoax, on his part. We have to agree with Nietzsche that “synthetic judgments a priori should not be possible;
in our mouths they are nothing, but false judgments.” But then he goes
on with this stunning admission that “only the belief
in their truth is necessary.” Why so? For the very simple reason that
Kant had found his own justification for the existence of an absolute moral
authority in his ‘scientific’ proof of the existence of the synthetic apriori
judgments, which would become his stepping stone to the discovery of the “categorical imperative.” With this in
mind, it is understandable that, in Nietzsche’s mildly sarcastic words, “people (in his Germany) were actually beside themselves with delight over this new
faculty, and when Kant, further, discovered a moral faculty in man, for, at
that time, the Germans were still moral, and not yet addicted to Realpolitik.”
And
now comes an intriguing question, in connection with this Nietzsche’s
discussion. What would be the real thing, not this ridiculous matter of
synthetic aprioris of Kant’s self-delusion that could echo his proud statement:
“This is the most difficult thing that could ever be
undertaken on behalf of metaphysics?”
As
I said before in various contexts, I am highly skeptical of anybody’s efforts
to develop a general theory of philosophy, that would contain in itself, in
purely abstract form, a revelation of God, be that the elusive Cartesian
mathematical formula of Creation, or some neo-Pythagorean discovery in a new
transcendental geometry of certain basic truths about God, or another set of
esoteric mystical adventures in Kaballah and theosophy, and what-not else.
But
I have a suggestion that, in my view, must certainly meet Kant’s description as
the most difficult thing that could be undertaken on behalf of
philosophy in general, and on behalf of science in general, and lastly on
behalf of the human race-- also in general. This great mission is a reconciliation
of science and religion, by building a common bridge between the absolute
standards of morality and the relativist qualms of practicality, between the
absolute and the temporal or, as I say in my Lecture Summary on
International Justice, between abstract terms and their specific
applications.
In
order to build this bridge, religious thinkers must recognize the deadlock that
their ethical mission faces, as long as they keep promoting a specific religion
into the position of the master religion, the gold standard. This effort is
doomed, because the God of religion is not the absolute God of philosophy. He
is limited, not infinite, relative, not universal. There is only one God who
transcends religious sectarianism, and the task of philosophy is to rediscover
Him.
It
is up to the thinkers to reconcile philosophy proper with its currently runaway
extensions, the philosophy of science and religious thought, which most
difficult task of philosophy we have effectively given up.
If
we do, and only if we do, the moral necessity to come up with something as
pathetic and philosophically indefensible as Kant’s synthetic judgments a
priori, ceases to exist, and we can pride ourselves on achieving the most
difficult thing in philosophy, namely, our rediscovery of God as the universal
and absolute moral and legal standard, which, from then on, will be
authoritatively applied to the International System of Law and Order.
Don’t
ask me, though, as to how we can prove the existence of God, whom we are so
eager to get into the picture. Indeed, anyone who believes that he can come up
with such a proof is deluding himself and others. But then, let us remember
that God does not need to be proven. We can and must accept Him by definition!
In that case, I bet, even the hardcore atheists wouldn’t mind…
No comments:
Post a Comment