FREEDOM FROM ALL MASTERS?

Is Philosophy a beggar at the door of science, or the real mistress of the house? This is the question raised by Nietzsche in Jenseits 204, which I have turned into the last entry of my Contradiction section. But the importance of the extended Nietzsche passage reaches beyond a single entry.

He talks about the scientist overriding both theology and philosophy, in a very similar vein to my thoughts on the collapse of modern philosophy, in my lecture on International Justice. His other crucial point, that philosophy ought to inspire respect by its scope and boldness, and not mistrust, mockery, and pity, compels me to review my own stand in philosophy, to make it more assertive, and less apologetic with caveats and limitations. After all, I must insist that unless philosophy is restored to the heights it reached in antiquity, Western civilization (as they still know it in Russia, where it is held in high esteem, but more as a treasure of the past, which it has been Russia’s calling to guard, whereas, corrupted by capitalism, the low-sunken West seems to have failed as its legitimate joint heir) is bound to degenerate and fizzle out, which would be a shame, because then, there will be no checks and balances on the default contest between the newly-revived Russian and Islamic religious culture, and the contest itself will miss its historical potential by lacking a comprehensive nature, like a world sports competition, in which some of the greatest athletes have failed to participate. It goes without saying that there is no glory, no constructive value in winning a contest without a full representation of all parties.

Before we proceed with more of our comments, let us introduce the following excerpts from Jenseits 204:

“At the risk that moralizing will here, too, turn out to be what it has always been ¾ namely, according to Balzac, an intrepid montrer ses plaies, I venture to speak out against an unseemly shift in the respective ranks of science and philosophy, which is now threatening to become established.

“The scholar’s declaration of independence, his emancipation from philosophy, is one of the more refined effects of the democratic order, and disorder. Freedom from all masters!--- that is what the instinct of the rabble wants in this case, too; and after science has most happily rid itself of theology whose handmaid it was too long, it now aims to lay down laws for philosophy and to play the master itself, the philosopher.

“Altogether taking a large view it may have been the wretchedness of the most recent philosophy itself that most thoroughly damaged respect for philosophy and opened the gates to the instinct of the rabble. Let us confess how utterly our modern world lacks the wholesome type of a Heraclitus, Plato, Empedocles, and whatever other names these royal and magnificent hermits of the spirit had; and how with a considerable justification that, confronted with such representatives of philosophy as are today, a solid man of science may feel that he is of a better type and descent. It is especially the sight of the hodgepodge philosophers who call themselves ‘philosophers of reality,’ or positivists, which is capable of injecting mistrust into the soul of an ambitious young scholar.

“Finally, how else could it be? Science is flourishing today, while the level to which all modern philosophy has sunk invites mistrust, if not mockery and pity. Philosophy reduced to ‘theory of knowledge’ that never steps beyond the threshold, and takes pains to deny itself the right to enter, ¾ how could such philosophy dominate!”

Returning to our initial question -- Is Philosophy a beggar at the door of science, or the real mistress of the house? -- it is now perfectly clear that the problem of philosophical degradation and scientific impotence in social sciences lies not with the scientist joining the fashionable freedom-lovers’ club and seeking freedom from all masters (and mistresses of his house). The problem is that the ‘mistress’ is not up to par, and our scientist being a ‘reasonable’ (in the sense of being rational) man, would rather stay an impotent bachelor, keeping his house in a state of sorry mess, than settle for a good-for-nothing “missus” who would bear him dysfunctional children, which is even worse than staying perpetually barren.

Therefore, speaking more broadly, our age (as well as certain, well-remembered by decent historians, ages in history) does not really suffer from a freedom from all masters syndrome. What it does suffer from is an acute shortage of good masters and mistresses of the house, causing rebellions after rebellions against the inadequate, incompetent, unworthy impostors and usurpers of these respectable titles…

Generally speaking, even the most outrageous outbreaks of anarchism, nihilism, and revolutionism as such, are never about destruction per se, but about destruction of the bad, for the sake of creation of a better, and are thus a more profound manifestation of an inherent conservatism (meaning a desire for the restoration of enduring values) than any kind of freedom-loving (“freedom for freedom’s sake”) liberalism can mutate into. The secret of Bakunin’s longevity, and the key to his genius, is that he was never a barbaric destroyer, but a radical conservative: Out with the bad (radically!), --  in with the good!!!

And of course we all know that no good order can exist without good masters and mistresses of the house. “Without form and void,” the condition of Chaos, was a starting point of Creation, but not its Crown. And, incidentally, that Crown of the Last Day of Creation was the only possible rationale for having a Chaos, in the first place.