UNPHILOSOPHICALITY OF THE SHOPKEEPER

After another two weeks of posting my wife’s work on Bulgakov, I am returning to my own offerings, currently from my Nietzsche section.

(The “Shopkeeper” is an interesting name for the British, coined by the Scottish economist Adam Smith in his already quoted phrase “a nation of shopkeepers,” which was thereafter repeated by Napoleon, who is therefore not its original author, as many people seem to believe. This entry, although not comprehensive, addresses the curious question raised in Nietzsche’s Jenseits 252, concerning the “unphilosophicality” of the English. What I want to explore here is whether this opinion is in any way justified, that is, whether it has more to it than Nietzsche’s, and the German philosophers’ as a whole, collective personal bias toward the English.)

Considering that it is from English philosophy of John Locke, and later of John Stuart Mill, and not from the great German philosophers, like Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Nietzsche, to name only the greatest, that the American cultural tradition proudly traces its origins, and with which it seeks a spiritual identification, so that today American intellectuals of all political persuasions take this English philosophical superiority over the rest of the world, unquestionably and unquestioningly, for granted; but also considering my respect for both the brilliance of Nietzsche’s intuitive genius and the validity of his opinions and characterizations of other philosophers and persons of note,--- Nietzsche’s opinion of English philosophy is of great interest to me, and it must be examined in a much more elaborate way, perhaps, than some other general ideas which do not have such an immediate connection to my primary subjects of interests.

There is another independent and important angle, which arouses my curiosity. During the Soviet period of the Russian history, there existed a politically motivated pseudo-scientific brand of philosophy known to all as Marxism-Leninism. Today it appears to have been so vigorously discredited that it has landed, regrettably, straight on top of the garbage pile of things that used to be very important in their time, but now have become objects causing a guilty feeling and shame among the new Russians. Pity! The Soviet period had its triumphs and its downsides, but so does any other distinctive historical period, and thus discarding its own history should make no nation proud. (Look what has happened to the Germans, who have become wretchedly antihistorical as a result of their outright rejection of the predominant part of their history in the twentieth century, from Kaiser Wilhelm to GDR!)

I cannot disagree with those who hold the opinion that Marxism-Leninism had been a sham: even the name was grotesquely artificial, particularly after the transitional Leninism of Lenin had outlived itself completely, and had given way to the institutional Stalinism of Stalin. But, nevertheless, there were some interesting and useful elements in it, and disparaging it, and getting rid of it wholesale, has been a mistake and a shame in its own right.

Marxism-Leninism by its own admission rested on three whales (or elephants, if you like). They were listed as German philosophy, English political economy, and French utopian socialism. The most curious part of this threesome (as far as I am concerned), is the contraposition of the first two. The explicit recognition of the power of German philosophy (well deserved, I might add) puts the English philosophicality on a lower level at best. What say you, Bacon, Hobbes, Hume, Locke, Mill, Spenser, Bentham, etc. (I shall not dig up any more British names, springing after Nietzsche’s time, though.) By the same token, English propensity for political economy, as recognized by Marxism-Leninism, seems to deny the claim of Max Weber that it is the German Protestant enterprising spirit, which has made capitalism possible in the first place…

Before we say anything more, however, the time is long overdue to present the reader with the Nietzschean centerpiece of this entry, his Jenseits 252, and here it is, given in excerpts:

---They are no philosophical race, these Englishmen: Bacon signifies an attack on the philosophical spirit; Hobbes, Hume, and Locke, a debasement and lowering of the value of the concept of ‘philosophy’ for more than a century. It was against Hume that Kant arose, and rose; and it was Locke, of whom Schelling said, understandably, “je méprise Locke!” In their fight against English-mechanistic doltification of the world, Hegel and Schopenhauer were of one mind with Goethe: these two hostile brother geniuses in philosophy, who strove apart toward the opposite poles of the German spirit, and in the process, wronged each other¾ as only brothers wrong each other.

What was lacking in England and always has been lacking there, was known well enough to the semi-actor and rhetorician, the insipid muddlehead Carlyle, who tried to conceal behind passionate grimaces what he knew of himself, namely, what was lacking in Carlyle: real power of spirituality, real profundity of spiritual perception; in brief, philosophy.

It is characteristic of such an unphilosophical race that it clings firmly to Christianity: the English need its discipline to become “moralized,” and somewhat humanized. The English, being gloomier, more sensual, stronger in will, and more brutal than the Germans, are, precisely for that reason, more vulgar, more pious than the Germans: they stand more in need of Christianity…

The first thought which comes to my mind here is the dichotomy of instinct and reason, which we have had a chance to discuss in several places already, including in this section. Is it correct to say that instinct, that is the irrational element, distinguishes the best of philosophy whereas rationality is at its best in the capitalistic surroundings, and therefore in political economy? Without committing ourselves to an extreme opinion, it is possible to say that-- on the balance-- philosophy benefits more from instinct than from rationality, while in political economy, behind the cashier’s register in the shopkeeper’s general store, the situation is reversed. I shall not venture to suggest that on these grounds the English are bad philosophers and the Germans are bad shopkeepers, which would probably be sheer nonsense, defying common sense, especially in the latter case. But without any rush to quick judgment what Nietzsche says in the passage above and what we have said on our part, gives us plenty of food for thought, and, time permitting, we shall be delving into it far deeper, in a still distant, but hopefully foreseeable future.