Le droit des peuples réglé sur le grand espace de Carl Schmitt

Le droit des peuples réglé sur le grand espace de Carl Schmitt

par Karl Peyrade

Ex: https://www.lerougeetlenoir.org

Avec Le droit des peuples réglé sur le grand espace (1939-1942), Carl Schmitt commence à s’intéresser, dans le cadre de son analyse juridique et géopolitique, à la question de l’espace. Le droit international public est désigné par le juriste allemand comme le droit international des gens, c’est-à-dire ceux qui appartiennent à un Etat territorialement délimité dans un pays homogène. Le concept de grand espace apparaît au XIX^e siècle avec l’idée de territoires équilibrés. Dans la tradition juridique française initiée par Jean Bodin puis reprise par les jacobins, ce sont plutôt les frontières naturelles qui ont servi à justifier l’expansion gallicane. A l’opposé, la logique de grand espace valide le droit des peuples à forte population à dominer sur les autres. La conception française s’articule sur un schéma géographique tandis que la notion de grand espace est liée à un déterminant démographique.

Ce paradigme spatial apparaît très explicitement dans la doctrine Monroe de 1823. Cette théorie américaine revendique l’indépendance de tous les Etats américains, interdit leur colonisation par des Etats tiers et défend à ceux-ci d’intervenir en leur sein. Elle crée donc un corpus de règles ayant vocation à s’appliquer à un grand espace qui est l’espace américain. La difficulté réside dans le fait que la doctrine Monroe a évolué avec le temps. Elle est passée d’un non-interventionnisme catégorique à un impérialisme intransigeant, d’une neutralité à une position morale donnant le droit de s’ingérer dans les affaires des pays du monde entier. « L’aversion de tous les juristes positifs contre une telle doctrine est bien compréhensible ; devant pareille imprécision du contenu normatif, le positiviste a le sentiment que le sol se dérobe sous lui », ironise l’auteur. En fait, les américains ont modifié leur interprétation de la doctrine Monroe au fil du temps et de leurs intérêts. La raison d’Etat se passe facilement des débats juridiques car contrairement à ce que de nombreux juristes pensent, dans la lignée du positivisme juridique, le droit ne créé rien. Il est simplement le reflet d’un rapport de forces. Les marxistes le désigneraient comme étant une superstructure.

D’après Talleyrand, l’Europe est constituée de relations entre Etats. Monroe est le premier à parler de grand espace. Le grand espace repose sur l’idée d’inviolabilité d’un espace déterminé sur lequel vit un peuple avec un projet politique. Il suppose aussi l’absence d’intervention dans les autres espaces. Au départ, ce principe était donc interprété dans un sens continentaliste. Mais à l’arrivée, on débouche sur un interventionnisme capitaliste et universaliste avec le triomphe de l’interprétation britannique. Le passage de la neutralité à l’impérialisme américain s’incarne particulièrement en la personne du président Wilson (1917). Ce dernier a fait du principe local du droit des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes un principe à valeur universelle. Carl Schmitt critique cette « réinterprétation de la doctrine Monroe, au départ idée concrète du grand espace, géographiquement et historiquement déterminée, en principe général d’inspiration universaliste, censé valoir pour la Terre entière et prétendant à l’ubiquité ».

Le principe de sécurité des voies de communication britanniques constitue un bon exemple de notion universaliste au profit de l’impérialisme anglo-saxon. Contrairement aux Etats-Unis et à la Russie, il n’existe pas de continuité spatiale dans l’empire britannique qui est une addition de possessions émiettées sans espace déterminée et sans cohérence. Afin de justifier la sécurité des voies de communication, les anglais ont adopté des principes universalistes permettant d’assimiler l’empire britannique au monde. En effet, les anglais régnaient sur la mer. Ils avaient donc intérêt à ce que les voies maritimes soient sécurisées au nom de leur principe de sécurité des voies de communication leur permettant d’intervenir partout et de dominer les espaces maritimes des pays neutres. A titre d’exemple, ils ont empêché le monopole français sur le Canal de Suez en invoquant le principe de droit naturel des peuples à disposer d’eux-mêmes. Cela n’a en revanche pas fonctionné à Panama où les américains leur ont justement opposé la doctrine Monroe.

Philosophiquement, la vision universaliste du monde trouve sa source dans la théorie du droit naturel du XVII^e siècle qui trouve son apogée dans le concept de liberté commerciale forgée au XIX^e siècle. Il ne faut pas confondre la loi naturelle qui vient de Dieu et le droit naturel selon lequel les hommes naissent tous avec des droits inhérents à leur personne humaine. Ainsi, au-delà des caractéristiques ethniques, culturelles ou religieuses, l’homme parce qu’il est homme dispose de certains droits fondamentaux. L’avènement des droits de l’homme constitue l’aboutissement suprême de la théorie du droit naturel.

A l’inverse de cette théorie, la logique des grands espaces n’a pas de portée universaliste. Elle intègre l’évolution historique des grandes puissances territoriales ayant de l’influence sur des pays tiers. Le paradigme n’est donc plus national mais spatial. Au sein de l’espace dominé par une grande puissance règne la paix en raison de l’exigence de non-intervention. Mais en dehors de cet espace, l’intervention redevient possible. Carl Schmitt reprend le concept allemand d’empire pour l’adapter aux particularités de son époque. L’impérialisme répond au contraire à une vision supra ethnique, capitaliste et universaliste. L’auteur plaide pour le Reich allemand contre les deux universalismes de son temps : l’URSS socialiste et la révolution mondialo-libérale occidentale. Il faut rappeler que la pensée schmittienne n’est en aucun cas une pensée racialiste ce que les membres de la SS n’ont pas manqué de lui reprocher. Elle s’appuie en revanche sur un peuple constitué historiquement et ayant conscience de lui-même. Pour Schmitt, le concept d’empire est traversé par les mêmes idées, la même philosophie, ancré dans un grand espace et soutenu par un peuple.

« Les autres concepts de l’espace, désormais indispensables, sont en premier lieu le sol, à rattacher au peuple par une relation spécifique, puis celui, corrélatif au Reich, débordant l’aire du peuple et le territoire étatique, du grand espace de rayonnement culturel, mais aussi économique, industriel, organisationnel […] L’empire est plus qu’un Etat agrandi, de même que le grand espace n’est pas qu’un micro-espace agrandi. L’Empire n’est pas davantage identique au grand espace ; chaque empire possède un grand espace, s’élevant par là au-dessus de l’Etat spatialement déterminé par l’exclusivité de son domaine étatique, au-dessus de l’aire occupée par un peuple particulier. »

Plusieurs conceptions peuvent découler de cette notion de grand espace. Une acception purement économiste pourrait le voir uniquement comme le lieu de l’échange commercial avec d’autres grands espaces. La vision impériale, et non impérialiste, aboutirait à des relations entre empires basés sur des grands espaces. Au sein de ces grands espaces, des relations interethniques pourraient voir le jour. Sous réserve de non-ingérence de puissances étrangères, des relations interethniques pourraient même naître entre empires différents. La notion d’empire permet, contrairement à l’universalisme des droits de l’homme, de conserver les Etats et les peuples.

Juridiquement, l’espace est traditionnellement abordé par le droit de la manière suivante : le droit privé l’appréhende à travers l’appropriation d’une terre tandis que le droit public le considère comme le lieu d’exercice de la puissance publique. Les théories positivistes voient le droit comme « un ordre intimé par la loi ». Or, « les ordres ne peuvent s’adresser qu’à des personnes ; la domination ne s’exerce pas sur des choses, mais sur des personnes ; le pouvoir étatique ne peut donc se déterminer que selon les personnes ». Le positivisme juridique n’admet donc l’espace que comme un objet relevant de la perception, déterminé selon le temps et l’espace. Au fond, il s’agit d’un espace vide sur lequel s’exerce le pouvoir étatique. A l’inverse, Carl Schmitt part de l’espace pour fonder tout ordre juridique. L’auteur note l’influence juive au sein du droit constitutionnel allemand sur le concept d’espace vide : « Les rapports bizarrement gauchis qu’entretient le peuple juif avec tout ce qui touche au sol, à la terre et au territoire découlent du mode singulier de son existence politique. La relation d’un peuple à un sol façonné par son propre travail d’habitation et de culture, et à toutes les formes de pouvoir qui en émanent, est incompréhensible pour un esprit juif. » Le juriste allemand conclue son ouvrage en insistant sur le vocable juridique du Moyen-Âge qui avait une dimension spatiale (Stadt = site, civitas = cité, Land = terre etc.) et en constatant que la négation de l’espace conduit à la négation des limites ce qui aboutit à l’universalisme abstrait.

« Ces considérations ne visent certes pas à prôner le retour vers un état de choses médiéval. Mais on a bien besoin de subvertir et d’éliminer un mode de pensée et de représentation regimbant à l’espace, dont le XIX^e siècle marque l’avènement, et qui gouverne encore la conceptualisation juridique tout entière ; en politique internationale, il va de pair avec l’universalisme déraciné, négateur de l’espace et par là sans limite, de la domination anglo-saxonne des mers. La mer est libre au sens où elle est libre d’Etat, c’est-à-dire libre de l’unique représentation d’ordre spatial qu’ait pu penser le droit d’obédience étatique. »

Ouvrage court mais très exigeant, Le droit des peuples réglé sur le grand espace constitue une bonne introduction à l’ouvrage majeur Le nomos de la terre qu’écrira par la suite Carl Schmitt. Ecrit dans un style toujours clair sans être universitaire, le livre présente le grand mérite d’être en avance sur son temps. A une époque où l’on réfléchissait encore en termes de nation, il anticipe largement les grandes évolutions du monde. Aujourd’hui, comment nier que le monde est traversé par une logique de blocs animés par une puissance dominante. L’espace américain est dominé par les Etats-Unis, l’espace asiatique par la Chine et l’espace eurasiatique par la Russie. Il n’y a guère que l’Europe qui ne suit pas cette évolution. En effet, au lieu de s’ancrer dans son espace culturel et religieux, elle a préféré se dissoudre dans un système technico-économique abstrait sous-tendu par les inévitables droits de l’homme. A trop nier l’espace, on finit par nier l’homme comme produit d’un enracinement culturel pour aboutir à l’homme-marchandise.

Karl Peyrade

Historian of the Future: An Introduction to Oswald Spengler’s Life and Works for the Curious Passer-by and the Interested Student

Historian of the Future:
An Introduction to Oswald Spengler’s Life and Works
for the Curious Passer-by and the Interested Student

By Stephen M. Borthwick

Ex: https://europeanheathenfront.wordpress.com

There have been two resurgences in the popularity of Oswald Spengler since the initial blooming of his popularity in the 1920s; the first in the 1980s and the second most recently, with almost ten major books dealing directly with him or his thought published in the last ten years, and more articles in various academic journals. It is a resurgence in the popular mind that may yet be matched in the academy, where Spengler has hardly been obscure but nevertheless an unknown—a forbidden intellectual fruit for what was, in the words of Henry Stuart Hughes, his first English-language biographer, “obviously not a respectable performance from the standpoint of scholarship” calling Decline of the West, in form typical to Hughes’ species “a massive stumbling block in the path to true knowledge”.^[1] This is a pervasive attitude amongst academics, whose fields, especially history, are dominated by a specialisation that Spengler’s history defies with its broad perspective and positivist influences. As such when Spengler’s magnum opus first appeared, it was immediately subject to what in popular parlance can only qualify as nit-picking, which did not cease when the author corrected what factual errors could be found in his initial text. Nevertheless, in the popular mind Spengler has remained an influential if obscure author. Most recently, his unique, isolated civilisations encapsulated in their own history has been observed in Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, though the development of civilisations from Mediterranean to Western that he paints resembles the dominant theory posited by William McNeill in his Rise of the West rather than Spengler’s Decline of the West. Nevertheless, Spengler’s theory of encapsulated cultural organisms growing up next to one another, advanced by subsequent authors like Toynbee, remains a stirring line of thought, growing more relevant in the rising conflict between Western countries and the resurging Islamic world.

To understand this adversity that Spengler’s ideas struggle against in the academic establishment, and therefore to know why his ideas have filtered through the decades but left his name and book behind, it is necessary to do what very few academics dare to do: to explore and openly discuss the significance of Spengler’s thought. This is the project of this essay; to explain to any who have recently discovered Spengler, especially if they are a college student or college graduate, why they have never heard the name “Spengler” before, and what his thought entails at its most basic level. This discussion will deal not just with Spengler’s most famous work, Der Untergang des Abendlandes (“The Downfall of the Occident”, popularly known as Decline of the West, after C.F. Atkinson’s translation) but also with his numerous political pamphlets and subsequent works of philosophy and history. His philosophical texts include, chiefly: Man and Technics, a specialised focus expanding on the relationship of the human being and the age of technology in which we live already mentioned in Decline, The Hour of Decision, which foresees the overthrow of the Western world by what today would be called the “Third World”, or what Spengler refers to as the “Coloured World”, and Prussianism and Socialism, his first major political text, prescribing the exact form of political structure needed, in his view, to save Germany immediately after the First World War. Numerous other texts, published by C.H. Beck in Munich, also exist, compiled in two primary collections, Politischen Schriften (“Political Writings”) of 1934 and posthumous Reden und Aufsätze (“Speeches and Essays”) of 1936; these are joined by Gedanken (“Reflections”), also of 1936. His unfinished works, posthumously collected and titled by chief Spengler scholar Anton Koktanek in the 1960s, Urfragen and Frühzeit der Weltgeschichte, will not be touched upon in this brief introduction, since they are not available in the English language, but readers fluent in German are encouraged to explore them as well as Koktanek’s other works.

On the assumption that without understanding a man, one cannot grasp his thought, it seems most appropriate to begin any exploration of Spengler the philosopher with Spengler the man. Spengler was a conservative first, then a German nationalist, then a pessimist (though he regarded himself as a consummate realist). Further, he was one of the few men (if not the only man) to meet Adolf Hitler and come away completely unmoved by the demagogue and future dictator of Germany. He openly attacked National Socialism as “the tendency not to want to see and master sober reality, but instead to conceal it with... a party-theatre of flags, parades, and uniforms and to fake hard facts with theories and programmes” and declared that what Germany needed was “a hero, not merely a heroic tenor.”^[2] Nevertheless, when voting in the 1932 elections, Spengler, along with some 13.5 million other Germans, cast his ballot for the National Socialist ticket; he explained his choice to friends by saying enigmatically “Hitler is an idiot—but one must support the movement.”^[3] At the time people speculated what he meant, and have subsequently continued to speculate to what he was referring when he said “the movement”, especially after his sustained criticisms of National Socialism well into what other Germans were experiencing as “the German Rebirth” in the years between 1933 and his death in 1936.

Spengler’s sustained pessimism about the National Socialist future (he remarked sarcastically shortly before his death that “in ten years the German Reich will probably no longer exist”) is reflective of a realism he had well before the beginning of the First World War, when the idea that would become Decline of the West were first conceived shortly after the Agadir crisis in 1911. Spengler lived and wrote largely in unhappy times; his chief contributions were made in Germany’s darkest hours of the interwar period, dominated by an unstable, incompetent government, extraordinary tributes exacted by the victorious allies, and as a result unrivalled poverty, inflation, and unemployment while the former Allied Powers (save for Italy) were experiencing the so-called “Roaring ‘20s”. He was born and he died, however, in times when things were looking bright. Few regular Germans in 1936 could or did foresee the barbarity of Hitler’s reign, five gruelling years of World War and the planned extermination of non-“Aryans” in conquered territories as well as at home, just as Wilhelmine Germany was oblivious to the consequences of the First World War almost right through it. All that the Germans saw was Germany, their Germany, was on the rise! In 1880, when the young Oswald was born to Bernhard Spengler and his wife Pauline, the German Empire was led by Kaiser Wilhelm I and his Iron Chancellor Bismarck, and the German Reich was still celebrating its formation and the unification of the German nation. Aside from the tribulation of the “year of three emperors” when the young Oswald was eight, there was no reason for the average German to worry about catastrophe: the kindly old Kaiser Wilhelm was replaced by his young, virulent grandson, Wilhelm II, who promised his people “a place in the Sun”. Later, in 1936, when the now established scholar died in his sleep of a heart-attack, the German people were again in good spirits; from the popular perspective, all they could see was that they at last had jobs again, inflation no longer loomed as so painful a memory, their shattered Reich was being rebuilt, and someone had finally reasserted German control over the Rhineland and the Saar—where the memory of the insulting use of colonial occupation forces by the French, and the various abuses civilians suffered during the occupation, still lingered in the German mind.

Early Life (From Youth to Decline, 1880-1917)

All of this blithe cheerfulness and celebration, though, did not affect either the young or the old Oswald Spengler. The opening chapter of Koktanek’s biography of him is titled “Ursprung und Urangst” – “Origin and Original Anxiety”, and not without good reason. Throughout his life, Spengler suffered a nervous affliction and anxiety, leading to chronic headaches in later years so bad that they caused minor short-term memory loss. He would later reflect in his planned autobiography that in his youth he had “no friends, with one exception, [and] no love: a few sudden, stupid [infatuations], fearful of the bond [of relationship]. [I had] only yearning and melancholy.”^[4] His home life was similarly dismal. John Farrenkopf characterises it as the typical bourgeois home of the period; his father, a former copper miner turned civil servant, was proud of the Fatherland, conservative in social attitudes, and generally took for granted his loyalty to the Prussian State. It was, in Spengler’s own eyes, a cold place, and an unhappy one. Spengler remarked that his parents were “unliterarisch”—“unlettered, unliterary”—and they “never opened our bookcase nor bought a book”; he himself developed an early love for reading, which earned him ire from his father, of whom he wrote was characterised by a “hatred for all recreation, most of all books”.^[5] Despite his newspaper reading and bourgeois sensibilities, though, Bernhard Spengler rarely raised the topic of politics in the household, and young Oswald was only exposed to the workings of the State by outside influences. He would break from this aloofness of politics only once in his life, shrinking after his failure back into scholastic and theoretical efforts to influence the political climate.

Spengler’s mother led an unhappy life; she married Bernhard, it would seem, out of convenience rather than deep feeling, and bitter about her lot. Originally from the famous Grantzow clan of ballerinas and ballet masters, Pauline Spengler was prevented from ballet and the stage because of her figure, and then forced to leave her beloved home town, the quiet hamlet of Blanckenburg in the Harz mountains, for the bustling Hessian city of Halle-an-der-Saale when young Oswald was ten and her husband changed his trade from mining to postal work (a change he was not especially excited about, either). She displayed her dissatisfaction by brooding over her painting (an effort to cling to what artistry she could maintain in competition with her sisters) and playing petty tyrant over her children.

The young Spengler escaped this life through fantasy and fiction, inventing imaginary kingdoms and world-empires and writing childish theatre-plays with echoes of Wagner. He found further escape after he began his schooling at the Latina, administered by the Franckean Foundation in Halle, where he formally studied Greek and Latin, but in his free time devoured Goethe and Schiller, the first of literary influences that would later be joined by such eclectic writers as William Shakespeare, Gerhart Hauptmann, Henrik Ibsen, Maksim Gorky, Honoré de Balzac, Heinrich von Kleist, E.T.A. Hoffmann, Friedrich Hebbel, Heinrich Heine, Leo Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Émile Zola, Gutave Flaubert, and others.^[6] Spengler complained of the Franckean focus on Greek and Latin that prevented him from learning “practical languages”, and he was forced as a result to teach himself French, English, Italian, and, later, during his university days, Russian, through reading authors in those languages. His fluency in the languages was astounding to many, but he himself never felt comfortable enough with them to correspond with many of the authors he would later read and who would bring to bear influence on his own magnum opus in their own languages. Anton Koktanek blames this anxiety and lack of formal training in modern foreign languages for Spengler remaining “a German phenomenon”.^[7]

Spengler’s interest in world history and contemporary history also began here, and added to the fiction he wrote, including a short story set in the Russo-Japanese War titled Der Sieger as well as poetry, librettos, dramatic sketches, and other notes and such, most of which he would commit to the flames in 1911.^[8] At University, he read the entirety of Goethe’s corpus and discovered two men who would bear tremendous influence on his later writing: Arthur Schopenhauer, and Friedrich Nietzsche. He would also become a devotee of Richard Wagner during this time, declaring his favourite work to be Tristan and Isolde.^[9] His interest in Nietzsche especially would have great bearing on his choice of thesis topic, the pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus.

Spengler’s father died in 1901, just as Oswald was beginning University studies. He was by and large emotionally unaffected by the loss, and began all the more focusing on his studies. Like most students at University in those days, Spengler matriculated at several Universities while formally enrolled at the University of Halle. First, he travelled to Munich, a city with which he would fall in love and later make his home. Subsequently he would also study at the University of Berlin and then returned to Halle to complete his dissertation topic, entitled “Heraklit: eine Studie über den energetischen Grundgedanken seiner Philosophie” (“Heraclitus: A Study of the Energetic Fundamental Thought of his Philosophy”). It was, as Klaus Fischer observes, “a daring subject for a young scholar because Heraclitus had only left a few and highly cryptic fragments of his thought.”^[10] Spengler, however, dared, and presented the first form of his thesis in 1903, but failed the oral defence. Despite his own typically depressed personality, however, he was not downtrodden at the failure; rather, he agreed with almost every criticism that was offered against his work—in his autobiography he called himself “naïve”. He had not, as most biographers observe, consulted any professors on his thesis before submitting it, and therefore had made errors and omissions that one only really avoids from consultation and discussion of one’s work.^[11] The primary complaint was his lack of citations. He would repeat this mistake with the first edition of Decline of the West in 1917, writing the book entirely alone and isolated from the outside world—after initial criticism of the book he would revisit and largely revise the text, such that when it arrived in second edition in 1922 he had fixed most of his errors, but did not, as the academics insisted he should, increase the number of citations.

Spengler received his Ph.D. in 1904 and immediately went on to pass State examinations in a number of subjects that allowed him to become a Gymnasium teacher. His first assignment was a major turning point in his life, when he resolved not to be a teacher after stepping off the train in the little town of Lüneburg, taking a glance about at the town and the school and realising how terribly provincial his life would be. Spengler promptly boarded a train for his home town of Blankenburg and had a nervous breakdown. From this point forward he resolved to use teaching as a support for his true passions of study and writing. He recovered from his breakdown and took a different assignment, this time in Saarbrücken, happy to be so close to the French border that would allow him to take several holidays in France.^[12] After a year there, he moved on to Düsseldorf, where he taught for another year before taking on a permanent (or so it appeared at the time) position in Hamburg.

Spengler flourished in these cities of big industry and metropolitan life—despite his writings criticising money power and the soul-stealing metropolis, Spengler remained a cosmopolitan urbanite throughout his life. An attestation to this aspect of his personality is his behaviour while teaching. Spengler remembered his days in the Franckean Latina with mixed disdain for the parochial moralists he had as teachers and gratitude for the training he received. He resolved, in the words of Klaus Fischer, “to avoid the foibles commonly attributed to schoolteachers: pedantry, narrow provincialism, and incivility” and made an effort to keep himself fully attuned to the petty culture of fashion and the latest advances in his scholarly fields (he taught German, mathematics, and geography). He would also frequent the theatre (where he would weep easily at especially moving plots and concertos) and local museums—in Düsseldorf he was even spotted frequently in the casino, a place quite foreign to most schoolteachers!^[13] His time in teaching, however, was short-lived. By almost all accounts Spengler hated Hamburg, not for itself, nor because he disliked the people, his colleagues or his students—indeed in all these respects he was well-respected and well-loved and returned these feelings of affection—but because of the weather. The cold, wet north German city terrorised him, increasing the acuteness and the frequency of his chronic headaches to such a degree that he took a year sabbatical in 1911 from which he would never return. His immediate plans were a holiday in Italy, where he would sojourn frequently in imitation of Goethe.^[14]

His complete departure from teaching, much to the disappointment of both colleagues and students, who regarded him as a superlative teacher and amicable fellow, was by and large decided by his mother’s death in 1910. He had little regard for his mother, who psychologically tortured his sister Gertrude, disdained his other sister Hildegard, and was no kinder to his beloved sister Adele.^[15] While he marked his father’s passing in 1901 with reflections of the latter’s loyalty to Prussia, his mother’s death was marked only with his inheritance and departure from his childhood home, leaving his sister Adele to dissolve the household.^[16] Adele, a frustrated bohemian and largely talentless aspiring virtuoso, quickly spent the 30,000DM she inherited and committed suicide in 1917. Oswald’s inheritance, on the other hand, was wisely invested and used with some measure of thrift, giving him a comfortable lifestyle in Munich and allowing him to pursue his desire to be a writer.

At first, Spengler hadn’t the slightest idea what to write about. In Heraklit he displayed some of the budding thought which came to fruition as his magnum opus, to be sure. In one of the thicker sections of notes for Eis Heauton, the author proclaims that “my great book, Untergang des Abendlandes, was already emotionally conceived in my twentieth year” (four years before he would submit his doctoral thesis).^[17] Farrenkopf observes that Spengler’s dissertation bears the marks of Decline as well, declaring that “what Spengler later attempted as a philosopher of history is analogous to what he claimed Heraclitus had accomplished in Greek philosophy”.^[18] The true inspiration for Decline, however, came not from Heraclitus nor from Goethe or Nietzsche; nor did it come to him, as it did with Gibbon and Toynbee, from a physical visit to any landmarks. Rather, the genesis of Decline of the West was in a much different, political work titled Liberal and Conservative, which Spengler began writing in response to the Agadir Crisis of 1911.

Agadir, briefly put, was an attempt on the part of Kaiser Wilhelm II to imitate the American support of the Panamanian rebellion against Columbia, which was accomplished by placing the American fleet off the coast of Panama to prevent Columbian intervention. When Moroccans rebelled against the puppet Sultan Abdelhafid after years of allowing his country to be exploited by European powers, the French offered to support Fez by sending in troops. Wilhelm attempted to assert German interests in the region by sending the gunboat Panther to the harbour of Agadir, much to the chagrin of the French, who would later take over Morocco as part of their colonial Empire, and the British, who viewed the act as a challenge to their own power and a threat to peace in Europe. The end result of the whole event was a strengthened Entente cordiale that would eventually become the Allied Powers in the First World War.

Spengler was keenly aware of the situation at the time, and took on the task of writing a book on the subject that would contrast German and British world-aims and national spirits. The general thrust of this work would become his later work Prussianism and Socialism of 1919, but as he worked on Liberal and Conservative, he found his topic broadening more and more, to the point where he was taking into account not the national rivalries of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, but the great trials and tribulations of entire civilisations over the course of millennia. Thus the work transformed into the first volume of his Decline of the West, the title of which he probably derived from discovering Otto Seeck’s Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt (“History of the Downfall of the Ancient World” or The History of the Decline of Antiquity) in a store-front window.^[19] He would complete the work over the next few years, well into the World War, about which he maintained a positive outlook, to the extent that his introduction to the first volume of Decline, appearing in 1917, bore the hope of the author (omitted in Atkinson’s translation) that “this book might not stand entirely unworthy next to the military achievements of Germany.”^[20]

The book that took shape was sweeping in scale, painting the picture of a broad history of mankind as the life cycle(s) of massive organisms to which Spengler gave two names: Kultur and Zivilisation, each representing the youth and the adulthood of the organism. These organisms passed through four seasons of life—(as Kultur) Spring, Summer, (as Zivilisation) Autumn, and Winter—before passing from existence and leaving the soil to which it is tied to give rise to a new organism. A more detailed discussion of the theory may be required before departing into Spengler’s life after the War and the publication of Decline.

Decline of the West and its Influences

Der Untergang des Abendlandes occurs as a part of a long tradition of German historical writing, dating from the early nineteenth century and in which the giants of the field, both famous and infamous, stand: G.W.F. Hegel, Karl Marx, Heinrich von Treitschke, Leopold von Ranke, Heinrich Friedjung, among others. It also occurs as a part of a long tradition of German philosophy and social thought, dating even further into history and starting, not with the rational Kant, but with the intuitive and romantic, sometimes quasi-mystical writings of Goethe, following to Nietzsche, Ferdinand Tönnies, Max Weber, and still more. More can be said of Spengler’s influences, and has been said in the works of Farrenkopf and Fischer on the subject, but a brief discussion of chief influences will be sufficient for our purposes.

If Spengler was the first to propose a World-Historical view, as he claims in the early pages of Decline, Leopold von Ranke preceded him by for the first time proposing a European-Historical view in his two-volume Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation (“German History in the Age of Reformation”) of 1845/47.^[21] Ranke wrote a history which belongs to a very specific school of historical inquiry, dependent on objectivity and a slice of historical fact drawn from primary source work with bearing only on that exact moment in history, showing things wie es eigentlich gewesen, as he proclaims in his 1824 work Geschichte der romanischen und germanischen Völker von 1494 bis 1514 (“History of the Latin and Teutonic Peoples, 1494-1514”). For all his efforts at objectivity in history, he was a firm believer in the balance of power of nation-states, and his loyalty to this state philosophy bleeds through in his writing. He is significant to Spengler in that both men sought to broaden historical inquiry into an objective rather than national project, and that Spengler was certainly beholden to the school of narrative historicism that Ranke would found, inasmuch as his project was heavily criticised by more loyal Rankeans than himself.

Spengler’s other major historical inheritance was G.W.F. Hegel, who stood with Ranke in his typical nineteenth century fascination with the nation-state but was completely opposed to Ranke’s objective, slice-of-history approach, demanding a broader view, and the ability to see the future in the past. Hegel was also a dedicated Prussian, much like Spengler’s father and Spengler himself—so much so, in fact, that he is among several German historians of preceding centuries who are mentioned by Shirer in his fumbling, attempt to link National Socialism and the Prussian state in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. His declaration in Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts (“Elements of the Philosophy of Right”) that “the course of God in the world—that is the State—and its foundation is the mighty force of Reason actualising itself as Will” is reflected in Spengler’s own firm belief in the role of fate in the lifespan of Kultur-Zivilisation organisms.^[22] Furthermore, like Hegel, Spengler’s history is a designated march to a designated end: for Hegel, the “end of history” is a progressive, linear movement from antiquity to modernity and the pinnacle of mankind’s development—a belief that has earned Hegel accusations of arrogance and stubbornness, among other things, from detractors. He would pass this view onto his student Karl Marx, who proclaimed the same progression, but from a strictly economic view, of modes of production through history, culminating in the elimination of alienation and the realisation of Species-being in Communism. The difference between the Hegelian and Marxian view of history and Spengler, however, is two-fold: while the given lifespan of a Kultur-Zivilisation organism can be viewed as linear, it is a downward motion rather than the upward motion Hegel and Marx see; further, there is no single linear history of all mankind, the way Hegel and Marx see it. Quite the contrary, Spengler echoes Goethe, declaring that “‘Mankind’ is a zoological concept or merely an empty word.”^[23]

It seems contradictory, of course, that Spengler would reject that “mankind” exists while attempting very earnestly to write a “world-history.” As much as Spengler reflects Hegel and Ranke as historical predecessors, his views of the organism of society bear the marks of Ferdinand Tönnies, whose famous work Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft would practically found the discipline of sociology, influencing both Max Weber’s seminal The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism as well as Emile Durkheim’s functional theories of society.^[24] Tönnies summarises his project in Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft in the very first page, saying “The connexion will be understood either as real and organic – this being the nature of the Gemeinschaft – or in an ideological and mechanistic form – this being the notion of Gesellschaft” and further summarising the difference between the two by saying that, “all that is familiar, private, living together exclusively (we find) is understood as life in a Gemeinschaft. Gesellschaft is the public sphere, it is the World”.^[25]

Spengler’s structure of the communal, agrarian Kultur passing into individualised, urban Zivilisation has much in common with Tönnies’ conception of the organic Gemeinschaft and its artificial counterpart Gesellschaft. It is also important to bear in mind that the key to the Gemeinschaft/Gesellschaft schema is two-fold—both the contrast of the private with the public spheres as well as the organic with the artificial—when considering Spengler’s own contrast of the representative of Kultur, which is the “country-town” with the representative of Zivilisation, which is the megalopolis. As Spengler says himself, “long ago the country bore the country-town and nourished it with her best blood. Now the giant city sucks the country dry, insatiably and incessantly demanding and devouring fresh streams of men, till it wearies and dies in the midst of an almost uninhabited waste of country.”^[26]

The contrast of the organic with the artificial, the personal with the impersonal, and the village with the city runs throughout Spengler’s whole structure. Spengler’s vision is two-fold: both the binary progression of Kultur crystallising and stagnating into Zivilisation as well the four-phase life cycle that all Kultur-Zivilisation structures (or, more properly, organisms) follow. Describing this, Spengler uses two sets of terms: organic terms, describing the actual birth, growth, decline, and death of the Kulture-Zivilization organism as a life form, and the fatalistic language for which he has been so criticised: he declares “the Civilisation is the inevitable destiny of a Culture… Civilisations are… a conclusion, the thing-become succeeding the thing-becoming, death following life”.^[27] The central concept there—Werden and Gewordene, “becoming” and “become”—are ideas for which Spengler is deeply indebted (as he admits) to Goethe, and play strong role in the contrast he makes between the vivacious, developing Kultur and the stagnant, crystallised Zivilisation.^[28]

These Kultur-Zivilisation organisms are detailed in three tables he includes in his work: the first details the passage of Spring-Summer-Autumn-Winter, which for the Occident begins in 900, after the Carolingian period and the final death of Antiquity, and ends (or begins to end) with modernity, completely the roughly thousand-year lifespan which Spengler assigns to his Kultur-Zivilisation organisms (except those of the far east). Each Kultur-Zivilisation organism has a symbol which accompanies it in the Kultur phase; for the West it is infinite space; for the Egyptian, the long corridor; the Semitic, the cavern; the Greeks, the idealised statue, etc. Spengler also specifically names three of the “souls” of these organisms with especial bearing on the Occident. The West itself is “Faustian” defined by Goethe’s own character and his constant outward-reaching for knowledge and more; Antiquity, which the West has replaced, is “Apollonian”, a term readily borrowed from Nietzsche, defined by the Nietzschean Apollonian rationality and thirst for worldly perfection; finally, the Semitic, being Jewish, Arabic, etc. is a sort of mixed Kultur-Zivilisation organism called “Magian”, after the mystics who visited the birth of the Christ-child, and is defined by the preoccupation with essence rather than space.

The Magian requires some further discussion, since it represents for Spengler a different “mutation” (to keep with the biological sense of an organism) of the main species of Kultur-Zivilizationen. This is because of a process Spengler describes in the second volume of Decline called “pseudomorphosis”. He asserts in the first volume that the “Arabian soul was cheated of its maturity—like a young tree that is hindered and stunted in its growth by a fallen old giant of the forest,” but after critiques of the work began to circulate back to him, realised that this was inadequate to explain the unique situation that the Magian Kultur-Zivilisation finds itself.^[29] He therefore suggests a parallel with mineralogy, pointing the phenomenon of “pseudomorphosis”, by which volcanic molten rock flows into spaces left by washed away minerals in the hollows of rocks; likewise, since the Arabian culture’s pre-historical period is encompassed by Babylonian Civilization, and later as it develops it is stunted by Antiquity with the Roman conquest of Egypt.^[30] Spengler sees a similar occurrence with the Russian Kultur-Zivilisation, which is pressed between the Faustian Kultur-Zivilisation and the Asiatic hordes which repeatedly conquer it. He maintains even in his last work, Jahre der Entscheidung, that the Bolshevist revolution represented a part of this pseudomorphosis that Russia is experiencing: “Asia has conquered Russia back from “Europe” to which it had been annexed by Peter the Great”.^[31]

This is the structure within which the subject of Spengler’s title exists. Spengler remarked on his title at length in an essay titled “Pessimismus?” (“Pessimism?”) appearing in the Preußischer Jahrbücher in 1921:

But there are men who confuse the downfall [literally “going under”] of Antiquity with the sinking of an ocean liner. The notion of a catastrophe is not contained in the word. If one said—instead of downfall—completion, an expression that is linked in a special way with Goethe’s thought, the “pessimistic” side is removed without the real sense of the term having been altered.^[32]

He is not, therefore, discussing a cataclysmic event that would bring about the end of Western civilisation, though no doubt much of the appeal of his work was the recent catastrophe of the Great War. What he sees instead is a general inadequacy in the trends coming out of his contemporary West, which the Great War only compounded. Faustian civilisation had come to stagnate with the rise of bourgeois economists; as he says, “through the economic history of every Culture there runs a desperate conflict waged by the soil-rooted tradition of a race, by its soul, against the spirit of money”.^[33] The capitalism and industrialisation of liberal Europe represents the bleeding dry of the soul of Faustian Kultur; it, too, however, shall pass in the coming Ceasarism of the Faustian Winter that Spengler predicts. He speaks of “the sword” being triumphant over money-power and finance capital, bringing about the final period of where violence of spirit triumphs and is marked by the rise of the “Caesars”, demagogues who will bring about a Western World Imperium that Spengler envisioned being headed by Germany. It is worth noting that John Farrenkopf believes this to remain an accurate prediction for America, which Spengler himself discounted, as most Europeans at the time, as an adolescent child of Europe, hardly capable of contributing to Faustian Zivilisation in any great way.

It is, at last, important to note that while Spengler offers this structure that explains history, it is not his intent to “save” the Occident. He participated in politics that would, in his view, further the progression of Faustian Zivilization out of its Autumn and into Winter, but, in true Nietzschean fashion, he encourages his readers to adopt an amor fati toward the decline of their Kultur-Zivilisation. Indeed, the hope one retains after reading Spengler is of a peculiar kind—since all Kultur-Zivilisationen are destined to wither and die, the Faustian man should embrace the destruction of the Occident with an eye to the subsequent Kultur-Zivilisation organism that will take its place, which Spengler predicts will be Russian, a society which due to close contact to both the Occidental and Asian Kultur-Zivilisation organisms has not been able to come into itself—in short, it is not yet Werden, existing in the historyless period that marks the beginning and end of every Kultur-Zivilisation organism.

The Conservative Revolutionary (Political Writings and Speeches, 1919-1924)

The Decline of the West marks a high-point in Spengler’s life, and also a turning point for both his own life and the life of Germany as a whole. Decline appeared complete in two volumes in 1922, four years after Germany’s defeat in the First World War and in the midst of the Weimar Republic struggling to get on its feet. As mentioned above, this contributed greatly to the book’s circulation, though it is unclear how many enthusiasts made an effort to read the entire text. Spengler found himself now ushered into higher intellectual circles, battling with intellectual greats over the value of his work, and once again able to enjoy the delicacies he had to go without for the duration of the War (he wrote that much of the work he did on Decline was done by candlelight). In 1919 he joined such famous names as Hermann Alexander Graf Keyserling (for his seminal work Reisetagebuch eines Philosophen, “Travel-Diary of a Philosopher”) and distinguished Kant scholar Dr. Hans Vaihinger (for his work Philosophie des Als Ob, “The Philosophy of As-If”) in being awarded the Nietzsche Archives’ “Distinguished Scholar Award” with an academic diploma and the sum of 1,500.00DM (roughly $45.00 in 1919).^[34]

Despite his acute sense of the depressing reality of his work, Spengler was materially well-off and led a generally comfortable life because of its popularity. He moved from the small flat where he had written Decline during the war to a spacious apartment that overlooked the Isar River. He decorated it with a variety of fine paintings, Chinese and Greek-styled vases, and other pieces obtained at auctions or gifted to him by admirers, and shocked visitors with his vast library, which literally lined the walls of his new home. He covered the fine hard-wood floors with even finer rugs, most markedly a strikingly red carpet in his office upon which he was known to pace endlessly in the night while he worked.^[35] He was, though, of relatively modest tastes, and was frugal with his money. He took holidays to Italy frequently, but otherwise only left Germany when another party could pay for his travel; his tastes at home included trips to the theatre, fine wines, and a regular supply of dark cigars. He never hired a housekeeper or married, and his sister Hildegard, widowed by the World War, would keep house for him. He rarely entertained and continued to devote himself to work. His work now, though, was not strictly scholarly.

A well-known name now, Spengler began to take a greater interest in politics than he had hitherto. He wrote to Admiral Alfred von Tirpitz in 1920 regarding the recovery of the flag from the SMS Scharnhorst, which was sunk in the Battle of the Falkland Islands in 1914, taking Admiral Maximillian Graf von Spee to the bottom with it; the flag, Spengler wrote, had fallen into the hands of an anti-German party who wished to send it to Britain to be a trophy of war, something offensive to Spengler as a German nationalist.^[36] Admiral von Tirpitz replied that he would refer the matter to the admiralty, but the flag was undoubtedly not that from the Scharnhorst’s main post, which went down flying, and therefore the value of the demands of the original owners for the flag (50,000-60,000DM) was probably not equal even to its sentimental value. The admiral added, probably much to Spengler’s satisfaction, that he had thoroughly enjoyed reading Prussianism and Socialism, and wrote “I only wish that your ideas could find response in the Marxist-infected working classes.”^[37]

The work Admiral Tirpitz praised so highly was Spengler’s second attempt to reflect on the Agadir crisis and the significance of German and British relations. Prussianism and Socialism appears in English translation by Donald O. White with a number of other shorter articles that Spengler penned in the early 1920s. The work appears in White’s 1967 collection Selected Essays, which is roughly a translation of Politischen Schriften, but making some omissions and drawing also from Rede und Aufsätze. The overall collection gives a decent introductory glance at Spengler’s social and political thought, which merits it some exposition here. Other works included in it are “Pessimism?”, which was written as a response to the charge levelled against Decline, his two speeches “The Two Faces of Russia and Germany’s Eastern Problems” (delivered to a conference of influential Ruhr industrialists in 1922) and “Nietzsche and his Century” (delivered at a conference hosted by the Nietzsche Archive in 1924 before Spengler severed ties with Elizabeth Förster-Nietzsche because of her alignment with Hitler ten years later), another short essay titled “On the German National Character”, published in 1927, and finally a brief response given by Spengler to a query posited internationally by Hearst International’s The Cosmopolitan, titled “Is World Peace Possible?”, which was published in what White calls “barely adequate translation” in 1936 alongside answers from Mohandas K. Gandhi, Eleanor Roosevelt, General Billy Mitchell, and Lin Yu-tang.^[38]

Prussianism and Socialism abandons Spengler’s earlier, less informed political alignment with the Kaiser, but beyond this minor change it expresses and sets the tone for almost all of Spengler’s other political writings before and after, including his final major work, Hour of Decision. It is also the work that initiated Spengler’s name into the collection of intellectuals and aristocrats that formed the “Conservative Revolution” movement in Weimar Germany. The names he is included with range from the completely obscure to the internationally famous. Among them are obscure authors like Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, for his work, later appropriated by the Nazis, Das Dritte Reich (1923—available in English as Germany’s Third Empire) and Edgar Julius Jung, who is seen as the leader of the movement, for his work Die Herrschaft der Minderwertigen (“The Reign of the Mediocre”, 1927), and more famously for Franz von Papen’s “Marburg Speech”, the last open condemnation of Nazism made in Weimar Germany. However, members of the movement also included men like the internationally acclaimed Ernst Jünger, for his famous memoir of the World War, In Stahlgewittern (first published in 1920 and having been revised by the author 7 times, it is now available in very good translation by Michael Hoffmann as Storm of Steel), Der Kampf als inneres Erlebnis (“Battle as Inner Experience”, 1922), Das Wäldchen 125 (“Copse 125”, 1925) and Feuer und Blut (“Fire and Blood”, 1925) as well as the famous and widely translated Carl Schmitt, now well known for his works Die Diktatur (1921—now available in translation as On Dictatorship), Politische Theologie (1922—available as Political Theology), Die geistesgeschichtliche Lage des heutigen Parlamentarismus (1923—now available in a good translation by Ellen Kennedy titled The Crisis of Parliamentary Democracy), and his extremely significant Der Begriff des Politischen (1926—now available as The Concept of the Political). The unifying feature of the movement was a desire to bridge the gap between nationalist conservatism and socialism, though another major factor was the distaste that all the men had for Adolf Hitler and his, in the words of Moeller van den Bruck, “proletarian primitiveness”.^[39]

Spengler’s interactions with other conservatives were largely done through his involvement in the Juniclub (“June Club”) a gathering of Conservatives and Monarchists who shared Spengler’s hatred of the Versailles Treaty (commonly known in Germany as the Versailles Diktat because of the lack of input allowed from the German delegation). Among the group’s founding members was Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, with whom Spengler had many encounters from 1919 until Moeller’s suicide in 1925 through lectures that both gave to the Juniclub. At the Juniclub he also had the opportunity to meet and begin correspondence with Crown Prince Rupprecht of Bavaria, Walther Rathenau, Erich Ludendorff, Hans von Seeckt, and create friendships and lasting ties to major industrialists like Paul Reusch, Roderich Schlubach, Alfred Hugenberg, Karl Helfferich, and Hugo Stinnes.^[40] Aside from Moeller, however, his encounters with the other major thinkers of the Conservative Revolutionary movement seemed few; he had some contact later with Jung, who wrote him on several occasions. However, his major inclination during his years of involvement with the Juniclub was toward becoming actively involved in conservative politics, not merely being a theoretician. His ambitions during this time were as disparate and far-flung as leading German intellectuals into politics and founding a newspaper cartel in imitation of William Randolph Hearst.^[41]

Spengler’s letters during this time are often brief (owing to his preference for meeting people rather than writing them) and to a wide variety of people, including invitations to tea with Erich Ludendorff and his wife, which he maintained as a regular affair until Ludendorff’s involvement in the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. There was also an extended correspondence with the German government regarding interaction with General Jan C. Smuts, who had invited General Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck (with whom Spengler also corresponded) to a dinner for African commanders of the war.^[42] He also met semi-regularly, it would seem, with the Prussian royal family; Crown Prince Wilhelm wrote him a number of times, and Spengler sent copies of his magnum opus to Huis Doorn. He also managed to elicit a positive response from Gregor Strasser, a prominent rival of Hitler’s in the National Socialist party who was murdered in the Night of the Long Knives.^[43]

Spengler, however, remained primarily a theoretician; he met many men with whom he had lasting friendships, but he was not a man of political action and he was acutely aware of that. Throughout his brief political career, he was advised by friends not to waste his genius on petty affairs of state, and he eventually gave in and retreated from public life in 1924 after five years of immense popularity and prolific writing. In addition to the one or two speeches and articles in the White collection, in 1924 alone Spengler published Frankreich und Europa (“France and Europe”), Aufgaben des Adels (“Tasks of the Nobility”), Politische Pflichten der deutschen Jugend (“Political Duties of the German Youth”), Neubau des deutschen Reiches (“Reconstruction of the German Reich”), Neue Formen der Weltpolitik (“New Forms of Global Politics”) all of which were derived from speeches and lectures he had given at the Juniclub or at various Industrial clubs and conferences during his involvement there. Some of them, including Politische Pflichten and Neubau would appear in Spengler’s Politischen Schriften of 1932, the others would only be published together in 1937 in the posthumous Reden und Aufsätze collection. The works, all expressing a common theme of the necessity to “reclaim socialism” from Marx and bring about a new birth of “Prussianism” in the German population, brought Spengler immense notoriety in Germany while Decline was making its way through foreign circles. Other presentations included his Das Verhältnis von Wirtschaft und Steuerpolitik seit 1750 (“The Relationship of Economy and Tax Policy since 1750”, 1924). His lectures drew tremendous crowds and he participated in a number of public debates between 1919 and 1924.

Prussianism and Socialism: A Brief Glance

Of all Spengler’s political writings and speeches, both from his public career and after, the most detailed and the most significant remains Prussianism and Socialism. In the work, Spengler makes two arguments, one unique to his own time and one with far-reaching relevance. The work’s principal argument surrounds the “true German spirit” with “the German Michel”, which Spengler declares “the sum of all our weaknesses: our fundamental displeasure at turns of events that demand attention and response; our urge to criticise at the wrong time; our pursuit of ideals instead of immediate action; our precipitate action at times when careful reflection is called for; our Volk as a collection of malcontents; our representative assemblies as glorified beer gardens.”^[44] The thrust of the work is a contrast between “English” parliamentarianism and liberalism, which the “German Michel” typifies, the Marxist socialist movement of the Sparticists, which at least has the integrity that the “German Michel” lacked, and real “German” socialism, which Spengler ties to Prussian military spirit and civic duty to create the “Prussian socialism” that he insists is the only way to bring about a rebirth of the German Reich.

The opening of Prussianism and Socialism declares the same sense of destiny found in Decline, quoting Seneca's aphorism ducunt volentem fata, nolentem trahunt (“Fate leads along the willing soul and drags the unwilling”).^[45] He declares that “the spirit of Old Prussia and the socialistic attitude, at present driven by brotherly hatred to combat each other, are in fact one in the same”, defining “socialism” itself, which he claims “everyone thinks… means something different”.^[46] Spengler’s hero of socialism is August Bebel, the Marxist founder of the SPD who was famously born in a Prussian army barracks. He praises Bebels’ party for its “militant qualities…the clattering footsteps of workers’ battalions, a calm sense of determination, good discipline, and the courage to die for a transcendent principle” and damns the SPD in power in the Weimar Republic for abandoning the revolution and throwing in its lot with the “foe of yesteryear” and encouraging the Freikorps to crush the Spartacists, who Spengler felt “retained a modicum of integrity”.^[47] It is not the Marxism of the Social Democrats Spengler admires, however; rather, it is their integrity and their dedication to their beliefs—something that simply does not exist for the “German Michel”, the contemporary parliamentarian.

He goes on to condemn the “so-called German Revolution” that took place in November, saying that the Germans “produced pedants, schoolboys, and gossips in the Paulskirche and in Weimar, petty demonstrations in the streets, and in the background a nation looking on with faint interest”—not at all what a real revolution entails, but something feeble, something belonging to the parliamentarian and the “German Michel”.^[48] Spengler establishes the foundation of Prussian Socialism with “the real German Socialist Revolution” which he says happened in 1914—a real revolution because it involved “the whole people: one outcry, one brazen act, one rage, one goal”.^[49] He further asserts that the revolution is not over—a notion he expands on in later speeches and essays. The Revolution of the German people cannot come to full fruition for Spengler and his fellow conservatives, until the German nation is truly born—for 1918 in Germany was not 1789 in France; the nation and the revolution were not the same.

He concludes that “Socialism is not an instinct of dark primeval origin… it is, rather, a political, social, and economic instinct of realistically-minded peoples, as such it is a product of one stage of our civilisation—not of our culture.”^[50] He asserts a thoroughly modern origin and a thoroughly modern role for socialism: the realistic, the enemy of the dictatorship of money and capitalism, defined in socialistic form by a sense of duty to the whole, that whole being the German nation. It is in this way that “all Germans are workers”, so that the failing of Marx, he asserts, is his inability to grasp anything more in Hegel, “who by and far represented Prussianism at its best” than mere method.^[51] Marx misleads socialism by creating class antagonism when in reality the bourgeois is a meaningless term, Spengler asserts—and the real enemy is the English spirit of mercantilism and parliamentarianism of the feeble “German Michel”; it is not worker against burgher, nor burgher against elite, but German against the Englishman in himself. This is why the German Revolution is incomplete: because the national revolution that unites and brings about the birth of the German nation has not been achieved.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of this and subsequent political texts is the complete absence of any mention of Germany’s Jews. Spengler did not believe, as many of his day did, that the Jewish people had any connexion to parliamentarianism or Marxism or Capitalism or any other distinctly Western phenomenon; rather Western man was at war with himself and himself alone in the conflict between Prussian Socialism and English Mercantilism, between Revolution and Cowardice. He calls Marx “an exclusively English thinker”, unable to see beyond mere economics and ignoring the notion of everyone working for the whole, but each in his own destined place—the King for Spengler’s socialist is “the first servant of the state”, in the highest place among the rest of the nation serving a single, national goal. It is such a different picture than the typical anti-Bolshevik stance in Germany that never tired of reminding the world of Marx’s Jewish origins (his grandfather was a rabbi). This, for Spengler, was as much a simplification as Marx’s class antagonism, because it directed anger and action toward an invented foe instead of directing it toward corrective measures in the West itself.

The Hermit-Scholar (Return to Private Life 1924-1930)

After he retreated from public life, Spengler returned to the lonely life of the hermit scholar, and rededicated himself to work on the theories put forth in Decline. His re-entry into politics was prevented both my deteriorating health as well as a decrease in opportunity with the rising tide of National Socialism. Of all the Conservative Revolutionary thinkers, only Jünger and Schmitt would live to see the Second World War, and their literary lives were even shorter; Spengler was silenced by the Nazi state as early 1933, Jung was murdered, along with several of Spengler’s friends, in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, and Moeller van den Bruck had a nervous breakdown and committed suicide as early as 1925. Others, like Hugo von Hofmannsthal and Stefan George (especially famous for his Das Neue Reich of 1928), died of natural causes, Hofmannsthal of a stroke in 1929, George four years later of old age. It is indubitable with his voracious appetite for the latest works that Spengler encountered these men through their writing, but no correspondence between them exists. This is not terribly surprising—Spengler wrote letters when he felt the passion to do so (such as to Admiral Tirpitz), or when it furthered his studies (such as the many letters to academics and professors). This was not out of a dislike of people; rather, it was because he detested the task of writing letters and preferred to grant an interview or meet with friends in person, something he did frequently—his sister, Hilde, who became primary caretaker of his estate after his death, remarked that “he always disliked writing letters, even when he was a child.”^[52] Those political letters he did write he wisely burned in 1933 to protect himself and others from the National Socialist state.

The return to private living gave Spengler a tremendous opportunity to begin scholarly work again after some years of pamphleteering (something he himself hated, remarking to a friend in 1919, referring to Prussianism and Socialism that “I am not a born journalist and consequently I wrote out 500 pages of rough draft in four weeks and then started paring to get 100 pages of readable German. I realise now how I ought to work and shall never again accept any assignment that carries a deadline with it”).^[53] He never ceased his correspondences with high-level academics and contributors in almost every field of study, but after 1924 he was able to begin to write more widely. He wrote frequently to Elizabeth Förster-Nietzsche and it was in 1924 after his departure from public life that he presented his paper “Nietzche and His Century”.

From 1925 onward his time was dominated by lectures, correspondences, and his old reading habits. He took several holidays in Italy and elsewhere, and as early as 1925 was in correspondence with Benito Mussolini, who would write a review of Hour of Decision in 1933 for Il Popolo d’Italia in December of that year. The Italian dictator, it would seem, was somewhat reserved about Spengler, who he felt tread close to Fascism but was not close enough.^[54] He was not alone; after Spengler’s retreat from politics, was when his works came under heaviest fire from popular political personalities. His correspondence with Gregor Strasser in 1925 displays the chief dispute with Spengler, which seems to be his dislike of “popular movements”, like National Socialism, which he regarded as vulgar and mob-driven.^[55] Aside from these, however, the bulk of his letters are not with political men but with academics.

The reason for this likely had much to do with Germany’s growing stability after 1925. Arthur Helps, who translated Spengler’s letters, suggests that Spengler left the public sphere precisely because of this; however, it is more likely that Spengler simply tired of the time he spent in the public eye—the constant assault of attention from both enthusiastic supporters and detractors of all stripes wore on the man whose sensitivity was well-known only to his sister and perhaps very close friends. He was a man who throughout his life was soft-hearted and sympathetic, ever striving to overcome the little boy whose nightmares in his bedroom in Halle haunted him vividly until he was well into his forties; the image he had inadvertently created of the hard-hearted, iron-willed prophet of doom was not an easy persona for him to fulfil on a constant basis, and put tremendous stress on his body. Fischer observes in his biographical sketch that “he agonised about his weaknesses with the same honesty as Rousseau did in the Confessions, with the difference that Spengler rarely tried to project his shortcomings on society… [he] believed that, in the final analysis, the individual has to assume responsibility for his own weaknesses”.^[56]

Spengler’s physical weaknesses became acute during his time in politics, as the stress increased his headaches and other ailments. In 1925, rarely does a letter mention an illness or time of sickness—he seemed to recover from his ailments from getting away from stress of politics and the dismal state in which he perceived his beloved German Reich to be. He took cures in the sun of Italy, writing in February of 1925 from Palermo, after which he travelled to Rome and elsewhere.^[57] In 1926, deep in the scholarly world once again, Spengler was invited by the Philosophical Congress in the United States to travel to America and conduct a lecture tour (C.F. Atkinson’s translation of the first volume of Decline appeared that very year). His excuse for declining the offer was that he felt America would leave too deep an impression on him that would disrupt the work he was conducting on his latest book (still unfinished at his death), Urfragen (“Primordial Questions”). His letters are strewn with questions to experts and professors of ancient history after information about Babylonian tablets and other Middle Eastern interests.

These interests, as a preparation for Urfragen, had begun as early as 1924, when Spengler appeared before the Oriental Institute in Munich with a lecture titled “Plan eines neuen Atlas Antiquus” (“Plan for a new Atlas Antiquus”), which detailed the need of a new cartographic project to map the ancient world within the scope of the Apollonian Kultur-Zivilisation organism.^[58] The general thrust of his work, whether this lecture or the later letters to colleagues, is a collaborative effort that would overcome the increasing specialisation of history already in its adolescence in Spengler’s day and still increasing in contemporary academic history. During subsequent years he also became first enthralled and then embroiled with the famous archaeologist and ethnographer of Africa, Leo Frobenius, whose initial agreement with cyclical history caught Spengler’s attention, but his argued proofs for slow, gradual development of civilisations drew the censure of the author of Decline, who believed in epochal moments rather than gradual evolution (he detested all forms of Darwinism). His correspondence took him in more positive directions with the famous Assyriologist Alfred Jeremias, who took an immense interest in Spengler’s work.

Most striking about Spengler’s time as a private scholar in the late 1920s was the vast amount of interest being generated in his works abroad. 1927 saw contacts coming from The New York Times attempting to solicit an article from him; the paper had featured him in full-page articles twice before, and after including him in an article “Will our Civilization Survive?” of 1925, hoped he might appear in print with them—they even offered a sum of $100, which was no small sum of money in Germany at the time.^[59] No response to their inquest ever came, however, and it does not appear Spengler showed any interest in taking up any journalistic venture. A query that Spengler felt did merit response came from André Fauconnet, a professor at Poitiers whose Un philosophe allemeand contemporain Oswald Spengler. Le prophète du déclin de l'Occident (“A Contemporary German Philosopher: Oswald Spengler, the Prophet of the Decline of the Occident”) appeared in 1925. He also received an invitation to speak at the University of Saragossa, which promised he could speak in German and translations of his speech would be distributed beforehand.^[60] Spengler accepted the engagement, spending the entire month of April of 1928 on holiday in Spain; he loved the climate and found the place to have a profoundly positive affect on his demeanour—he even did some mountain climbing. He wrote his sister Hilde from Granada (where he stayed for about a week), “Grenada is beautiful beyond all description… I could live here”, and, later that week, that “here every day pleases me better”.^[61]

During all of his touring and international correspondence, Spengler did manage to make one or two forays back into political life; the first occasion was a speech in Düsseldorf before the Industry-Club titled “Das heutige Verhältnis zwischen Weltwirtschaft und Weltpolitik” (“The Contemporary Relationship between World Economics and World Politics”) in 1926, and was solicited by Edgar Julius Jung a year later to make a speech before the German Student Union, historically a hotbed for right-wing politics. 1927 also saw him begin writing on the topic again, with “Zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Deutschen Presse” (“Toward a Developmental History of the German Press”) appearing in the Der Zeitungsverlag and “Vom Deutscher Volkscharakter” (“On the German National Character”) appearing in Deutschland the same year. After some time of soliciting his attention, Richard Korherr also finally convinced Spengler to write a brief introduction to his thesis “Über den Geburtenrückgang” (“Regarding the Decline of Birthrates”) of two years previous, which the author had dedicated to Spengler. Korherr hounded Spengler with information of the thesis, especially when it was translated into Italian by deputies of Mussolini’s in 1928.^[62] Spengler regarded the young student well, and congratulated him on his success; he would probably not have had so positive a view of the young Dr. Korherr twelve years later, when he became one of Heinrich Himmler’s most loyal lieutenants in executing the “Final Solution”.^[63]

Cassandra (Last Writings and Death, 1930-1936)

The years of 1929 and 1930 were eventful for Germany, but for Spengler much of the same that he had experienced in the second half of the 1920s. His pessimism was beginning to be proven true, with the stock market crash in 1929 and the swift rise of National Socialist and German Communist party power in the shattered Weimar Republic. In September 1930, the results gave the Nazis 107 seats in the Reichstag, and increased the Communist seats from 54 to 77. When the Reichstag took its seats, no business could be conducted, with the National Socialist “delegates” showing up in full uniform, sometimes with flags, interrupting the proceedings with chants, shouts, and songs; the Communists, not to be outdone, followed suit, and together they made a mockery of what was left of Weimar democracy.^[64] Spengler was generally not disappointed with the turn of events, and, having put his Urfragen project on hold, wrote a prolegomena to his planned work titled Der Mensch und die Technik (“Man and Technics”) in 1931.

The work can hardly be said to be of the same calibre as Decline or even of Prussianism and Socialism—but then, it was never meant to be. The most important introductory note that can be given on Man and Technics is that it is fundamentally meant to be a primer for planned works. It is, by and large, a restatement of things said in Decline, and an expansion on the relationship between human beings and the tools they create. Fischer describes the book by saying “Spengler tried to show that primitive man was a magnificent predatory animal who possessed two major advantages over other beasts of prey: a superior brain and ambidextrous hands.”^[65] The work is a true experiment in Nietzschean psychology by Fischer’s estimate: a tragic conflict between a naturally savage and predatory human being with the moral codes he makes to contain his savagery, but he cannot flee from it, for as he develops his technology, he also develops his means of savagery, and therefore his savagery itself.^[66]

In greater detail, the book develops themes of conflict between man and external nature as well. Farrenkopf highlights that Spengler sees a religious grounding for this conflict—a suggestion not lost on several subsequent environmentalists—declaring that Spengler “claims to have uncovered the ‘religious origins’ of Western technical thought in the meditations of early Gothic monks, who in their prayers and fastings wrung God’s secrets from Him.”^[67] Farrenkopf, working at the turn of the twenty-first century, attempts to make Spengler the prophet of “climate change” and “ecological disasters”, and points to a thesis in his own work—that Spengler’s thought changed from Decline to his later works—to say that Spengler was arguing for the inevitable failure of mankind’s struggle against nature. Whether his thesis has merit or not is not really a line of inquiry this introduction need undertake, but the conflict and eventual failure of humankind because of its own “progress” is certainly present in the work. A line from Decline of the West, quoted above, accurately encapsulates the entire purpose of Man and Technics: “the giant city sucks the country dry, insatiably and incessantly demanding and devouring fresh streams of men, till it wearies and dies in the midst of an almost uninhabited waste of country.”^[68]

The urban sprawl and disappearance of the “green belt” that contemporary commentators, especially in America, where there is so much of the “green belt”, have witnessed is somewhat captured in this picture. The dangers of an industrial dystopia and plea for an agrarian Reich was one also being preached by the National Socialists at this time—Walther Darré’s 1928 pamphlet “Das Bauerntum als Lebensquell der nordischen Rasse” (“The Peasantry as the Life-source of the Nordic Race”) stands as a testament to that. The Nazis, though, were better at selling their message than Spengler was his own, primarily because of what each promised the German people. Spengler promised that the path of Western civilisation was destined and irreversible, and the coming destruction guaranteed by the very nature of Faustian man of his home-soil should be greeted with a Nietzschean amor fati. The Germans in 1931 were in no mood to hear that they were themselves to blame for their situation, and that it was an inescapable destiny.

The Nazis, on the other hand, gave the Germans an enemy—the Jews—that were causing this industrialisation and destruction of the nation, and if they could just get rid of them, there was a bright hope and future for Germans. The German people declared which message they preferred with dismal sales for Man and Technics, and subsequent tremendous victories at the ballot for the National Socialists. Hitler’s biographer, Lord Bullock gives a deep insight into the exact state of affairs; “taking 1928 as a measuring rod,” he declares, “the gains made by Hitler – close on thirteen million in four years – are still more striking,” adding that by early 1932, “with a voting strength of 13,700,000 electors, a party membership of over a million and a private army of 400,000 S.A. and S.S., Hitler was the most powerful political leader in Germany, knocking on the doors of the Chancellery at the head of the most powerful political party Germany had ever seen.”^[69]

Spengler was shocked, if not a little appalled, by this turn of events. To Spengler, as he had been to Moeller, Adolf Hitler was an idiot in the scientific sense of the word: a vulgar proletarian clown shouting and flailing his arms and playing about in the muck, not a statesman who could lead Germany to her rebirth or a realistic forward-thinker. For the time being, though, there were few other options, and Spengler was willing to give the Führer the benefit of the doubt before meeting him—a meeting at which he hoped that his stature as one of Germany’s leading conservative intellectuals might moderate the Austrian firebrand somewhat.^[70] He was dreadfully wrong.

Spengler met with Hitler in 1933 at the invitation of the National Socialist Party, hoping to make use of Spengler’s sustained popularity. Fischer describes the meeting, of which little account exists on either side. It was Hitler, characteristically, who did most of the talking when the two men met, and used all of his well-accounted-for charm. Spengler was sufficiently fooled that Hitler, though a clown, was a well-meaning clown who basically wanted what was best for Germany. He nevertheless would remark later that “sitting next to him one did not gain the slightest inkling that he represented anything significant”—the jobless Austrian post-card painter may have built himself up into a powerful and captivating demagogue, but in the end he remained the disaffected young delinquent who wandered the streets of Munich and Vienna building a fantasy world in which he was important.^[71] According to a popular anecdote, when the men had finished their encounter, Hitler asked Spengler for advice, to which the scholar enigmatically replied “watch your Praetorian guard!” a comment many have taken to be a bit of advice Hitler acted on in the Night of the Long Knives, when he purged his “praetorian guard” and replaced it—the S.A.—with a new one, the S.S. There is no evidence that this is accurate, but if it is, as Fischer asserts, it would be the first time Spengler had any direct influence on a public leader.^[72]

It was not long, however, before the spell of Hitler’s charm over coffee wore off. The Nazis went on to preach a proletarian utopian future founded fundamentally in scapegoating the Jews and answering Germany’s problems with “party-theatre” of mass rallies and a well-tuned propaganda machine. It was in answer to the delusions of the National Socialist political machine that Spengler wrote his final book, Jahre der Entscheidung (“Years of Decision”, more popularly known in translation as Hour of Decision) in 1933. This work, largely considered Spengler’s most overtly political and explicit in its message, was banned by the Nazis as soon as they figured out what was in it—which took them a full year, even after one of their own published a critique of the book (Arthur Zweininger’s Oswald Spengler im dritten Reich), by which time the book had already made it into English translation and had received extensive comment by The New York Times.^[73] Spengler also, naïvely, sent a signed copy directly to Hitler, accompanied by an expression of hope that the two might meet and discuss the work in the future.^[74] Hitler consented to meet, but disparaged Spengler’s pessimism in what he was selling as Germany’s brightest hour.

Jahre der Entscheidung deserves some specific attention to be paid to it. The first thing worth mention is that it was originally intended to be the first volume of a several-volume work, but after it was banned in 1934, Spengler abandoned the work, writing Goebbels that he would only write the conclusions of his own mind and that he would “not write books for confiscation”.^[75]

The press was especially cruel to the new work, evoking (despite Fischer’s claims to the opposite) a number of highly sympathetic letters to Spengler from old conservative colleagues like Alfred Hugenburg, Crown Prince Wilhelm, Carl Friedrich Goerdeler (later executed as a resistance leader), as well as some new names, including Grand Duke Joseph Franz von Habsburg, who was enthralled by the new work, and Rudolf Graber, a professor of Theology and later Bishop of Regensburg. Despite the press and the Nazis, however, the book was initially a tremendous success, especially compared with Man and Technics. Heinrich Beck wrote to Spengler in November of 1933 that “the success of your Jahre der Entscheidung already surpasses, at least as far as tempo is concerned, The Decline of the West. You will certainly be pleased and I am proud also of publishing such a book.”^[76] The Roman Curia was also impressed, and allowed the book to be placed by the Cardinal Hayes Literature Committee in the “First Circle” of their “White List” for Roman Catholics in America; the section was named for the First Circle of Hell in Dante’s inferno, where honest pre-Christian thinkers who were valuable to Christianity resided—on the White List proper for that year were titles like Essays in History by Pope Pius XI.^[77]

The contents of the book are significant not just for Spengler’s life, but to his overall philosophy as well. Spengler frequently uses what critics have called “fetishistic” terms in his works like “blood”, “race”, “soul”, etc. The accusations of critics were left largely unanswered until Jahre der Entscheidung, which saw Spengler for the first time seriously take on the task of defining what he meant by “race” especially. Benito Mussolini, at the time still in his virulent anti-racist stage, received a copy of the work almost immediately after it was published, and wrote a review of the work highlighting that “Spengler clearly wishes to differentiate his views from the vulgar, materialistic Darwinism now fashionable among anti-Semites in Europe and America” (words he was in fact borrowing from Spengler) and points to Spengler’s declaration that “ ‘racial unity’ is a grotesque phrase considering that for centuries all types and kinds have mixed.”^[78]

Spengler does indeed use the word “race”; however, he defines against the biological racial theories of Chamberlain, Gobineau and the various authors of National Socialism. “Race” to Spengler was captured in a spiritual feeling or will of a culture—thus in Jahre der Entscheidung, even the Russians find themselves included in Spengler’s “Coloured World”. The Faustian soul—and the Faustian will—that is the Faustian “race”. Farrenkopf observes from reading Spengler’s unpublished political writings that “Race for Spengler meant having ‘strong instincts’”, something reflected in Gedanken, where Spengler says “Men without race are without Will. Indeed, the more of a “race” one has, the more resolute is his sense of self”.^[79] Spengler references this notion in Man and Technics as well, concluding with the exemplary of a man with “strong race”, the legionary who kept his post in Pompey as Vesuvius erupted because his superiors had forgotten to relieve him; “It is greatness, namely to have race”.^[80] This sort of conception of race is one that has fled the English and German languages (and most other languages, really) in the wake of the biological racialist movements of the early twentieth century, but is still present in English when one says “the human race”—but for Spengler, there is no “human race”, there are different spiritual types of humans. Farrenkopf quotes him “There are not any noble races. There are only noble specimens of all races.”^[81]

With this sense of “race” in mind, Spengler portrays two revolutions taking place in the coming decades and centuries: a White World-Revolution and a Coloured World-Revolution, the former of which will be a class revolution, and the latter will be a racial revolution. As he suggested in Decline, the Occident is failing, and some other Kultur-Zivilisation organisms must come into itself in order to replace the dying Faustian Zivilisation. This is what is meant in the “Coloured World-Revolution”; a collapse of the Western direct control over the rest of the world and the beginning of a new birth. The “White World-Revolution”, on the other hand, will be one of class: not because of Bolshevism, but because of the liberalism that destroyed the social structure of the West in the Autumnal season and brought about the new sense of egalitarianism. These combined “World-Revolutions” must ultimately arise from a great World War which Spengler foresees in the near future; it is his hope that the War will set the West back on its path toward Ceasarism, and begin the final phase of decay which has been prevented, be believes, by the defeat of the “Prussian Spirit” in the First World War; he therefore proclaims at the end of the work that, “Only the militarist Prussian spirit remains as a shaping force, not only for Germany, but everywhere.”^[82]

Farrenkopf offers the critique that Spengler does not sufficiently “probe” into “how geopolitical competition among non-Western powers will interact with the conflict between the West and the non-West”.^[83] Nevertheless, for a German in a time of when the general feeling of the nation was one of peace and plenty, to foresee a world-shattering global conflict that would bring about a post-colonial age is hauntingly astute, and speaks to the significance of Spengler’s overall corpus to contemporary political and historical study. Another testament to his skills of prophecy is the very military power gained by the United States subsequent to the Second World War; Farrenkopf also observes that Spengler discounted America but nevertheless may be applied in an American paradigm.

With all the talk of “race” and the “militaristic Prussian spirit” and Spengler’s relationship to National Socialism, it seems fitting that a special word be said of Spengler’s relationship to the Jewish community. He himself found anti-Semitism especially abhorrent, and recognised it for exactly what it was: namely, social and political scapegoating. As Fischer observes, “Spengler observed that the character of the Jew was moulded by his position as an outsider…[who is] generally forced to adopt attitudes that are inimical to the mainstream of society,” which is why they are viewed as threats; the only solution Spengler could see for the Jews to escape this inevitable situation was to assimilate or, though Spengler never suggests it, to leave.^[84] A similar conclusion was reached by Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, in his 1896 Der Judenstaat, which proposed the second option: that the Jews remove themselves from European society physically to escape anti-Semitism.

After his name was officially banned from the press and his book taken off the shelves in German bookstores, Spengler once again retreated from the public eye, this time never to return. Unlike other intellectuals of the day, he declined offers to university jobs, including the rectorship of the University of Leipzig’s Institute for Cultural and Universal History and a professorship at the University of Marburg. He was, nevertheless, honoured in 1933 with membership in the Senate of the German Academy, which he maintained even after his work was officially censored by the Nazi state. He was encouraged by friends to flee Germany and emigrate to America or England and continue his studies, but he refused to leave. He did, however, continue his work on Urfragen and his other unfinished book, Frühzeit der Weltgeschichte. He still received some attention from other countries, and in 1935 wrote an article entitled “Zur Weltgeschichte des zweiten vorchristlichen Jahrtausends” (“Toward a World History of the Second Millennium BC”) in the journal Die Welt als Geschichte.

Spengler’s final contribution while he was alive was a reply to a cable from Hearst International Cosmopolitan magazine, which at the time was still a respectable publication that gave attention to serious global political issues. The work, entitled Ist Weltfriede moeglich? (“Is World Peace Possible?”) was translated by editors of the magazine and published in January of 1936. This last work is largely ignored by Spengler biographers, but is rather his last real political offering, in which he expressed that the question was one that “can only be answered by someone familiar with world history… [which] means to know most humans as they have been and always will be.”^[85] His next words encapsulate his “strong pessimism”, when he says that “there is a vast difference… between viewing the history of the future as it shall be and as one might like it to be. Peace is the wish, war is an actuality”: he echoes his introduction to Jahre der Entscheidung, “it is the great task of the connoisseur of history to understand the actualities of his age and, using them, to sense the future, to indicate and to sketch out what will come, whether we desire it or not.”^[86] He follows it saying that, ultimately, man will always resort to violence in some form or another. He declares that a man may “be branded a criminal, a class can be called revolutionary or traitorous, a people bloodthirsty, but that does not alter the actuality” that violence is in escapable.^[87]

He then repeats a his message to the Western world, hoping perhaps for an audience in liberal America where he had lost his in Germany: “It is a deadly reality that today only the white peoples speak of ‘world peace’, not the many coloured peoples. As long as individual thinkers and idealists do this—and they have done it in all ages—it is ineffective. When, on the other hand, entire peoples become pacifistic, it is a symptom of senility. Strong and unspent breeds do not do it: it is abandonment of the future, because the pacifist ideal is a terminal state that contradicts the reality of life.”^[88] Spengler would go to his grave convinced that half of the Occident had adopted this very abandonment of the future, and the other half had gone mad on the drunkenness of National Socialism. Fischer observes that “convinced of the truth of his ideas, Spengler seems to have resigned himself to a life of quiet desperation.”^[89] His desperation ended before the dawn of the 8th of May 1936, when a sudden heart attack mercifully took him from the world before he could witness his most recent predictions of death and doom become reality.

Eleven days after Spengler’s death, his closest friend, August Albers, who Fischer calls his “philosophical sounding board”, which he had been since Decline in 1917, threw himself in front of a train, unable to cope with the absence of his mentor and friend. His sister collected his papers and would spend the rest of her life handling the publication of his remaining papers; her daughter would devote most of her academic life to studying and publicising his contributions to history, politics, and philosophy. Paul Reusch chose and paid for the grave marker, a simple block of polished black granite with SPENGLER etched across it in stark white letters. Beneath it Spengler rests holding a copy of Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Goethe’s Faust.

---

[1] H. Stuart Hughes, Oswald Spengler: A Critical Estimate (New York: Charles Scribner Sons, 1952), 1.

[2] Anton Mirko Koktanek, Oswald Spengler in Seiner Zeit (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1968), 435.

[3] Koktanek, Spenger in Seiner Zeit, 427.

[4] Oswald Spengler, Ich beneide jeden, der lebt, ed. Gilbert Merlio and Hilde Kornhardt (Munich: C.H. Beck, 2007), 16. The original title of the text was to be Eis heauton, in imitation of Marcus Aurelius, and the manuscript was originally edited by Spengler’s niece and her mother, both named Hilde Kornhardt.

[5] Spengler, Ich beneide, 14.

[6] John Farrenkopf, Prophet of Decline, (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 2001), 9.

[7] Koktanek, Spengler in Seiner Zeit, 19.

[8] Farrenkopf, Prophet, 7-8.

[9] Farrenkopf, Prophet, 8-9.

[10] Klaus P. Fischer, History and Prophecy: Oswald Spengler and the Decline of the West (New York: Peter Lang, 1989), 34.

[11] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 35.

[12] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 36.

[13] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 36.

[14] Farrenkopf, Prophet, 11.

[15] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 28.

[16] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 37.

[17] Spengler, Ich beneide, 73.

[18] Farrenkopf, Prophet, 15.

[19] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 45.

[20] Oswald Spengler, Der Untergang des Abendlandes, (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1969), x.

[21] Thomas A. Brady, German Histories in the Ages of Reformations (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2009), 3.

[22] G.W.F. Hegel, Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts (Leiden: A.H. Adriani, 1902), 238.

[23] Oswald Spengler, Decline of the West, trans. C.F. Atkinson (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1928), 21. He derives this notion from Goethe, who says in a letter to Heinrich Luden (†1847), “‘Die Menschheit’? Das ist ein Abstraktum. Es hat von jeher nur Menschen gegeben und wird nur Menschen geben.” (“‘Mankind’? It is an abstraction. There have only ever been men and will only ever be men.”) (p 28¹)

[24] The proper rendering of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft in English is highly disputed among translators; the former is often translated as “community” but may also be understood (perhaps more clearly) as “communion”, while the latter is rendered both as “society” and “association,” with the latter being favoured in recent scholarship. Cf. Ferdinand Tönnies: A New Evaluation, ed. Werner J. Cahnman (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1973).

[25] Ferdinand Tönnies, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (Berlin: Karl Curtius, 1912), 3-4.

[26] Spengler, Decline, 109.

[27] Spengler, Decline, 31.

[28] Spengler, Decline, 53.

[29] Spengler, Decline, 212.

[30] Spengler, Decline, 191-192.

[31] Oswald Spengler, Jahre der Entscheidung (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1933), 43. He doesn’t, however, make clear what the implications of Stalin’s “modernisation” policies and the five-year plan might be.

[32] Oswald Spengler, “Pessimismus?” in Rede und Aufsätze (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1937), 63-64.

[33] Spengler, Decline, 485. N.B. The notion of “race” here should not be understood as the restrictive biological concept but retaining its nineteenth-century use as a term for a broad cultural unit.

[34] Oswald Spengler, Letters 1913-1936, trans. Arthur Helps (London: George Allen Unwin, 1966), 87.

[35] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 68.

[36] Spengler, Letters, 92.

[37] Spengler, Letters, 93.

[38] Donald O. White, Introduction to Selected Essays, by Oswald Spengler, trans. and ed. Donald O. White (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1967), xiii.

[39] Timothy Ryback, Hitler’s Private Library (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2008), 112.

[40] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 61.

[41] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 61.

[42] Spengler, Letters, 133-138.

[43] Spengler, Letters, 181.

[44] Spengler, Selected Essays, 7.

[45] Spengler, Selected Essays, 3.

[46] Spengler, Selected Essays, 1, 3.

[47] Spengler, Selected Essays, 10-11.

[48] Spengler, Selected Essays, 13.

[49] Spengler, Selected Essays, 13.

[50] Spengler, Selected Essays, 29.

[51] Spengler, Selected Essays, 92.

[52] Spengler, Letters, 11.

[53] White, Introduction, xi.

[54] Benito Mussolini, “Anni decisive di Osvaldo Spengler”, Il Popolo d’Italia, 15 December 1933, p. 16.

[55] Spengler, Letters, 184.

[56] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 71.

[57] Spengler, Letters, 180.

[58] Cf. Oswald Spengler, Reden und Aufsätze (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1937), 96.

[59] Spengler, Letters, 211; “Will Our Civilization Survive?” New York Times, 24 May 1925, SM1; “Doom of Western Civilization,” New York Times, 2 May 1926, BR1. 

[60] Spengler, Letters, 222.

[61] Spengler, Letters, 229.

[62] Spengler, Letters, 203, 204, 219-220, 235.

[63] Spengler, Letters, 203¹.

[64] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 73.

[65] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 66.

[66] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 66.

[67] Farrenkopf, Prophet, 202.

[68] Spengler, Decline, 109.

[69] Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 217-218.

[70] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 74.

[71] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 74.

[72] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 74.

[73] William McDonald, “Spengler’s New Challenge” New York Times, 11 February 1934.

[74] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 78.

[75] Farrenkopf, Prophet, 238.

[76] Spengler, Letters, 291.

[77] “June ‘White List’ of Books Issued” New York Times, 26 May, 1934, p. 15.

[78] Spengler, Jahre der Entscheidung, 157.

[79] Farrenkopf, Prophet, 256; Oswald Spengler, Gedanken, (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1941), 23.

[80] Spengler, Der Mensch und die Technik (Munich: C.H. Beck, 1931), 89.

[81] Farrenkopf, Prophet, 256.

[82] Spengler, Jahre der Entscheidung, 165.

[83] Farrenkopf, Prophet, 258.

[84] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 76.

[85] Spengler, Reden und Aufsätze, 292.

[86] Spengler, Reden und Aufsätze, 292; Spengler, Jahre der Entscheidung, vii.

[87] Spengler, Reden und Aufsätze, 292.

[88] Spengler, Reden und Aufsätze, 292-293.

[89] Fischer, History and Prophecy, 68.

Philosophy as a Way of Life

Natella Speranskaya

Ex: https://medium.com

The Philosophy has long ceased to be a way of life, a manner of being, it has become a field of research, a “philosophical speech”; it no longer thinks of the basic principles, it no longer deals with the transformation of thinking, the formation of the mind and soul, the inner transformation of man. The ancient Greek was engaged in philosophy, which was for him an existential choice, a form of life, a way of thinking. And reading the works of Heraclitus, Pherecides, or Empedocles was for him a “spiritual exercises” (Pierre Hadot), a strong-willed personal practice.

The philosophical writings of thinkers of the Hellenistic and Roman era were not aimed at informing, but at forming and transforming the thinking of readers. Pythagoras, Plato, and Aristotle did not philosophize in front of their students to provide them with as much information as possible, they were engaged exclusively in the formation of minds, opening up to their listeners other ontological levels, other modes of being they pushed them to an internal transformation comparable to that experienced by initiates in the mysteries.

As Pierre Hadot rightly points out, the texts of early thinkers were not a statement of a certain system (for the first time the idea of systematic philosophy will appear only in the medieval scholar Francisco Suarez), they were “spiritual exercises” aimed at transforming the individual. Philosophy in Antiquity was a mode of existence that required the philosopher to be internally transformed and personally involved in every moment of his life. Spiritual exercises involved the whole Mind. Nevertheless, modern historians of philosophy continue to approach the philosophy of Antiquity with the standards of the Middle Ages and Modern times, i.e. they persist in seeing it as a theoretical and abstract activity, but not as a practice. Philosophy has ceased to be thought of as a way of life. Hadot believed that this was a consequence of the absorption of philosophy by Christianity.

In the scholastics of the Middle Ages, theology and philosophy were at a considerable distance from each other, and philosophy was relegated to the rank of “the Handmaid of Theology”. It was only during the Renaissance that we rediscovered Seneca, Epictetus, and later Marcus Aurelius, and then also Cicero, and Epicureanism, and realized that philosophy can be a way of life. Andre van der Braak also writes that philosophy ceased to be a way of life with the rise of Christianity. He points out that Nietzsche sought to revive the Greek approach to philosophizing as a way of life. We can add that the same goal was pursued by Michel Foucault and Ludwig Wittgenstein.

When we begin to read the texts of ancient thinkers, we should once and for all abandon the habit of applying to them the value system of modernity. “Before that, I considered philosophical texts — whether they are texts of Aristotle, or St. Thomas, or Bergson-as if they are timeless and words always have the same meaning that does not depend on the epoch. I realized that we need to take into account the evolution of thoughts and mentalities over the centuries, “ admits Pierre Hadot. The texts of ancient philosophy and the texts of modern philosophy cannot be perceived in the same way. Hadot believes that the philosophical texts of Antiquity were always intended for limited public and had very specific recipients-either a group of students or a specific follower to whom they were written. For example, according to the testimony of Porphyry, Plotinus wrote his work in response to the questions asked by the audience. The teaching of philosophy for three centuries, that is, from Socrates to the first century, was almost always presented in a question-and-answer scheme. Dialogue as a philosophical genre has almost disappeared today, replaced by systematic treatises. Hadot himself is very skeptical about the possibility of reviving the Dialogic character of ancient philosophy in our days.

To know that Pierre Hadot means by “spiritual exercises”, need to find out what he invests in the concept of “Spirit.” Spirit he calls what Plotinus called Intellect, Nous, the Highest Reality. Nous is that which is between the One and the plurality. Pierre Hadot: “I would define spiritual exercises as voluntary, personal practices intended to bring about a transformation of the individual, a transformation of the self.” Before to stop the choice on the epithet of “spiritual”, he considered various options: intellectual exercises, ethical exercises, mental exercises, soul exercises, and finally, in his intention to talk about the philosophical tradition in Greco-Roman antiquity, Hadot stopped at «spiritual exercises». Then he explained at length than these spiritual exercises are not exactly (for example, they are not synonymous with “theological” or “religious”, since the latter are no more than a part of them).

If Pierre Hadot had stopped at the adjective “ethical”, he would have had to go into lengthy explanations. How do we interpret the word “ethics”? Commonly it is believed that ethics is a doctrine of morality, of virtue, however, let’s turn our attention to the Greek word ἦθος, ethos (“character”, “disposition”, “temper”), and especially to the famous dictum of Heraclitus: ἦθος ἀνθρώπῳ δαίμων (which can be translated as: “A man’s character is his daimon”). Daimon, i.e. the intermediary between the divine world and the human world (without the negative connotations that appeared in the post-antique era). The word ἦθος also has the meaning of “whereabouts”. And what are these whereabouts, if not the intermediate midpoint where a person and a deity meet/merge and/or collide? The middle, according to Aristotle, is that which always chooses virtue. This is her whereabouts. When the immoralist Nietzsche attacked modern morality, he did it in the name of “virtue in the Renaissance style, virtù, virtue free of moralic acid.”

According to the Hadot, the formation of minds was the basis of the Humanities. Can philosophy be attributed to the Humanities? Andrii Baumeister emphasizes that the term “Humanities” appeared in the Renaissance, in the XV century, but the philosophy is much older. In this case, can philosophy be considered a humanitarian science? The Humanities focus on man, on an anthropocentric understanding of the world, while philosophy can act as a path that leads beyond the “ Human, All Too Human”. (Nietzsche).

The philosopher Peter Kingsley was able to revive the Greek approach to philosophy as a way of life. “As I was drawn back into the world of the Presocratics, as I became absorbed into the ancient Greek texts they had left behind, I soon started discovering something different. These so-called philosophers weren’t theoretical thinkers or speculators, and they were nothing like rationalists in the modern sense. Many of them were immensely powerful spiritual beings. Greek texts which I was soon to realize had been misunderstood and mistranslated for centuries reveal when the distortions and mistaken interpretations are blown away, extraordinary spiritual teachings and extremely potent meditation techniques that can still be applied and practiced nowadays. I practiced them myself and was transformed. I had been brought into direct contact with the lineage and teachings of the ancient Masters who, at the dawn of our civilization, helped shape the Western world and bring our culture into being, “ says Peter Kingsley.

“He recounts a conversation in the Classics Department at UCLA after a talk on Parmenides. A faculty member complained that Kingsley is too dogmatic, that his interpretation is no better than anyone else’s. Kingsley responded: “But you and I are not the same. You read Parmenides so that you can change his meaning to suit yourself. I read Parmenides so that he can change me,” John Bussanich writes.

The very concept of “philosophy” should receive a different meaning. Remember Nietzsche’s words: “The very fact that Dionysus is a philosopher, and that therefore Gods also philosophize, seems to be a novelty which is not unensnaring”? It is known that Nietzsche called himself a disciple of the philosopher Dionysus. It is certain that by philosophizing, the man enters into the sphere of the divine. Much earlier, in the Renaissance, Pico della Mirandola had said something similar: “The sacred names of Apollo, if anyone examines their meanings and hidden mysteries, will sufficiently show that that god is no less philosopher than prophet.”

You can only be a philosopher if you are the one who carries out the action, for thought is action. Get rid of the misconception that a philosopher is a boring know-it-all who communicates with the world through endless scientific studies. Similarly, we should banish the other idea that the mindless fuss that most people produce is an action.

Philosophy implies active intervention in an endlessly lasting cosmogonic act by transforming the external world, subtly influencing it by identifying the paradigmatic structures that underlie the universe; philosophy is an attempt to transfer “archetypal images” from mundus imaginalis to the material world, the world of forms.

A philosopher is not a profession, it is impossible to become one. This is a kind of ontological task that a person either implements or allows it to fade away. There is an old beautiful legend about the Angel of Death, whose wings are dotted with countless eyes. When an Angel arrives too early, it only touches the person with its wing and, so that the person does not forget about this meeting, gives him an additional pair of eyes. An eye that looks into pre-being. So, philosophy is such a “gazing” into pre-being. The philosopher receives his second pair of eyes at the same time as the first, but these eyes do not open immediately. Sometimes this requires a teacher, a book, a sudden shock, a collision with death, an experience of the numinous. In ancient times, Mysteries were used for this purpose.

Natella Speranskaya

Russian philosopher, cultural scientist, a specialist in Antiquity, curator of Janus Academy.

The Two Faces Of Russia And Germany’s Eastern Problems

Oswald Spengler:

The Two Faces Of Russia And Germany’s Eastern Problems

An address delivered on February 14, 1922, at the Rhenish-Westphalian Business Convention in Essen

First published in Spengler, Politische Schriften (Munich, 1932).

Ex: https://europeanheathenfront.wordpress.com

In the light of the desperate situation in which Germany finds itself today -- defenseless, ruled from the West by the friends of its enemies, and the victim of undiminished warfare with economic and diplomatic means -- the great problems of the East, political and economic, have risen to decisive importance. If from our vantage point we wish to gain an understanding of the extremely complex real situation, it will not suffice merely to familiarize ourselves with contemporary conditions in the broad expanses to the east of us, with Russian domestic policy and the economic, geographic, and military factors that make up present-day Soviet Russia. More fundamental and imperative than this is an understanding of the world-historical fact of Russia itself, its situation and evolution over the centuries amid the great old cultures -- China, India, Islam, and the West -- the nature of its people, and its national soul. Political and economic life is, after all, Life itself; even in what may appear to be prosaic aspects of day-to-day affairs it is a form, expression, and part of the larger entity that is Life.

One can attempt to observe these matters with "Russian" eyes, as our communist and democratic writers and party politicians have done, i.e., from the standpoint of Western social ideologies. But that is not "Russian" at all, no matter how many citified minds in Russia may think it is. Or one can try to judge them from a Western-European viewpoint by considering the Russian people as one might consider any other "European" people. But that is just as erroneous. In reality, the true Russian is basically very foreign to us, as foreign as the Indian and the Chinese, whose souls we can likewise never fully comprehend. Justifiably, the Russians draw a distinction between "Mother Russia" and the "fatherlands" of the Western peoples. These are, in fact, two quite different and alien worlds. The Russian understands this alienation. Unless he is of mixed blood, he never overcomes a shy aversion to or a naïve admiration of the Germans, French, and English. The Tartar and the Turk are, in their ways of life, closer and more comprehensible to him. We are easily deceived by the geographic concept of "Europe," which actually originated only after maps were first printed in 1500. The real Europe ends at the Vistula. The activity of the Teutonic knights in the Baltic area was the colonization of foreign territory, and the knights themselves never thought of it in any other way.

Soviet architecture, 1920s

In order to reach an understanding of this foreign people we must review our own past. Russian history between 900 and 1900 A.D. does not correspond to the history of the West in the same centuries but, rather, to the period extending from the Age of Rome to Charlemagne and the Hohenstaufen emperors. Our heroic poetry, from Arminius to the lays of Hildebrand, Roland, and the Nibelungs, was recapitulated in the Russian heroic epics, the byliny, which began with the knights at the court of Prince Vladimir (d. 1015), the Campaign of Igor, and with Ilya Muromets, and have remained a vital and fruitful art form through the reigns of Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great, the Burning of Moscow, and to the present day. [1] Yet each of these worlds of primeval poetry expresses a very different kind of basic feeling. Russian life has a different meaning altogether. The endless plains created a softer form of humanity, humble and morose, inclined to lose itself mentally in the flat expanses of its homeland, lacking a genuine personal will, and prone to servility. These characteristics are the background for high-level politics in Russia, from Genghis Khan to Lenin.

(1. Cf. my The Decline of the West, II, 192ff.)

Furthermore, the Russians are semi-nomads, even today. Not even the Soviet regimen will succeed in preventing the factory workers from drifting from one factory to another for no better reason than their inborn wanderlust. [2] That is why the skilled technician is such a rarity in Russia. [3] Similarly, the home of the peasant is not the village or the countryside into which he was born, but the great expanses. Even the mir or so-called agrarian commune -- not an ancient idea, but the outgrowth of administrative techniques employed by the tsarist governments for the raising of taxes -- was unable to bind the peasant, unlike his Germanic counterpart, to the soil. Many thousands of them flooded into the newly developed regions in the steppes of southern Russia, Turkestan, and the Caucasus, in order to satisfy their emotional search for the limits of the infinite. The result of this inner restlessness has been the extension of the Empire up to the natural borders, the seas and the high mountain ranges. In the sixteenth century Siberia was occupied and settled as far as Lake Baikal, in the seventeenth century up to the Pacific.

(2. Cf. several stories of Leskov, and particularly of Gorki.)

(3. Except perhaps in the earlier arteli, groups of workers under self-chosen leaders, which accepted contracts for certain kinds of work in factories and on estates. There is a good description on an artel’ in Leskov’s The Memorable Angel.)

Even more deep-seated than this nomadic trait of the Russians is their dark and mystical longing for Byzantium and Jerusalem. It appears in the outer form of Orthodox Christianity and numerous religious sects, and thus has been a powerful force in the political sphere as well. But within this mystical tendency there slumbers the unborn new religion of an as yet immature people. There is nothing Western about this at all, for the Poles and Balkan Slavs are also "Asiatics."

The economic life of this people has also assumed indigenous, totally non-European forms. The Stroganov family of merchants, which began conquering Siberia on its own under Ivan Grozny [4] and placed some of its own regiments at the tsar’s disposal, had nothing at all in common with the great businessmen of the same century in the West. This huge country, with its nomadic population, might have remained in the same condition for centuries, or might perhaps have become the object of Western colonial ambitions, had it not been for the appearance of a man of immense world-political significance, Peter the Great.

(4. Grozny means "the terrifying, just, awe-inspiring" in the positive sense, not "the terrible" with Western overtones. Ivan IV was a creative personality as was Peter the Great, and one of the most important rulers of all time.)

There is probably no other example in all of history of the radical change in the destiny of an entire people such as this man brought about. His will and determination lifted Russia from its Asiatic matrix and turned it into a Western-style nation within the Western world of nations. His goal was to lead Russia, until then landlocked, to the sea -- at first, unsuccessfully, to the Sea of Asov, and then with permanent success to the Baltic. The fact that the shores of the Pacific had already been reached was, in his eyes, wholly unimportant; the Baltic coast was for him the bridge to "Europe." There he founded Petersburg, symbolically giving it a German name. In place of the old Russian market centers and princely residences like Kiev, Moscow, and Nizhni-Novgorod, he planted Western European cities in the Russian landscape. Administration, legislation, and the state itself now functioned on foreign models. The boyar families of Old Russian chieftains became feudal nobility, as in England and France. His aim was to create above the rural population a "society" that would be unified as to dress, customs, language, and thought. And soon an upper social stratum actually formed in the cities, having a thin Western veneer. It played at erudition like the Germans, and took on esprit and manners like the French. The entire corpus of Western Rationalism made its entry -- scarcely understood, undigested, and with fateful consequences. Catherine II, a German, found it necessary to send writers such as Novikov and Radishchev into jail and exile because they wished to try out the ideas of the Enlightenment on the political and religious forms of Russia. [5]

(5. "Jehova, Jupiter, Brahma, God of Abraham, God of Moses, God of Confucius, God of Zoroaster, God of Socrates, God of Marcus Aurelius, God of the Christians -- Thou art everywhere the same, eternal God!" (Radishchev).)

And economic life changed also. In addition to its ages-old river traffic, Russia now began to engage in ocean shipping to distant ports. The old merchant tradition of the Stroganovs, with their caravan trade to China, and of the fairs at Nizhni-Novgorod, now received an overlay of Western European "money thinking" in terms of banks and stock exchanges. [6] Next to the old-style handicrafts and the primitive mining techniques in the Urals there appeared factories, machines, and eventually railroads and steamships.

(6. Cf. Decline of the West, II, 480f., 495.)

German architecture, 1920s, "Chilehaus" in Hamburg and Berlin Tempelhof

Most important of all, Western-style politics entered the Russian scene. It was supported by an army that no longer conformed to conditions of the wars against the Tartars, Turks, and Kirghiz; it had to be prepared to do battle against Western armies in Western territory, and by its very existence it continually misled the diplomats in Petersburg into thinking that the only political problems lay in the West.

Despite all the weaknesses of an artificial product made of stubborn material, Petrinism was a powerful force during the two hundred years of its duration. It will be possible to assess its true accomplishments only at some distant future time, when we can survey the rubble it will have left behind. It extended "Europe," theoretically at least, to the Urals, and made of it a cultural unity. An empire that stretched to the Bering Strait and the Hindu Kush had been Westernized to the extent that in 1900 there was hardly much difference between cities in Ireland and Portugal and those in Turkestan and the Caucasus. Travel was actually easier in Siberia than in some countries in Western Europe. The Trans-Siberian Railway was the final triumph, the final symbol of the Petrinist will before the collapse.

Yet this mighty exterior concealed an internal disaster. Petrinism was and remained an alien element among the Russian people. In reality there existed not one but two Russias, the apparent and the true, the official and the underground Russia. The foreign element brought with it the poison that caused that immense organism to fall ill and die. The spirit of Western Rationalism of the eighteenth century and Western Materialism of the nineteenth, both remote and incomprehensible to genuine Russian thought, came to lead a grotesque and subversive existence among the intelligentsia in the cities. There arose a type of Russian intellectual who, like the Reformed Turk, the Reformed Chinese, and the Reformed Indian, was mentally and spiritually debased, impoverished, and ruined to the point of cynicism by Western Europe. It began with Voltaire, and continued from Proudhon and Marx to Spencer and Haeckel. In Tolstoy’s day the upper class, irreligious and opposed to all native tradition, preened itself with blasé pretentiousness. Gradually the new world view seeped down to the bohemians in the cities, the students, demagogues, and literati, who in turn took it "to the people" to implant in them a hatred of the Western-style upper classes. The result was doctrinaire bolshevism.

At first, however, it was solely the foreign policy of Russia that made itself painfully felt in the West. The original nature of the Russian people was ignored, or at least not understood. It was nothing but a harmless ethnographic curiosity, occasionally imitated at bals masques and in operettas. Russia meant for us a Great Power in the Western sense, one which played the game of high politics with skill and at times with true mastery.

What we did not notice was that two tendencies, alien and inimical to each other, were operative in Russia. One of these was the ancient, instinctive, unclear, unconscious, and subliminal drive that is present in the soul of every Russian, no matter how thoroughly westernized his conscious life may be -- a mystical yearning for the South, for Constantinople and Jerusalem, a genuine crusading spirit similar to the spirit our Gothic forebears had in their blood but which we hardly can appreciate today. Superimposed on this instinctive drive was the official foreign policy of a Great Power: Petersburg versus Moscow. Behind it lay the desire to play a role on the world stage, to be recognized and treated as an equal in "Europe." Hence the hyper-refined manners and mores, the faultless good taste -- things which had already begun to degenerate in Paris since Napoleon III. The finest tone of Western society was to be found in certain Petersburg circles.

At the same time, this kind of Russian did not really love any of the Western peoples. He admired, envied, ridiculed, or despised them, but his attitude depended practically always on whether Russia stood to gain or lose by them. Hence the respect shown for Prussia during the Wars of Liberation (Russia would have liked to pocket Prussian territory) and for France prior to the World War (the Russians laughed at her senile cries for revanche). Yet, for the ambitious and intelligent upper classes, Russia was the future master of Europe, intellectually and politically. Even Napoleon, in his time, was aware of this. The Russian army was mobilized at the western border; it was of Western proportions and was unmistakably trained for battle on Western terrain against Western foes. Russia’s defeat at the hands of Japan in 1905 can be partly explained by the lack of training for warfare under anything but Western conditions.

Such policies were supported by a network of embassies in the great capitals of the West (which the Soviet government has replaced with Communist party centers for agitation). Catherine the Great took away Poland, and with it the final obstacle between East and West. The climax came with the symbolic journey of Alexander I, the "Savior of Europe," to Paris. At the Congress of Vienna, Russia at times played a decisive role, as also in the Holy Alliance, which Metternich called into being as a bulwark against the Western revolution, and which Nicholas I put to work in 1849 restoring order in the Habsburg state in the interest of his own government.

By means of the successful tradition of Petersburg diplomacy, Russia became more and more involved in great decisions of Western European politics. It took part in all the intrigues and calculations that not only concerned areas remote from Russia, but were also quite incomprehensible to the Russian spirit. The army at the western border was made the strongest in the world, and for no urgent reason -- Russia was the only country no one intended to invade after Napoleon’s defeat, while Germany was threatened by France and Russia, Italy by France and Austria, and Austria by France and Russia. One sought alliance with Russia in order to tip the military balance in one’s favor, thus spurring the ambitions of Russian society toward ever greater efforts in non-Russian interests. All of us grew up under the impression that Russia was a European power and that the land beyond the Volga was colonial territory. The center of gravity of the Empire definitely lay to the west of Moscow, not in the Volga region. And the educated Russians thought the very same way. They regarded the defeat in the Far East in 1905 as an insignificant colonial adventure, whereas even the smallest setback at the western border was in their eyes a scandal, inasmuch as it occurred in full view of the Western nations. In the south and north of the Empire a fleet was constructed, quite superfluous for coastal defense: its sole purpose was to play a role in Western political machinations.

On the other hand, the Turkish Wars, waged with the aim of "liberating" the Christian Balkan peoples, touched the Russian soul more deeply. Russia as the heir to Turkey -- that was a mystical idea. There were no differences of opinion on this question. That was the Will of God. Only the Turkish Wars were truly popular wars in Russia. In 1807 Alexander I feared, not without reason, that he might be assassinated by an officers’ conspiracy. The entire officers’ corps preferred a war against the Turks to one against Napoleon. This led to Alexander’s alliance with Napoleon at Tilsit, which dominated world politics until 1812. It is characteristic how Dostoyevsky, in contrast to Tolstoy, became ecstatic over the Turkish War in 1877. He suddenly came alive, constantly wrote down his metaphysical visions, and preached the religious mission of Russia against Byzantium. But the final portion of Anna Karenina was denied publication by the Russian Messenger, for one did not dare to offer Tolstoy’s skepticism to the public.

As I have mentioned, the educated, irreligious, Westernized Russians also shared the mystical longing for Jerusalem, the Kiev monk’s notion of the mother country as the "Third Rome," which after Papal Rome and Luther’s Wittenberg was to take the fulfillment of Christ’s message to the Jerusalem of the apostles. This barely conscious national instinct of all Russians opposes any power that might erect political barricades on the path that leads to Jerusalem by way of Byzantium. In all other countries such political obstacles would simply disturb either national conceit (in the West) or national apathy (in the Far East); in Russia, the mystical soul of the people itself was pierced and profoundly agitated. Hence the brilliant successes of the Slavophil movement, which was not so much interested in winning over Poles and Czechs as in gaining a foothold among the Slavs in the Christian Balkan countries, the neighbors of Constantinople. Even at an earlier date, the Holy War against Napoleon and the Burning of Moscow had involved the emotions of the entire Russian people. This was not just because of the invasion and plundering of the Russian countryside, but because of Napoleon’s obvious long-range plans. In 1809 he had taken over the Illyrian provinces (the present Yugoslavia) and thus became master of the Adriatic. This had decisively strengthened his influence on Turkey to the disadvantage of Russia, and his next step would be, in alliance with Turkey and Persia, to open up the path to India, either from Illyria or from Moscow itself. The Russians’ hatred of Napoleon was later transferred to the Habsburg monarchy, when its designs on Turkish territory -- in Metternich’s time the Danubian principalities, and after 1878 Saloniki -- endangered Russian moves toward the south. Following the Crimean War they extended their hatred to include Great Britain, when that nation appeared to lay claim to Turkish lands by blockading the Straits and later by occupying Egypt and Cyprus.

Finally, Germany too became the object of this hatred, which goes very deep and cannot be allayed by practical considerations. After 1878, Germany neglected its role as a Russian ally to became more and more the protector and preserver of the crumbling Habsburg state, and thereby also, despite Bismarck’s warning, the supporter of Austro-Hungarian intentions in the Balkans. The German government showed no understanding of the suggestion made by Count Witte, the last of the Russian diplomats friendly to Germany, to choose between Austria and Russia. We could have had a reliable ally in Russia if we had been willing to loosen our ties to Austria. A total reorientation of German policy might have been possible as late as 1911.

Following the Congress of Berlin, hatred of Germany began to spread to all of Russian society, for Bismarck succeeded in restraining Russian diplomacy in the interest of world peace and maintaining the balance of power in "Europe." From the German point of view this was probably correct, and in any case it was a master stroke of Bismarckian statesmanship. But in the eyes of Petersburg it was a mistake, for it deprived the Russian soul of the hope of winning Turkey, and favored England and Austria. And this Russian soul was one of the imponderables that defied diplomatic treatment. Hostility to Germany kept on growing and eventually entered all levels of Russian urban society. It was diverted momentarily when Japanese power, rising up suddenly and broadening the horizons of world politics, forced Russia to experience the Far East as a danger zone. But that was soon forgotten, especially since Germany was so grotesquely inept as to understand neither the immediate situation nor the future possibilities. In time, the senseless idea of the Berlin-Baghdad Railway came up; Germany now seemed intent on capturing full control of this path to Constantinople, a move which would have benefitted neither German politics nor the German economy.

Just as in the field of politics, the economic life of Russia was divided into two main tendencies -- the one active and aggressive, the other passive. The passive element was represented by the Russian peasantry with its primitive agrarian economy; [7] by the old-style merchants with their fairs, caravans, and Volga barges; by Russian craftsmen; and finally by the primitive mining enterprises in the Urals, which developed out of the ancient techniques of pre-Christian "blacksmith tribes," independent of Western mining methods and experience. The forging of iron was invented in Russia in the second millennium B.C. -- the Greeks retained a vague recollection of the beginning of this art. This simple and traditional form of economy gradually found a powerful competitor in the civilized world of Western-style urban economy, with its banks, stock exchanges, factories, and railroads. Then it was money economy versus goods economy; each of these forms of economic existence abhors the other, each tries to attack and annihilate the other.

(7. On the contrast between agrarian and urban economy, see Decline of the West, II, 477ff.)

The Petrinist state needed a money economy in order to pay for its Westernized politics, its army, and its administrative hierarchy, which was laced with primitive corruption. Incidentally, this form of corruption was habitual public practice in Russia; it is a necessary psychological concomitant of an economy based on the exchange of goods, and is fundamentally different from the clandestine corruption practiced by Western European parliamentarians. The state protected and supported economic thinking that was oriented toward Western capitalism, a type of thinking that Russia neither created nor really understood, but had imported and now had to manage. Furthermore, Russia had also to face its doctrinary opposite, the economic theory of communism. Communism was in fact inseparable from Western economic thinking. It was the Marxist capitalism of the lower class, preached by students and agitators as a vague gospel to the masses in the Petrinist cities.

Still, the decisive and truly agitating factor for Russia’s future was not this literary, theoretical trend in the urban underground. It was, rather, the Russians’ profound, instinctively religious abhorrence of all Western economic practices. They considered "money" and all the economic schemes derived from it, socialistic as well as capitalistic, as sinful and satanic. This was a genuine religious feeling, much like the Western emotion which, during the Gothic centuries, opposed the economic practices of the Arabic-Jewish world and led to the prohibition for Christians of money-lending for interest. In the West, such attitudes had for centuries been little more than a cliché for chapel and pulpit, but now it became an acute spiritual problem in Russia. It caused the suicide of numerous Russians who were seized by "terror of the surplus value," whose primitive thought and emotions could not imagine a way of earning a living that would not entail the "exploitation" of "fellow human beings." This genuine Russian sentiment saw in the world of capitalism an enemy, a poison, the great sin that it ascribed to the Petrinist state despite the deep respect felt for "Little Father," the Tsar.

Such, then, are the deep and manifold roots of the Russian philosophy of intellectual nihilism, which began to grow at the time of the Crimean War and which produced as a final fruit the bolshevism that destroyed the Petrinist state in 1917, replacing it with something that would have been absolutely impossible in the West. Contained within this movement is the orthodox Slavophils’ hatred of Petersburg and all it stood for, [8] the peasants’ hatred of the mir, the type of village commune that contradicted the rural concept of property passed down through countless family generations, as well as every Russian’s hatred of capitalism, industrial economy, machines, railroads, and the state and army that offered protection to this cynical world against an eruption of Russian instincts. It was a primeval religious hatred of uncomprehended forces that were felt to be godless, that one could not change and thus wished to destroy, in order that life could go on in the old-fashioned way.

(8. "The first requirement for the liberation of popular feeling in Russia is to hate Petersburg with heart and soul" (Aksakov to Dostoyevsky). Cf. Decline of the West, II, 193ff.)

The peasants detested the intelligentsia and its agitating just as strongly as they detested what these people were agitating against. Yet in time the agitation brought a small clique of clever but by and large mediocre personalities to the forefront of power. Even Lenin’s creation is Western, it is Petersburg -- foreign, inimical, and despised by the majority of Russians. Some day, in some way or other, it will perish. It is a rebellion against the West, but born of Western ideas. It seeks to preserve the economic forms of industrial labor and capitalist speculation as well as the authoritarian state, except that it has replaced the Tsarist regime and private capitalist enterprise with an oligarchy and state capitalism, calling itself communism out of deference to doctrine.

It is a new victory for Petersburg over Moscow and, without any doubt, the final and enduring act of self-destruction committed by Petrinism from below. The actual victim is precisely the element that sought to liberate itself by means of the rebellion: the true Russian, the peasant and craftsman, the devout man of religion. Western revolutions such as the English and French seek to improve organically evolved conditions by means of theory, and they never succeed. In Russia, however, a whole world was made to vanish without resistance. Only the artificial quality of Peter the Great’s creation can explain the fact that a small group of revolutionaries, almost without exception dunces and cowards, has had such an effect. Petrinism was an illusion that suddenly burst.

The bolshevism of the early years has thus had a double meaning. It has destroyed an artificial, foreign structure, leaving only itself as a remaining integral part. But beyond this, it has made the way clear for a new culture that will some day awaken between "Europe" and East Asia. It is more a beginning than an end. It is temporary, superficial, and foreign only insofar as it represents the self-destruction of Petrinism, the grotesque attempt systematically to overturn the social superstructure of the nation according to the theories of Karl Marx. At the base of this nation lies the Russian peasantry, which doubtless played a more important role in the success of the 1917 Revolution than the intellectual crowd is willing to admit. These are the devout peasants of Russia who, although they do not yet fully realize it, are the archenemies of bolshevism and are oppressed by it even worse than they were by the Mongols and the old tsars. For this very reason, despite the hardships of the present, the peasantry will some day become conscious of its own will, which points in a wholly different direction.

The peasantry is the true Russian people of the future. It will not allow itself to be perverted and suffocated, and without a doubt, no matter how slowly, it will replace, transform, control, or annihilate bolshevism in its present form. How that will happen, no one can tell at the moment. It depends, among other things, on the appearance of decisive personalities, who, like Genghis Khan, Ivan IV, Peter the Great, and Lenin, can seize Destiny by their iron hand. Here, too, Dostoyevsky stands against Tolstoy as a symbol of the future against the present. Dostoyevsky was denounced as a reactionary because in his Possessed he no longer even recognized the problems of nihilism. For him, such things were just another aspect of the Petrinist system. But Tolstoy, the man of good society, lived in this element; he represented it even in his rebellion, a protest in Western form against the West. Tolstoy, and not Marx, was the leader to bolshevism. Dostoyevsky is its future conqueror.

There can be no doubt: a new Russian people is in the process of becoming. Shaken and threatened to the very soul by a frightful destiny, forced to an inner resistance, it will in time become firm and come to bloom. It is passionately religious in a way we Western Europeans have not been, indeed could not have been, for centuries. As soon as this religious drive is directed toward a goal, it possesses an immense expansive potential. Unlike us, such a people does not count the victims who die for an idea, for it is a young, vigorous, and fertile people. The intense respect enjoyed over the past centuries by the "holy peasants" whom the regime often exiled to Siberia or liquidated in some other way -- such figures as the priest John of Kronstadt, even Rasputin, but also Ivan and Peter the Great -- will awaken a new type of leaders, leaders to new crusades and legendary conquests. The world round about, filled with religious yearning but no longer fertile in religious concerns, is torn and tired enough to allow it suddenly to take on a new character under the proper circumstances. Perhaps bolshevism itself will change in this way under new leaders; but that is not very probable. For this ruling horde -- it is a fraternity like the Mongols of the Golden Horde -- always has its sights set on the West as did Peter the Great, who likewise made the land of his dreams the goal of his politics. But the silent, deeper Russia has already forgotten the West and has long since begun to look toward Near and East Asia. It is a people of the great inland expanses, not a maritime people.

An interest in Western affairs is upheld only by the ruling group that organizes and supports the Communist parties in the individual countries -- without, as I see it, any chance of success. It is simply a consequence of Marxist theory, not an exercise in practical politics. The only way that Russia might again direct its attention to the West -- with disastrous results for both sides -- would be for other countries (Germany, for instance) to commit serious errors in foreign policy, which could conceivably result in a "crusade" of the Western powers against bolshevism -- in the interest, of course, of Franco-British financial capital. Russia’s secret desire is to move toward Jerusalem and Central Asia, and "the" enemy will always be the one who blocks those paths. The fact that England established the Baltic states and placed them under its influence, thereby causing Russia to lose the Baltic Sea, has not had a profound effect. Petersburg has already been given up for lost, an expendable relic of the Petrinist era. Moscow is once again the center of the nation. But the destruction of Turkey, the partition of that country into French and English spheres of influence, France’s establishment of the Little Entente which closed off and threatened the area from Rumania southwards, French attempts to win control of the Danubian principalities and the Black Sea by aiding the reconstruction of the Hapsburg state -- all these events have made England and, above all, France the heirs to Russian hatred. What the Russians see is the revivification of Napoleonic tendencies; the crossing of the Beresina was perhaps not, after all, the final symbolic event in that movement. Byzantium is and remains the Sublime Gateway to future Russian policy, while, on the other side, Central Asia is no longer a conquered area but part of the sacred earth of the Russian people.

In the face of this rapidly changing, growing Russia, German policy requires the tactical skill of a great statesman and expert in Eastern affairs, but as yet no such man has made his appearance. It is clear that we are not the enemies of Russia; but whose friends are we to be -- of the Russia of today, or of the Russia of tomorrow? Is it possible to be both, or does one exclude the other? Might we not jeopardize such friendship by forming careless alliances?

Similarly obscure and difficult are our economic connections, the actual ones and the potential ones. Politics and economics are two very different aspects of life, different in concept, methods, aims, and significance for the soul of a people. This is not realized in the age of practical materialism, but that does not make it any less fatefully true. Economics is subordinate to politics; it is without question the second and not the first factor in history. The economic life of Russia is only superficially dominated by state capitalism. At its base it is subject to attitudes that are virtually religious in nature. At any rate it is not at all the same thing as top-level Russian politics. Moreover, it is very difficult to predict its short and long-range trends, and even more difficult to control these trends from abroad. The Russia of the last tsars gave the illusion of being an economic complex of Western stamp. Bolshevist Russia would like to give the same illusion; with its communist methods it would even like to become an example for the West. Yet in reality, when considered from the standpoint of Western economics, it is one huge colonial territory where the Russians of the farmlands and small towns work essentially as peasants and craftsmen. Industry and the transportation of industrial products over the rail networks, as well as the process of wholesale distribution of such products, are and will always remain inwardly foreign to this people. The businessman, the factory head, the engineer and inventor are not "Russian" types. As a people, no matter how far individuals may go toward adapting to modern patterns of world economics, the true Russians will always let foreigners do the kind of work they reject because they are inwardly not suited to it. A close comparison with the Age of the Crusades will clarify what I have in mind. [9] At that time, also, the young peoples of the North were nonurban, committed to an agrarian economy. Even the small cities, castle communities, and princely residences were essentially marketplaces for agricultural produce. The Jews and Arabs were a full thousand years "older," and functioned in their ghettos as experts in urban money economy. The Western European fulfills the same function in the Russia of today.

(9. Cf. Decline of the West, II, Chapters XIII and XIV, "The Form-World of Economic Life.")

Machine industry is basically non-Russian in spirit, and the Russians will forever regard it as alien, sinful, and diabolical. They can bear with it and even respect it, as the Japanese do, as a means toward higher ends, for one casts out demons by the prince of demons. But they can never give their soul to it as did the Germanic nations, which created it with their dynamic sensibility as a symbol and method of their struggling existence. In Russia, industry will always remain essentially the concern of foreigners. But the Russians will be able to distinguish sensitively between what is to their own and what is to the foreigners’ advantage.

As far as "money" is concerned, for the Russians the cities are markets for agricultural commodities; for us they have been since the eighteenth century the centers for the dynamics of money. "Money thinking" will be impossible for the Russians for a long time to come. For this reason, as I have explained, Russia is regarded as a colony by foreign business interests. Germany will be able to gain certain advantages from its proximity to the country, particularly in light of the fact that both powers have the same enemy, the financial interest-groups of the Allied nations.

Yet the German economy can never exploit these opportunities without support from superior politics. Without such support a chaotic seizure of opportunities will ensue, with dire consequences for the future. The economic policy of France has been for centuries, as a result of the sadistic character of the French people, myopic and purely destructive. And a serious German policy in economic affairs simply does not exist.

Therefore it is the prime task of German business to help create order in German domestic affairs, in order to set the stage for a foreign policy that will understand and meet its obligations. Business has not yet grasped the immense economic significance of this domestic task. It is decidedly not a question, as common prejudice would have it, of making politics submit to the momentary interests of single groups, such as has already occurred by means of the worst kind of politics imaginable, party politics. It is not a question of advantages that might last for just a few years. Before the war it was the large agricultural interests, and since the war the large industrial interests, that attempted to focus national policy on the obtaining of temporary advantages, and the results were always nil. But the time for short-range tactics is over. The next decades will bring problems of world-historical dimensions, and that means that business must at all times be subordinate to national politics, not the other way around. Our business leaders must learn to think exclusively in political terms, not in terms of "economic politics." The basic requirement for great economic opportunity in the East is thus order in our politics at home.

Oswald SPENGLER: Nietzsche And His Century

Oswald SPENGLER:

Nietzsche And His Century

An address delivered on October 15, 1924, Nietzsche’s eightieth birthday, at the Nietzsche Archive, Weimar

First published in Spengler, Reden und Aufsätze (Munich, 1937).

Ex: https://europeanheathenfront.wordpress.com

Looking back at the nineteenth century and letting its great men pass before the mind’s eye, we can observe an amazing thing about the figure of Friedrich Nietzsche, something that was hardly noticeable in his own time. All the other outstanding personages, including Wagner, Strindberg, and Tolstoy, reflect to a certain degree the color and shape of those years. Each of them was somehow bound up with the shallow optimism of the progress-mongers, with their social ethics and utilitarianism, their philosophy of matter and energy, pragmatism and "adaptation"; each of them made sacrifice after sacrifice to the spirit of the time. Only one person represents a radical departure from this pattern. If the word "untimely," which he himself coined, is applicable to anyone at all, then it is Nietzsche. One searches in vain throughout his whole life and all of his thought for any indication that he might have yielded inwardly to any vogue or fad.

In this respect he is the antithesis of, and yet in some ways profoundly related to, the second German of modern times whose life was one great symbol: Goethe. These are the only two notable Germans whose existence has profound significance apart from and in addition to their works. Because both were aware of this from the beginning and continually gave utterance to this awareness, their existence has become a treasure for our nation and an integral part of its spiritual history.

It was Goethe’s good fortune to be born at the high noon of Western culture, at a time of rich and mature intellectuality which he himself eventually came to represent. He had only to become the epitome of his own time in order to achieve the disciplined grandeur implied by those who later called him the "Olympian." Nietzsche lived a century later, and in the meantime a great change had occurred, one which we are only now able to comprehend. It was his fate to come into the world after the Rococo period, and to stand amid the totally cultureless 1860’s and 1870’s. Consider the streets and houses he had to live in, the clothing fashions, furniture, and social mores he had to observe. Consider the way people moved about in social circles in his day, the way they thought, wrote, and felt. Goethe lived at a time filled with respect for form; Nietzsche longed desperately for forms that had been shattered and abandoned. Goethe needed only to affirm what he saw and experienced around him; Nietzsche had no recourse but to protest passionately against everything contemporary, if he was to rescue anything his forebears had bequeathed to him as a cultural heritage. Both of these men strove during their whole lives for strict inner form and discipline. But the eighteenth century was itself "in form." It possessed the highest type of society that Western Europe has ever known. The nineteenth century had neither a distinguished society nor any other kind of formal attributes. Apart from the incidental customs of the urban upper class it possessed only the scattered remains, preserved with great difficulty, of aristocratic and middle-class tradition. Goethe was able to understand and solve the great problems of his time as a recognized member of his society, as we learn in Wilhelm Meister and Elective Affinities; Nietzsche could remain true to his task only by turning his back on society. His frightful loneliness stands as a symbol over against Goethe’s cheerful gregariousness. One of these great men gave shape to existing things; the other brooded over nonexisting things. One of them worked for a prevailing form; the other against a prevailing formlessness.

Aside from this, however, form was something very different for each of them. Of all the great German intellectuals, Nietzsche was the only born musician. All the others -- thinkers, poets, and painters alike -- have either been shapers of material or have taken material apart. Nietzsche lived, felt, and thought by ear. He was, after all, hardly able to use his eyes. His prose is not "written," it is heard -- one might even say sung. The vowels and cadences are more important than the similes and metaphors. What he sensed as he surveyed the ages was their melody, their meter. He discovered the musical keys of foreign cultures. Before him, no one knew of the tempo of history. A great many of his concepts -- the Dionysian, the Pathos of Distance, the Eternal Recurrence -- are to be understood quite musically. He sensed the rhythm of what is called nobility, ethics, heroism, distinction, and master morality. He was the first to experience as a symphony the image of history that had been created by scholarly research out of data and numbers -- the rhythmic sequence of ages, customs, and attitudes.

He himself had music, just as he walked, spoke, dressed, experienced other people, stated problems, and drew conclusions. What Bildung had been for Goethe, was for Nietzsche tact in the broadest sense: social, moral, historical, and linguistic tact, a feeling for the proper sequence of things, made all the keener by his suffering in an age that had very little of this feeling. Like Zarathustra, Goethe’s Tasso was born of suffering, but Tasso succumbed to a feeling of weakness when challenged by a contemporary world which he loved and which he regarded as superior to himself. Zarathustra abhorred the contemporary world, and fled from it to distant worlds of the past and future.

The inability to feel "at home" in one’s own time -- that is a German curse. Because of the guilt of our past we came into bloom too late and too suddenly. Beginning with Klopstock and Lessing, we had to cover in eighty years a distance for which other nations had centuries. For this reason we never developed a formal inner tradition or a distinguished society that could act as guardian of such a tradition. We borrowed forms, motifs, problems, and solutions from all sides and struggled with them, whereas others grew up with them and in them. Our end was implicit in our beginning. Heinrich von Kleist discovered -- he was the first to do so -- the problematics of Ibsen at the same time that he strove to emulate Shakespeare. This tragic state of affairs produced in Germany a series of outstanding artistic personalities at a time when England and France had already gone over to producing literati -- art and thought as a profession rather than a destiny. But it also caused the fragmentation and frustration expressed in much of our art, the thwarting of final aims and artistic thoroughness.

Today we use the terms "Classical" and "Romantic" to denote the antithesis that appeared around 1800 everywhere in Western Europe, literary Petersburg included. Goethe was a Classic to the same extent that Nietzsche was a Romantic, but these words merely designate the predominant hues in their essential natures. Each of them also possessed the other potentiality, which at times urged its way to the foreground. Goethe, whose Faust-monologues and West-Eastern Divan are high points of Romantic sensibility, strove at all times to confine this urge for distance and boundlessness within clear and strict traditional forms. Similarly, Nietzsche often suppressed his acquired inclination for the Classical and rational, which held a twofold fascination for him by reason of temperament and philological profession, to what he termed the Dionysian, at least when he was evaluating. Both men were borderline cases. Just as Goethe was the last of the Classics, Nietzsche was, next to Wagner, the last of the Romantics. By their lives and their creations they exhausted the possibilities of these two movements. After them, it was no longer possible to render the meaning of the ages in the same words and images -- the imitators of the Classical drama and the latter-day Zarathustras have proved this. Moreover, it is impossible to invent a new method of seeing and saying like theirs. Germany may well bring forth impressive formative minds in the future; however, fortunate for us, they will nonetheless be isolated occurrences, for we have reached the end of the grand development. And they will always be overshadowed by the two great figures of Goethe and Nietzsche.

An essential characteristic of Western Classicism was its intense preoccupation with the contemporary world. While seeking to control human drives that tend in opposite directions, it attempted to make the past and the future coalesce in the contemporary situation. Goethe’s dictum about the "Demands of the Day," his "cheerful present," imply after all that he called upon various kinds of past figures and events -- his Greeks, his Renaissance, Götz von Berlichingen, Faust, and Egmont -- in order to infuse them with the spirit of his own time. The result is that when reading such works as Tasso or Iphigenia we are not at all mindful of historical precedent. Just the opposite is the case with the Romantics; their proper domain was remote places and times. They longed for withdrawal from the present to distant and foreign realms, to the past and future of history. None of them ever had a profound relationship with the things that surrounded him.

The Romantic is enticed by whatever is strange to his nature, the Classic by what is proper to his nature. Noble dreamers on the one hand, noble masters of dreams on the other. The one type adored the conquerors, rebels, and criminals of the past, or ideal states and supermen of the future; the other type construed statesmanship in practical, methodical terms or, like Goethe and Humboldt, even practiced it themselves. One of Goethe’s great masterpieces is the conversation between Egmont and William of Orange. He loved Napoleon, for he was witness to his deeds in his own time and locality. He was never able to recreate artistically the violent personalities of the past; his Caesar went unwritten. But that is precisely the type of personality that Nietzsche worshipped -- from a distance. At close range, as with Bismarck, he was repelled by them. Napoleon would also have repelled him. He would have seemed to him uncouth, shallow, and mindless, like the Napoleonic types that lived around him -- the great European politicians and the rough-and-ready businessmen whom he never even saw, much less understood. He needed a vast distance between the Then and the Now in order to have a genuine relationship with a given reality. Thus he created his Superman and, almost as arbitrarily, the figure of Cesare Borgia.

These two tendencies are tragically present in the most recent German history. Bismarck was a Classic of politics. He based his calculations entirely on things that existed, things he could see and manipulate. The fanatical patriots neither loved nor understood him until his creative work appeared as a finished product, until he could be romantically transfigured as a mythic personage: "The Old Man of the Saxon Forests." On the other hand, Ludwig II of Bavaria, who perished as a Romantic and who never created or even could have created anything of enduring value, actually received this kind of love (without returning it), not only from the people at large, but also from artists and thinkers who should have looked more closely. Kleist is regarded in Germany with, at best, a reluctant admiration that is tantamount to rejection, particularly in those instances where he succeeded in overcoming his own Romantic nature. He is inwardly quite remote from most Germans, unlike Nietzsche, whose nature and destiny were in many ways similar to the Bavarian king’s, and who is instinctively honored even by those who have never read him.

Nietzsche’s longing for remoteness also explains his aristocratic taste, which was that of a completely lonely and visionary personality. Like the Ossian-type Romanticism that originated in Scotland, the early Classicism of the eighteenth century began on the Thames and was later taken across to the Continent. It is impossible to consider it apart from the Rationalism of the same period. The Classicists engaged in the act of creativity consciously and deliberately; they replaced free imagination with knowledge, at times even with scholarly erudition. They understood the Greeks, the Renaissance, and inevitably also the world of contemporary active affairs. These English Classicists, all of them of high social standing, helped create liberalism as a philosophy of life as it was understood by Frederick the Great and his century: the deliberate ignoring of distinctions that were known to exist in the practical life but were in any case not considered as obstacles; the rational preoccupation with matters of public opinion that could neither be gotten rid of nor hushed up, but that somehow had to be rendered harmless. This upper-class Classicism gave rise to English democracy -- a superior form of tactics, not a codified political program. It was based on the long and intensive experience of a social stratum that habitually dealt with real and practicable possibilities, and that was therefore never in danger of losing its essential congeniality.

Goethe, who was also conscious of his social rank, was never an aristocrat in the passionate, theoretical sense -- unlike Nietzsche, who lacked the habituation to regular practical experience. Nietzsche never really became familiar with the democracy of his time in all its strength and weakness. To be sure, he rebelled against the herd instinct with the wrath of his extremely sensitive soul, but the chief cause of his anger was to be found somewhere in the historical past. He was doubtless the first to demonstrate in such radical fashion how in all cultures and epochs of the past the masses count for nothing, that they suffer from history but do not create it, that they are at all times the pawns and victims of the personal will of individuals and classes born to be rulers. People had sensed this often enough before, but Nietzsche was the first to destroy the traditional image of "humanity" as progress toward the solution of ideal problems through the agency of its leaders. Herein lies the immense difference between the historiography of a Niebuhr or a Ranke, which as an idea was likewise of Romantic origin, and Nietzsche’s method of historical vision. His way of looking into the soul of past epochs and peoples overcame the mere pragmatic structure of facts and events.

Yet such a technique required detachment. English Classicism, which produced the first modern historian of Greece in George Grote -- a businessman and practical politician -- was quite exclusively the affair of higher society. It ennobled the Greeks by regarding them as peers, by "present-ing" them in the truest sense of the word as distinguished, cultivated, intellectually refined human beings who at all times acted "in good taste" -- even Harner and Pindar, poets whom the English school of classical philology was the first to prefer over Horace and Virgil. From the higher circles of English society this Classicism entered the only corresponding circles in Germany, the courts of the small principalities, where the tutors and preachers acted as intermediaries. The courtly atmosphere of Weimar was the world in which Goethe’s life became the symbol of cheerful conviviality and purposeful activity. Weimar was the friendly center of intellectual Germany, a place that offered calm satisfaction to a degree unknown by any other German writer, an opportunity for harmonious growth, maturing, and ageing that was Classical in a specifically German sense.

Next to this career there is the other, which likewise ended in Weimar. It started out in the seclusion of a Protestant pastor’s home, the cradle of many if not most of Germany’s great minds, and reached its height in the sun-drenched solitude of the Engadin. No other German has ever lived such an impassioned private existence, far removed from all society and publicity -- though all Germans, even if they are "public" personalities, have a longing for such solitude. His intense yearning for friendship was in the last analysis simply his inability to lead a genuine social life, and thus it was a more spiritual form of loneliness. Instead of the friendly "Goethe house" on Weimar’s Frauenplan, we see the joyless little cottages in Sils-Maria, the solitude of the mountains and the sea, and finally a solitary breakdown in Turin -- it was the most thoroughly Romantic career the nineteenth century ever offered.

Nevertheless, his need to communicate was stronger than he himself believed, much stronger at any rate than Goethe’s, who was one of the most taciturn of men despite the social life that surrounded him. Goethe’s Elective Affinities is a secretive book, not to speak of Wilhelm Meister’s Years of Wandering and Faust II. His most profound poems are monologues. The aphorisms of Nietzsche are never monologues; nor are the Night Song and the Dionysus Dithyrambs completely monologues. An invisible witness is always present, always watching. That is why he remained at all times a believing Protestant. All the Romantics lived in schools and coteries, and Nietzsche invented something of the sort by imagining that his friends were, as listeners, his intellectual peers. Or again, he created in the remote past and future a circle of intimates, only to complain to them, like Novalis and Hölderlin, of his loneliness. His whole life was filled with the torture and bliss of renunciation, of the desire to surrender and to force his inner nature, to bind himself in same way to something that always proved to be foreign to himself. Yet that is how he developed insight into the soul of epochs and cultures that could never reveal their secrets to self-assured, Classical minds.

This organic pessimism of his being explains the works and the sequence in which they appeared. We who were not able to experience the great flourishing of materialism in the mid-nineteenth century should never cease to be amazed at the audacity that went into the writing, at such a tender age and contrary to the opinions of contemporary philological scholarship, of The Birth of Tragedy. The famous antithesis of Apollo and Dionysus contains much more than even today’s average reader can comprehend. The most significant thing about that essay was not that its author discovered an inner conflict in "Classical" Greece, the Greece that had been the purest manifestation of "humanity" for all others except perhaps Bachofen and Burckhardt. More important still was that even at that age he possessed the superior vision that allowed him to peer into the heart of whole cultures as if they were organic, living individuals. We need only read Mommsen and Curtius to notice the tremendous difference. The others regarded Greece simply as the sum of conditions and events occurring within a certain span of time and space. Our present-day method of looking at history owes its origin, but not its depth, to Romanticism. In Nietzsche’s day, history, as far as Greece and Rome were concerned, was little more than applied philology, and as far as the Western peoples were concerned little more than applied archival research. It invented the idea that history began with written records.

The liberation from this view came out of the spirit of music. Nietzsche the musician invented the art of feeling one’s way into the style and rhythm of foreign cultures, aside from and often in contradiction to the written documents. But what did written documents matter anyway? With the word "Dionysus" Nietzsche discovered what the archaeologists eventually brought to light thirty years later -- the underworld and the undersoul of Classical culture, and ultimately the spiritual force that underlies all of history. Historical description had become the psychology of history. The eighteenth century and Classicism, including Goethe, believed in "culture" -- a single, true, mental and moral culture as the task of a unified humanity. From the very beginning Nietzsche spoke quite unforcedly of "cultures" as of natural phenomena that simply began at a certain time and place, without reason or goal or whatever an all-too-human interpretation might wish to make of it. "At a certain time" -- the point was made clear from the very first time in Nietzsche’s book that all of these cultures, truths, arts, and attitudes are peculiar to a mode of existence that makes its appearance at one certain time and then disappears for good. The idea that every historical fact is the expression of a spiritual stimulus, that cultures, epochs, estates, and races have a soul like that of individuals -- this was such a great step forward in historical depth-analysis that even the author himself was at the time not aware of its full implications.

However, one of the things the Romantic yearns for is to escape from himself. This yearning, together with the great misfortune of having been born in that particular period in history, caused Nietzsche to serve as a herald for the most banal form of realism in his second book, Human, All-Too-Human. These were the years when Western Rationalism, after abandoning its glorious beginnings with Rousseau, Voltaire, and Lessing, ended as a farce. Darwin’s theories, together with the new faith in matter and energy, became the religion of the big cities; the soul was regarded as a chemical process involving proteins, and the meaning of the universe boiled down to the social ethics of enlightened philistines. Not a single fiber of Nietzsche’s being was party to these developments. He had already given vent to his disgust in the first of his "Untimely Meditations," but the scholar in him envied Chamfort and Vauvenargues and their lighthearted and somewhat cynical manner of treating serious topics in the style of the grand monde. The artist and enthusiast in him was perplexed by the massive sobriety of an Eugen Dühring, which he mistook for true greatness. Priestly character that he was, he proceeded to unmask religion as prejudice. Now the goal of life was knowledge, and the goal of history became for him the development of intelligence. He said this in a tone of ridicule that served to heighten his own passion, precisely because it hurt to do so, and because he suffered from the unrealizable longing to create in the midst of his own time a seductive picture of the future that would contrast with everything he was born into.

While the ecstatic utilitarianism of the Darwinian school was extremely remote from his way of thinking, he took from it certain secret revelations that no true Darwinist ever dreamed of. In The Dawn of Day and The Gay Science there appeared, in addition to a way of looking at things that was meant to be prosaic and even scornful, another technique of examining the world -- a restrained, quiet, admiring attitude that penetrated deeper than any mere realist could ever hope to achieve. Who, before Nietzsche, had ever spoken in the same way of the soul of an age, an estate, a profession, of the priest and the hero, or of man and woman? Who had ever been able to summarize the psychology of whole centuries in an almost metaphysical formula? Who had ever postulated in history, rather than facts and "eternal truths," the types of heroic, suffering, visionary, strong, and diseased life as the actual substance of events as they happen?

That was a wholly new kind of living forms, and could have been discovered only by a born musician with a feeling for rhythm and melody. Following this presentation of the physiognomy of the ages of history, a science of which he was and will always be the creator, he reached to the outer limits of his vision to describe the symbols of a future, his future, which he needed in order to be cleansed of the residue of contemporary thought. In one sublime moment he conjured the image of Eternal Recurrence, as it had been vaguely surmised by German mystics in the Middle Ages -- an endless circling in the eternal void, in the night of immeasurable eons, a way to lose one’s soul utterly in the mysterious depths of the cosmos, regardless of whether such things are scientifically justifiable or not. Into the midst of this vision he placed the Superman and his prophet, Zarathustra, representing the incarnate meaning of human history, in all its brevity, on the planet that was his home. All three of these creations were completely distant, impossible to relate to contemporary conditions. For this very reason they have exerted a curious attraction on every German soul. For in every German soul there is a place where dreams are dreamed of social ideals and a finer future for mankind. Goethe lacked such a corner in his soul, and that is why he never became a truly popular personage. The people sensed this lack, and thus they called him aloof and frivolous. We shall never overcome this reverie of ours; it represents within us the unlived portion of a great past.

Once having arrived at this height, Nietzsche posed the question as to the value of the world, a question that had accompanied him since childhood. By doing so he brought to an end the period of Western philosophy that had considered the types of knowledge as its central problem. This new question likewise had two answers: a Classical and a Romantic answer or, to put it in the terms of the time, a social and an aristocratic answer. "Life has value to the same degree as it serves the totality" -- that was the answer of the educated Englishmen who had learned at Oxford to distinguish between what a person stated as his considered opinion and what the same person did at decisive moments as a politician or businessman. "Life is all the more valuable, the stronger its instincts are" -- that was the answer given by Nietzsche, whose own life was delicate and easily injured. Be that as it may, for the very reason that he was remote from the active life he was able to grasp its mysteries. His ultimate understanding of real history was that the Will to Power is stronger than all doctrines and principles, and that it has always made and forever will make history, no matter what others may prove or preach against it. He did not concern himself with the conceptual analysis of "will"; to him the most important thing was the image of active, creative, destructive Will in history. The "concept" of will gave way to the "aspect" of will. He did not teach, he simply pointed matters out: "Thus it was, and thus it shall be." Even if theoretical and priestly individuals will it a thousand times differently, the primeval instincts of life will still emerge victorious.

What a difference between Schopenhauer’s world view and this one! And between Nietzsche’s contemporaries, with their sentimental plans for improving the world, and this demonstration of hard facts! Such an accomplishment places this last Romantic thinker at the very pinnacle of his century. In this we are all his pupils, whether we wish to be or not, whether we know him well or not. His vision has already imperceptibly conquered the world. No one writes history any more without seeing things in his light.

He undertook to evaluate life using facts as the sole criteria, and the facts taught that the stronger or weaker will to succeed determines whether life is valuable or worthless, that goodness and success are almost mutually exclusive. His image of the world reached its culmination with a magnificent critique of morality in which, instead of preaching morality, he evaluated the moralities that have arisen in history -- not according to any "true" moral system but according to their success. This was indeed a "revaluation of all values," and although we now know that he misstated the antithesis of Christian and master-morality as a result of his personal suffering during the 1880’s, nonetheless the ultimate antithesis of human existence lay behind his statement; he sought it, and sensed it, and believed that he had captured it with his formula.

If instead of "master morality" we were to say the instinctive practice of men who are determined to act, and instead of "Christian morality" the theoretical ways in which contemplative persons evaluate, then we would have before us the tragic nature of all mankind, whose dominant types will forever misunderstand, combat, and suffer from each other. Deed and thought, reality and ideal, success and redemption, strength and goodness -- these are forces that will never come to terms with one another. Yet in historical reality it is not the ideal, goodness, or morality that prevails -- their kingdom is not of this world -- but rather decisiveness, energy, presence of mind, practical talent. This fact cannot be gotten rid of with laments and moral condemnations. Man is thus, life is thus, history is thus.

Precisely because all action was foreign to him, because he knew only how to think, Nietzsche understood the fundamental essence of the active life better than any great active personality in the world. But the more he understood, the more shyly he withdrew from contact with action. In this way his Romantic destiny reached fulfillment. Under the force of these last insights, the final stage of his career took shape in strict contrast to that of Goethe, who was not foreign to action but who regarded his true calling as poetry, and therefore restrained his actions cheerfully.

Goethe, the Privy Councillor and Minister, the celebrated focal point of European intellect, was able to confess during his last year of life, in the final act of his Faust, that he looked upon his life as having attained fulfillment. "Tarry now, thou art so fair!" -- that is a phrase expressive of the most blissful satiety, spoken at the moment when the active physical work is completed under Faust’s command, to endure now and forevermore. It was the great and final symbol of the Classicism to which this life had been dedicated, and which led from the controlled cultural education of the eighteenth century to the controlled exercise of personal talent of the nineteenth.

Yet one cannot create distance, one can only proclaim it. Just as Faust’s death brought a Classical career to an end, the mind of the loneliest of wanderers vanished with a curse upon his age during those mysterious days in Turin, when he watched the last mists disappear from his image of the world and the highest peaks come ever clear into view. This puzzling final episode of his life is the very reason Nietzsche’s existence has had the stronger influence on the world ever since. Goethe’s life was a full life, and that means that it brought something to completion. Countless Germans will honor Goethe, live with him, and seek his support; but he can never transform them. Nietzsche’s effect is a transformation, for the melody of his vision did not end with his death. The Romantic attitude is eternal; though its form may at times be unified and complete, its thought never is. It will always conquer new areas, either destroying them or changing them radically. Nietzsche’s type of vision will pass on to new friends and enemies, and these in turn will hand it down to other followers and adversaries. Even if someday no one reads his works any longer, his vision will endure and be creative.

His work is not a part of our past to be enjoyed; it is a task that makes servants of us all. As a task it is independent of his books and their subject matter, and thus a problem of German destiny. In an age that does not tolerate otherworldly ideals and takes vengeance on their authors, when the only thing of recognized value is the kind of ruthless action that Nietzsche baptized with the name of Cesare Borgia, when the morality of the ideologues and world improvers is limited more radically than ever to superfluous and innocuous writing and speech-making -- in such an age, unless we learn to act as real history wants us to act, we will cease to exist as a people. We cannot live without a form of wisdom that does not merely console in difficult situations, but helps one to get out of them. This kind of hard wisdom made its first appearance in German thought with Nietzsche, despite the fact that it was cloaked in thoughts and impressions he had gathered from other sources. To the people most famished for history in all the world, he showed history as it really is. His heritage is the obligation to live history in the same way.

A Renaissance Human in the Digital Age

Natella Speranskaya

 

Ex: https://medium.com

THE MAIN PROBLEMS OF MODERN HUMAN

I want to start with the question: “Is it possible to become Renaissance Man in the Digital Age?»

The problem of modern human living in the era of Big Data is that he is drowning in the flow of information. The human of Antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, had a particular amount of knowledge. Today, we can’t even determine what we need to know. Most often, this is determined by our profession and the direction of our activity. Given the fact that the modern world is still dominated by the tendency to narrow specialization, we can come to disappointing conclusions. A modern human needs to be able to find in a massive flow of unstructured information, the one that will serve for its comprehensive and harmonious development.

Nowadays, only a few people know how to work with information. It is not chaotic to absorb, not to be satisfied with an incomplete acquaintance, but to be selective, to show the art of separating important from secondary, necessary from casual. There are two opposite approaches to knowledge: simple accumulation of information and transformation by knowledge. These two approaches are based on two principles — forma formanta and forma informanta. The first is inherent in a person initially. The forma formanta action is directed from the center to the periphery. We can say that this is the inner Logos or axis of the soul. This principle conditions all internal transformations that we experience. Forma formanta is related to “vertical knowledge”. Forma informanta is an external force that acts from the periphery to the center. It determines all other people’s influences (especially the importance of society). This is “horizontal knowledge”. I realized very early on that our entire educational system is based on forma informanta. In educational institutions, we are informed at best, but we are not formed in any way. In the twenty-first century, we have to synthesize these two principles.

There are other problems faced by the modern human, who can no longer imagine his life without digital assistants. According to research conducted by cognitive neurobiologists, people barely read texts. They don’t read anymore; they just scan them. Scattered attention, fragmentary perception of information, search for keywords, “surfing” rather than reading — this is the result. Of course, many people have decided to abandon paper books altogether and wholly switched to electronic ones. The skill of reading is increasingly lost. It is no secret that many people are no longer able to read Hesse’s “The Glass Bead Game “, much less Schelling’s” Philosophy of mythology”. How can we counter the trend outlined here? One of the ways today is called slow read. For this purpose, reading groups are created all over the world. They allow you to experience time differently and reopen text that is not scanned but is slowly read, parsed, discussed, and commented on.

Another problem with a modern human is poor memory. Why remember something if you can find all the information on the Internet? Xenophon reports that Athenian politician and general Nicias forced his son Niceratus to memorize by heart the works of Homer. Now no one even tries to set such a task for themselves. It has reached the point that today not everyone is also able to finish reading the epic of Homer to the end. Alberto Manguel writes in “Homer’s The Iliad and The Odyssey: A Biography” that memory training in the Byzantine educational system was given considerable attention: after several years of practice, students had to know the Iliad by heart.

CREATION A WORLDVIEW

Creation a worldview is a complex and lengthy process. We often meet people who do not have any worldview. At best, they have a particular set of opinions (in most cases, not their own) and incomplete knowledge, based on which they draw conclusions and make decisions. If there is no worldview, then there is no internal axis, center, or reference point around which a separate world is formed. A person “just lives”, unaware of the values, views, and desires imposed on him. The inability to cope with the massive flow of information that today threatens to wash away any truth from the face of the earth leads it to a chaotic capture, senseless accumulation. He does not know how to choose the most important thing from this inexhaustible stream. If he had a worldview, a particular coordinate system, then approaching the bookshelves or looking at a series of links and headlines in his news feed, a person would instantly make the right decision: “take” or “put aside”. To build your worldview, you need to be a good architect.

In the process of forming ourselves, we always lose sight of the fact that human is a process, as the act of creation. It is in constant development and transformation. There is an ontological gap between the human of Antiquity and the human of the Middle ages. And those who naively believe that humans are always the same, that we are the same today as we were hundreds of years ago, make an unforgivable mistake. When we talk about the “ancient Greek,” “medieval European,” “Renaissance human,” “Modern human,” “postmodern individual,” we are talking about entirely different and, I would venture to say more radically, diametrically different human types. Changing paradigms always means a fundamental change that can be correlated with a “re-creation of the world.” Everything changes the ontological status of a human, his view of life, death and the afterlife, time and space, the divine; his ideals, his values, etc. change. The understanding of these changes dictates the division into historical periods.

Joel Barker, in his book “Paradigms: Business of Discovering the Future”, emphasizes that he does not agree with Thomas Kuhn, who believed that paradigms exist only in science. I always emphasize that I use the word “paradigm” without any reference to Kuhn’s paradigm theory, and take its original meaning (from Greek. παράδειγμα, “example, model, sample”). So, Barker is convinced that the new paradigm comes sooner than there is a need for it. The paradigm is always ahead of demand. And, of course, the apparent reaction to this is rejection. Who is changing the paradigm, according to Barker? It’s always an outsider. The one who breaks the rules turns them — at the same time improving the world. “What is defined as impossible today is impossible only in the context of present paradigms,” says Barker. Let’s put the question again: “is it Possible to become Renaissance human in the digital age? This is not possible only in the context of the old paradigm. But that paradigm could disappear by tomorrow.

PARADIGM SHIFT: A REVOLUTION IN HUMAN THINKING

The type of personality that appeared in the pre-Socratic period delighted Friedrich Nietzsche, who wrote about the Republic of Geniuses, where the philosopher was a magician, a king, and a priest. This type of personality will still manifest itself in the Middle ages — in the person of the philosopher, scientist, and theologian Albert the Great (Doctor Universalis), the Arab scientist Ḥasan Ibn al-Haytham and the philosopher and naturalist Roger Bacon. And in the Renaissance — as homo univeralis, the most striking embodiment of which will be Leonardo da Vinci: painter, sculptor, architect, inventor, musician, writer, and scientist, ahead of his time. Then it will be replaced by another type-a a scientist of narrow specialization. It’s no longer a microcosm that reflects the entire universe (macrocosm). The world becomes too vast for him, so the specialist decides to confine himself to a small island, where he spends the rest of his days in the eternal scientific studies, to come to results that can easily be refuted by a new generation of such scientists. E. R. Dodds wrote:

The sort of specialisation we have today was quite unknown to Greek science at any period, and some of the greatest names at all periods are those of nonspecialists, as may be seen if you be seen if you look at a list of the works of Theophrastus or Eratosthenes, Posidonius, Galen, or Ptolemy.

In the age of Antiquity, the idea of a perfect human necessarily included the concept of “kalokagathos” (Ancient Greek: καλὸς κἀγαθός). It was a symbol of the harmonious union of external and internal virtues. Another idea that will become the basis of the system of classical education — “Paideia” (παιδεία), that is, the formation of a holistic personality, it was closely related to “kalokagathos.” The harmonious system of ancient (classical) education laid the foundation for the future educational system of Europe.

For the ancient Greeks, the human was not just an individual but an idea. And this idea included all stages of the spiritual and intellectual development of society.

In the Middle Ages, the concept of the ideal human changes significantly, and in place of harmony between external and internal comes the realization of the original sinfulness of the human being; between God and human, an abyss appears, forcing the latter to take the path of redemption to restore the lost harmony. The flesh begins to be thought of as sinful and despicable, the earthly world as a place that must to reject and devote all your thoughts to the service of God. Knowledge gives way to faith. An ascetic monk takes the place of the ancient Greek. The fundamental idea of” imitating God” remains unchanged, only God and the nature of the imitation itself change. If the ancient Greeks imitated the Olympian gods and heroes, the medieval human imitated Christ. The changes in human perception of the world during the transition from Antiquity to the Middle Ages are so radical that at the time we are talking not just about two different ideas about the “perfect human”, but also about two different ontological levels: “the level of the Mystery” and “the level of baptized”. In both cases, the person experienced profound changes, after which his life was strictly divided into “before” and “after”. It is no coincidence that Hans Sedlmayr begins the periodization of Western culture from the Middle ages (skipping Antiquity) — it was another world, another human, another ideal, another look at the choice of life, a different view of death. And another way of looking at philosophy. For a medieval human, philosophy was “the handmaiden of theology.”

Philosophia et septem artes liberales, the seven liberal arts

It was in the middle ages that the first universities began to appear, which immediately acquired the status of centers of philosophy and culture, science, and education. As a rule, the medieval University consisted of three higher faculties: theology, medicine, and law. Before entering one of these faculties, the student was trained at the artistic (preparatory) faculty, where he studied seven Liberal arts. And only after receiving the title of bachelor or master, he had the right to enter one of the three faculties, were at the end of the training, he won the title of doctor of law, medicine or theology. The seven Liberal arts were divided into two cycles: trivium (grammar, dialectics (logic), rhetoric) and quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music, or harmonica). Despite the fact that the origins of the seven Liberal arts go back to the Hellenistic era (the Sophist Hippias), in the Middle ages this system was in the service of religion: grammar was intended for the interpretation of Church books, dialectics was used for polemics with heretics, rhetoric was necessary as a tool for creating religious sermons, etc.

Only in the Renaissance age (which was primarily the Renaissance of Antiquity) does the medieval idea of a sinful being give way to the idea of homo universalis, a harmonious and holistic personality; inevitably this means a return to the fundamental principles of the Ancient idea of the perfect human — “kalokagathos”, “paideia”, “arete”. After Thomas Aquinas and Saint Augustine of Hippo come to Georgius Gemistus, Marsilio Ficino and Pico Della Mirandola. Classical education, based on the study of ancient languages as a way to comprehend the cultural heritage of Antiquity, was founded in this era. As the Russian poet and playwright Vyacheslav Ivanovich Ivanov rightly remarked: “European thought constantly and naturally returns for new stimuli to the genius of Greece.”

In the Renaissance, a paradigm shift occurs again: appear is a gap between the medieval worldview and the worldview of the Renaissance human. The same gap to separate the person of the Renaissance from the individual of the New time when there was a break with the classical model of education. One of the embodiments of the anti-classical approach to education was the French sociologist Jean Fourastie (1909–1990), who insisted that we should discard the classical humanitarian culture and focus on the new ideal of an educated person — a specialist of a narrow profile who has the ability to quickly adapt to the constantly changing realities of the modern world. This specialist was not required to have a high level of culture since the range of his tasks was reduced to the effective service of the world, the values of which were now determined not by homo universalis, but by homo economicus.

REINVENTION OF HUMAN

Today it is common to talk about the collapse of humanism, but we still use the word “humanitarian” out of habit. What is humanitas, and does the range of modern Humanities correspond to its original purpose? Why do we observe how the very “idea of human” is lost? “The Fatigue from human”, “the overthrow of the human”, “the destruction of the human”, “the disappearance of the human” arise in all spheres of our existence.

The latest trends in modern thought reduce a person to the level of an object, depriving him of his prior ontological status. A toothpick and a Buddhist monk, a Hummer and a Heidegger, a nail file, and a talented painter are placed on the same line. One is equal to the other. Object-oriented thinking that puts a THING at the center of being. Metaphysics of things. Being is no longer hierarchical. The same tendency can be found in modern theater and in contemporary painting, which is looking for an opportunity to free themselves from a human finally. Objects and things are increasingly taking the place of the human. The human himself, sometimes installed in work, turns into an object. The human image “disintegrates”, is dismembered, disassembled into parts, like a mechanism. In painting, there has long been a fragmentation of the human image (from distortion of proportions and emphasis on bodily ugliness to the dismemberment of the body). At Norwegian artist Odd Nerdrum, the focus on painful and damaged bodies becomes constant. American artist and sculptor Sarah Sitkin is engaged in splitting the human image, deliberately distorting it. We can see the same thing in the works of other artists: Marcello Nitti, Radu Belchin, Christian Zucconi, Berlinde de Bruyckere, Emil Alzamora, João Figueiredo.

The human is almost banished. But in his place did not come, neither a Superman nor a Godman. Rare attempts to put a different anthropological formation in the position of the disappearing human can be noticed even among European symbolists: Jean Delville, Simeon Solomon, Fernand Khnopff, Emile Fabry, and others. But this was instead a warning of the” new human,” his barely perceptible breath, a secret call. Science fiction writers (for example, Herbert Wells) managed to anticipate the phenomenon of its complete opposite — Digital Human. Who is he, this child of the network century, communicating through tags and tweets — a harbinger of the end of humanity or the Creator of a new “Digital God” — Artificial Intelligence? All attempts by inhumanists, speculative realists, “space pessimists”, etc. to solve the problem of “Lost Centre” and learn to think beyond the limits of human are initially doomed to failure. They do not create breakthroughs in the field of thought; all they do is reveal the symptoms of a dangerous disease called “death of the idea of human”.

I am convinced that the crisis of the Humanities is connected with the plight of the “idea of the human.” And only a return to the “idea of human”, to the spiritual dimension of human existence, but at a new stage, can lead to the revival of the Humanities. In this and only in this case will humanitas regain its original meaning. However, it is not enough just to go back to the old definition of human, today we have to “reinvention of human”. Redefine its meaning, redefine its purpose and place in the world, and understand its advantages over Artificial Intelligence.

Tobias Rees is the founding Director of the Institute’s Transformations of the Human Program. He suggests that fields such as Artificial Intelligence and synthetic biology should be seen as philosophical and artistic laboratories where new concepts of human, politics, understanding of nature, and technology are formed. What was traditionally associated with the main tasks of the Humanities, which were centered on human, has now moved to the fields of natural and technical sciences. The Humanities have stopped answering the question: “What is a human?” But this is the fundamental and critical issue today. Specialists who are closed within the boundaries of their disciplines are not able to answer it. Tobias Rees sends philosophers and artists to the world’s largest corporations to work with engineers and technologists to form a new idea of the human.

At the same time, we must clearly understand that rethinking the idea of the human will undoubtedly entail a rethinking of the entire corpus of Humanities. What is it like to be a human being in the age of intelligent machines? What is the fundamental advantage of a human? What will never, under any circumstances, be impossible to automate, calculate, and turn into Algorithms? Futurologist Gerd Leonhard, contrary to Yuval Harari, who is obsessed with Algorithms, puts forward the idea of androrithms, that is, specific non-enumerable attributes that make us humans. These attributes are exclusively human and can never be assigned by a machine. To androrithms, Leonhard includes empathy, intuition, compassion, emotional intelligence, imagination, and Dasein (Heidegger). Leonhard writes:

«Leonardo Da Vinci’s ‘Vitruvian Man’ depicted the ideal proportions of the human body — maybe now we need a ‘neoluvian man’ describing the future relationship of humans and technology?».

In the article “2020 Will Bring A New Renaissance: Humanity Over Technology”, Gerd Leonhard argues that we will soon witness a resurgence of humanism and the Humanities. Undoubtedly, this trend is gradually gaining influence in the Western world. It is enough to read the book “Sensemaking: The Power of the Humanities in the Age of the Algorithm” by Christian Madsbjerg to see how modern world leaders and corporate heads are rediscovering the Humanities and applying its methods to solve critical problems in their industry. Madsbjerg himself is a well-known business consulting specialist and founder of ReD Associates. He founded a consulting company when he was only 22 years old and developed an innovative approach to business thinking (his company specializes in strategic consulting based on the foundation of the Humanities). He is a genuine Polymath that has a dominant intellectual (theoretical and practical) foundation in the field of philosophy, Ethnography, anthropology, sociology, literary studies, history, discursive analysis, business management, etc.

The ‘Neoluvian’ Man

You might be surprised to find that more than a third of Fortune 500 CEOs have degrees in the Humanities. The illusory idea that only a narrow specialization in STEM will give us a guarantee of building a successful career is a thing of the past. Even the Israeli historian Yuval Harari was forced to admit that the development of AI can displace many people from the labor market. Still, at the same time, there will be new jobs for philosophers. It is their skills and knowledge that will suddenly be in high demand. And American billionaire Mark Cuban believes that “In 10 years, a liberal arts degree in philosophy will be worth more than a traditional programming degree.”

We live in the age of Big Data, but we need to remember that Big Data will never replace Big Ideas. It is the absence of Big Ideas that can be considered the main characteristic of the modern era. Big Ideas always carry transformational potential, imply radical transformations, and those who dare to express them, as a rule, are tested by distrust on the part of a society that is not ready for changes. But only these people have had and will continue to have an impact on the course of human history — Renaissance human, polymath — the Big Idea that underlies the new paradigm of thinking. If you need to define this type of thinking, the most appropriate epithet for it is “integrative”. Roger Martin limits it’s as “the ability to face constructively the tension of opposing ideas and, instead of choosing one at the expense of the other, generate a creative resolution of the tension in the form of a new idea that contains elements of the opposing ideas but is superior to each.” Most people are used to thinking in the “or-or” mode; it is difficult for them to keep two mutually exclusive ideas in their heads at the same time and, without throwing either of them away, to generate a new one (and this process involves intelligence, intuition and every time a unique human experience).

They also find it challenging to create a synthesis of knowledge and skills from different disciplines, and the implementation of integration of various industries seems almost fantastic to them.

I want to emphasize that this is not just about one type of thinking. It is a critical meta-skill that is a human advantage and will never be mastered by a machine, despite the development that Artificial Intelligence will soon achieve.

Strictly speaking, today, we can distinguish three main types of thinking: algorithmic (machine), traditional and integrative (holistic). In the age of Algorithms, only integrative thinking can withstand the battle with AI. The struggle is not just for resources, power, or influence, but for a human.

Natella Speranskaya

Russian philosopher, cultural scientist, a specialist in Antiquity, curator of Janus Academy.

Hommage à Oswald Spengler

Hommage à Oswald Spengler

Armin Mohler

 

Extrait du numéro 1 de la revue Orientations (1982)

Ex: https://philippedelbauvre.blogspot.com

 

Il y a plusieurs façons d’ignorer les pensées des grands hommes et de vivre comme si ces pensées n’avaient jamais été émises. En 1980, c’est ce que tout observateur a pu constater en Allemagne Fédérale. On y célébrait le centenaire de la naissance d’Oswald Spengler. Même dans les hommages rendus au philosophe, on doit, objectivement, constater des lacunes. Les uns ont souligné l’importance de la philosophie spenglérienne de l’Histoire, dont les prophéties auraient été confirmées par les événements ; mais, ainsi, ils ont évité d’aborder les affirmations politiques de l’auteur du Déclin de l’Occident. D’autres ont voulu “sauver” le Spengler politicien, en faisant de lui un antifasciste et en n’étudiant que très superficiellement les liens qui ont existé entre Spengler, Hitler et le national-socialisme. Je ne dirais rien des “brillants” essayistes, qui se sont prodigieusement acharné à l’étude de Spengler pour en tirer très peu de choses.

 

Le Spengler total

 

Ce fut un autre vénérable grand homme, Herbert Cysarz (né 16 ans après Spengler) qui put vraiment saisir l’œuvre de Spengler dans sa totalité. L’hommage qu’il lui rend, dans le numéro de janvier 1980 de la revue Aula, éditée à Graz en Autriche, commence par ces mots : « Aucun historien contemporain n’a connu une aussi grande gloire qu’Oswald Spengler. Aucun n’a été, de son vivant, aussi incontestablement original. Cet homme, hostile à toute littérature et à tout idéalisme, totalement étranger au monde abstrait des livres, a fait entrevoir les grands thèmes et les multiples imbrications de l’Histoire et a souligné, comme cela n’avait jamais auparavant été fait, l’intensité qui réside dans le vouloir et l’agir. Il a donné au monde une nouvelle manière de concevoir la politique, ainsi qu’un style particulier de voir, de penser et de présenter l’Histoire ». Bien évidemment, Cysarz sait que Spengler est plus qu’un historien ; à propos de son œuvre, il écrit qu’elle reste un signe du destin qui s’est manifesté au tournant de notre temps.

Un homme de la même génération que Cysarz, Ernst Jünger avait déjà écrit des choses de ce genre dans les années vingt, même si le ton était plus mesuré, moins pathétique. Dans un très important article politique de l’époque (dont, bien entendu, on ne prévoit pas la réédition dans les œuvres complètes de Jünger), il exprimait une opinion partagée par beaucoup de contemporains : pour un cerveau de la trempe de celui de Spengler, ils donneraient bien tout un Parlement.

 

Les faiblesses de l’œuvre de Spengler

 

Une acceptation aussi enthousiaste de la totalité de l’œuvre de Spengler ne signifie toutefois pas qu’on en avalise tous les détails, sans formuler aucune critique. Spengler n’est pas un surhomme ; il a, lui aussi, ses faiblesses. À coté des prophéties qui se sont effectivement réalisées, il y a celles qui n’ont eu aucune suite. Les études approfondies de Spengler sur les diverses cultures de l’Histoire, nous obligent à constater que tous les domaines de l’activité créatrice de l’homme ne lui sont pas également familiers. Par exemple, le style littéraire de Spengler n’est pas toujours à la hauteur de ses sujets ; il n’y a pas lieu de s’en étonner, car ces textes suscitent de trop fortes émotions. Les ennemis de Spengler se plaisent d’ailleurs à citer les phrases où transparaît un certain “kitsch”. De plus, Spengler accuse une faiblesse, comme bon nombre de visionnaires : ce qui est tout immédiat lui échappe. Ainsi, selon lui, le grand poète de sa génération n’est ni Stefan George ni Rainer Maria Rilke, mais Ernst Droem, qui est, à juste titre, resté inconnu.

 

Très révélatrice est la réaction de l’auteur du Déclin de l’Occident à l’envoi, par un jeune écrivain, d’un livre capital de notre siècle. En 1932, en effet, Ernst Jünger fit envoyer à Spengler, accompagné de tous ses respects, son livre intitulé Der Arbeiter (Le Travailleur). Spengler s’est contenté de feuilleter le livre et écrivit : « En Allemagne, la paysannerie est encore une force politique. Et lorsque l’on oppose à la paysannerie — prétendument moribonde — le “Travailleur”, c’est-à-dire l’ouvrier des fabriques, on s’éloigne de la réalité et l’on s’interdit toute influence sur l’avenir… ». Comme Spengler n’a pas lu le livre, il ne peut savoir que Jünger ne parle pas de l’ouvrier des fabriques. Mais il est fort étonnant qu’il surévalue les potentialités politiques d’une paysannerie qui, quelques années plus tard, allait être complètement annihilée.

 

Le barrage intérieur

 

Ni ces quelques aveuglements ni les aspects bizarres de la vie de Spengler ne doivent détourner notre attention de l’ensemble de son œuvre. Cet homme susceptible se mit un masque, prit un style qu’il ne faut pas prendre tel quel. Ainsi, les admirateurs de Spengler éviteront de confondre sa personnalité véritable avec ce “masque césarien” qu’il affichait lors de ses nombreuses apparitions publiques (1).

 

Les détracteurs de Spengler, de leur côté, s’efforceront de ne pas le décrire, à la lumière de sa vie privée, comme une sorte de totem bizarre de la bourgeoisie déclinante.

 

Bien sûr, la vie recluse de Spengler permet de telles suppositions. Il est né le 29 mai 1880, fils d’un haut fonctionnaire des postes, à Blankenburg dans le Harz (2). Ce n’était pas le père, homme paisible, qui dominait la vie familiale mais la mère, une créature à moitié folle, dévorée d’ambitions pseudo-artistiques. Elle remplissait leur grand appartement d’une telle quantité de meubles que le jeune Oswald et ses trois sœurs devaient loger dans des débarras, sous le toit !

 

Après avoir soutenu une dissertation sur Héraclite, Spengler devint professeur de mathématiques et de sciences naturelles, dans un lycée (Gymnasium). Ensuite, le décès de sa mère ne lui laissa pas d’héritage consistant, mais lui permit quand même de vivre sans travailler ; de 1911 à la mortelle crise cardiaque du 7 mai 1936, il vivra retiré, en chercheur indépendant, à Munich, dans un appartement immense de style “Gründerzeit” (le style des années 1870-1880), bourré de meubles massifs et situé dans la Widenmayerstraße. Une des ses sœurs le soignait.

 

Il voyageait peu et n’entretenait qu’un cercle restreint de relations. Il a refusé les postes de professeur qu’on lui offrait. Il a été réformé lors de la Première Guerre mondiale. Cette vie semble dominée par un refus farouche de tous contacts humains. On ne sait rien d’éventuelles relations érotiques. Dès le départ, il y a repli vers l’intériorité. Et seul, chez Spengler, nous intéresse le résultat qu’a produit cet isolement dès 1917. La chasteté de cette existence n’est nullement un argument contre l’œuvre de Spengler. Comme, du reste, l’isolement dans une cellule monacale ne saurait être un argument contre Augustin.

 

Au-delà de l’optimisme et du pessimisme

 

Dans l’histoire des idées, la signification de l’œuvre de Spengler réside en ceci que, dans une situation de crise, il ramène à la conscience les fondements “souterrains” de la pensée, avec une vigueur qui rappelle celle d’un Georges Sorel. Mais quel fut cette situation de crise ? L’effondrement, à cause de la Première Guerre mondiale, du Reich allemand qui, pendant des siècles, avait été le centre de l’Europe. Et quels sont ces fondements “souterrains” ? C’est la pensée résolument réaliste amorcée par Héraclite et l’école du Portique (Stoa). C’est une pensée qui renonce, depuis toujours, aux fausses consolations et aux mirages des systèmes fondés sur de pseudo-ordres cosmiques. De manière magistrale, Spengler confronte la génération de la guerre à cette pensée. Son style était un curieux mélange de “monumentalité” classique et d’expressionnisme, fait de couleurs criardes. Et ce sont précisément ceux qui, le plus profondément, avaient expérimenté l’effondrement du monde bourgeois (celui de la “Maison de Poupée”) (3), qui entendirent son appel.

 

Cette pensée se situe au-delà de l’optimisme et du pessimisme. Le titre que l’éditeur choisit pour l’œuvre majeure de Spengler (Le Déclin de l’Occident) trompe. Il est possible, qu’en privé, Spengler ait déploré l’effondrement d’un monde qui lui était cher. Mais son œuvre ne déplore rien ; elle nous apprend bien plutôt que l’Histoire est un unique mouvement d’émergence et de déclin et qu’il ne reste rien d’autre à l’homme que de faire face, avec contenance, à cette réalité, dans le lieu que le destin lui a désigné. C’est ce qui a empêché Spengler de s’identifier au IIIe Reich et qui l’a amené, en 1933, dans son dernier ouvrage, Jahre der Entscheidung (Années décisives), à reprocher au NSDAP son aveuglement en politique extérieure. Pour Spengler, la politique extérieure, parce qu’elle est combat, est primordiale par rapport à la politique intérieure qui, elle, insiste davantage sur le bien-être. Ainsi le caractère hybride du national-socialisme apparaît clairement : en tant que socialisme, il recèle une forte tendance à l’utopie, même s’il connaît aussi la fascination de la mélodie héraclitéenne.

 

Sans doute, aucune praxis politique n’est possible sans une certaine dose d’espérance et sans allusions à un ordre (cosmique) doté de sens (téléologique). Seule une minorité d’individus soutient le regard de la Gorgone. Dans cette minorité, le pourcentage des hommes d’action est plus élevé que celui des intellectuels, des prêtres et des autres fabricants d’opinions. De toutes façons, les disciples d’Héraclite disposent de leur propre consolation, qu’ils tirent précisément de ce qui constitue, pour les autres, une source de terreur. La lecture de Spengler nous démontre le double aspect de la pensée héraclitéenne.

 

L’inflexibilité

 

C’est avec pertinence que Herbert Cysarz a cité les deux phrases qui montrent le plus implacablement ce qui sépare Oswald Spengler tant de la société libérale que de toute espèce de dictature du bien-être (qu’elle soit rouge ou brune) (4). La première de ces phrases dit : « Les faits sont plus importants que les vérités ». La seconde : « La vie n’est pas sainte ». C’est là le rude côté de la philosophie spenglérienne et c’est dans L’Homme et la Technique (1931), un livre épuré de toute ambiguïté, que Spengler la souligne tout particulièrement, par défi contre tous les bavardages de notre siècle.

Heinz Friedrich, dans son article de Die Welt, rédigé pour le centenaire du philosophe, a eu des formules plus concises encore. Il part du fait que Spengler lui-même se déclare disciple de Goethe et de Nietzsche. Cysarz, lui, disait que la notion spenglérienne de destin révélait davantage d’affinités électives avec les sagas germaniques et l’héroïsme tragique de Shakespeare qu’avec l’humanisme classique. Heinz Friedrich écrit, dans un langage qui n’a rien de spenglérien (il parle des “vérités” !) : « À la fin de ce siècle de chaos, les citoyens doivent s’habituer à ne pas seulement prendre connaissances des vérités, mais aussi à les vivre et à vivre avec elles. Comme le disait Goethe, il n’y a pas que la Nature qui soit insensible, il y a aussi l’Histoire car, pour paraphraser Spengler, on peut dire qu’elle détient plus de caractéristiques naturelles que nous voulons bien l’admettre. En conséquence, c’est avec indifférence qu’elle ignore nos espoirs et nos craintes ».

 

Pour Heinz Friedrich, ce qu’il y a de nietzschéen dans cela, c’est le diagnostic qui pose la décadence comme faiblesse vitale : « L’agent de la vie, le facteur favorisant l’éternel devenir, c’est, pour Nietzsche, la Volonté de Puissance ». Friedrich ajoute un avertissement : « La Volonté de Puissance, reconnue par Nietzsche comme principe vital, est tout autre chose que l’orgueil biologique et musculaire qu’aujourd’hui encore, l’on veut entendre par là ». Cette conception vulgaire des choses est partagée par les adeptes de Nietzsche comme par ses adversaires). Cela signifie tout simplement que toute vie a la pulsion de s’affirmer. Spengler est plus qu’un disciple de Nietzsche : il le complète et le transforme. La contribution personnelle de Spengler à cette école de pensée est qu’il réalise quelque chose, qu’il a trouvé, chez Nietzsche, sous la forme d’un appel.

 

Les couleurs de la vie

 

Celui qui résiste au regard de la Gorgone, n’est pas détourné du monde. Bien au contraire, il voit le monde de manière plus intense, plus plastique, plus colorée. C’est cela la réalité paradoxale. Le regard des espérances, en revanche, ne veut voir que des cohérences, des lois et, de ce fait, détourne l’attention du particulier pour se perdre dans le général : il désenchante le monde.

 

Il faut se rendre compte combien les Weltanschauungen dominantes, qui sont un piètre mélange de la fade idéologie des Lumières et de christianisme sécularisé, ont, pour l’homme moyen, transformé le monde en un ensemble de schémas tristes. C’est le résultat d’une vision bien déterminée de l’Histoire (dans l’Histoire, l’homme décrypte le monde pour le comprendre). Dans cette vision, d’où la vie tient-elle sa valeur ? De quelque chose qui sera atteint dans un lointain futur après une longue évolution et après notre mort. Rien n’est soi-même ; chaque chose n’existe qu’à partir du moment où elle signifie quelque chose d’autre, qui se trouve “derrière” elle.

 

La vie se voit alors réduite à une rationalité moyenne, qui interdit toutes ces grandes effervescences qui entraînent soit vers le haut soit vers le bas ; l’homme se meut alors dans un cadre étroit qui ne lui propose rien de plus que la satisfaction de ses besoins physiques. Au-dessus de ce cadre, souffle un tiède ventelet d’éthique behavioriste. Arnold Gehlen appelait cela « l’eudémonisme de masse ». Les masses sont constituées d’individus isolés, qui ne s’enracinent dans rien de solide, qui ne sont insérés dans aucune structure concrète, qui errent sans but dans le “général”.

 

C’est placé devant un tel arrière-plan que le cyclone spenglérien doit être compris: il brise la monotonie de ce qui prétend s’appeler “moderne” et réinjecte, dans le monde, de vibrantes tonalités. Dans la vision spenglérienne, l’homme n’incarne plus une quelconque “généralité”, qu’il partageait avec tous ses semblables. Bien au contraire, il appartient à une culture spécifique, qui ne peut être ramenée à quelque chose d’autre mais qui a son propre sens. Chaque culture est de nature totalement cultuelle, parce que, dans tout ce qu’elle produit, ressort le symbole particulier auquel elle s’identifie et par lequel elle se distingue. Spengler voit vivre ces cultures comme vivent des plantes, avec leurs phases de croissance et de décomposition. Chacune de ces phases de croissance occupe son propre rang. Quelle puissante mélodie résonne dans son évocation de la fin d’une culture ou du césarisme ! On citerait à plaisir des pages entières du premier volume du Déclin :

« Une vie véritable se mène. Elle ne se détermine pas par l’intellect. Les vérités se situent au-delà de l’Histoire et de la vie. (…) Les peuples de culture sont des formes jaillies du fleuve de l’existence. (…) Pour moi, le peuple (Volk) est une unité d’âme (Seele). (…) Le regard libère des limites de l’éveil. (…) Ce qui confère de la valeur a un fait singulier, est tout simplement la grande ou la faible puissance ce son langage formel, la force de ses symboles. Au-delà du bien et du mal, du supérieur et de l’inférieur, du nécessaire et de l’idéal ».

Il faut encore ajouter un dernier mot à propos de l’Allemand que fut Oswald Spengler. Celui-ci n’a pas évoqué la pluralité des cultures pour se sublimer dans l’exotisme. Il a écrit ses livres pour les Allemands qui vivaient l’effondrement du Reich. Spengler ne traîne pas les Allemands devant un quelconque tribunal de la “généralité”, mais les confronte à leur spécificité, dans le miroir de leur histoire. Dans tous les écrits de Spengler, on sent sa conviction que les Allemands ont joué, dans le passé, un rôle particulier et que les Prussiens en joueront un, dans l’avenir. Ces convictions de Spengler dérangent évidemment tous ceux qui veulent maintenir la mentalité de frustrés qui règne aujourd’hui.

 

► Armin Mohler, Orientations n°1, 1982.

(traduction française : Robert Steuckers)

 

Cet article d’Armin Mohler a paru dans Criticón n°60-61, octobre 1980. Ce numéro était intégralement consacré à la question allemande. Il célébrait également le dixième anniversaire de la revue et voulait, de ce fait, axer ses réflexions sur l’histoire nationale.

 

◘ Sur l’auteur : Armin Mohler est l’auteur d’un ouvrage capital : Die Konservative Révolution in Deutschland, 1918-1932 (2ème édition, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1972). Il a été le secrétaire de l’écrivain Ernst Jünger et correspondant de plusieurs journaux allemands ou suisses alémaniques à Paris. Né à Bâle en 1920, il s’est fixé à Munich en 1961 (où il décède le 4 juillet 2003). À partir de 1964, il dirige la Fondation Friedrich von Siemens de Munich et, en tant que tel, organise plusieurs colloques dont les actes ont été publiés. En outre, Armin Mohler est l’auteur de plusieurs livres sur la politique allemande. Armin Mohler morigène sans cesse nos voisins de l’Est, à cause de leur défaitisme politique.

 

Nous ne saurions achever cette introduction au dossier Spengler sans mentionner un ouvrage récent et remarquablement bien fait sur sa pensée. Il s’agit de Spengler heute, Sechs Essays (Spengler aujourd’hui, six essais), préfacé par Hermann Lübbe, sous la direction de Peter Christian Ludz. Cet ouvrage est paru aux éditions CH Beck de Munich. Il comprend des textes de Hermann Lübbe (Historisch-politische Exaltationen : Spengler wiedergelesen = Exaltations historico-politiques : Une relecture de S.), d’Alexander Demandt (Spengler und die Spätantike = Spengler et la Haute-Antiquité), de Horst Möller (Oswald Spengler : Geschichte im Dienste der Zeitkritik = O.S. : L’Histoire au service de la critique du temps), de Tracy B. Strong (O.S. : Ontologie, Kritik und Enttäuschung = S. : Ontologie, critique et déception), du spécialiste français Gilbert Merlio (S. und die Technik = S. et la technique) et de G.L. Ulmen (Metaphysik des Morgenlandes - S. über Russland = Métaphysique de l’Orient, S. et la Russie). La lecture de cet ouvrage est indispensable pour pouvoir comprendre et utiliser Spengler aujourd’hui.

 

Notes :

• 1. On pourra, bien sûr, discuter du bon goût de publier la photo de Spengler sur son lit de mort. Cette photo prouve toutefois que ce masque n’a pas, de façon durable, imprégné la physionomie de Spengler.
• 2. Un autre protagoniste de la Konservative Révolution, issu de cette ville, est August Winnig. Il est né deux ans avant Spengler, en 1878, et est le fils du fossoyeur.
• 3. Puppenspiel, le mot qu’employé Armin Mohler, signifie “guignol”, “théâtre de marionnettes”. Nous avons traduit par “Maison de Poupées”, en voulant faire allusion à la pièce d’Ibsen. Cet auteur norvégien ne s’est jamais lassé de critiquer le monde bourgeois. Et dire du monde bourgeois qu’il est une “Maison de Poupées”, c’est souligner son souci d’échapper aux vicissitudes du monde et de l’Histoire. (n.d.t.)
• 4. En Allemagne, la couleur rouge, en politique, est attribuée aux partis d’inspiration marxiste, communiste ou sociale-démocrate. La couleur brune aux nationaux-socialistes. La couleur noire aux partis confessionnels. Elle symbolise la soutane des prêtres. Aujourd’hui, une nouvelle couleur politique est née : la verte des écologistes. Le bleu est attribué aux libéraux. (n.d.t.)

◘ LIENS :

• Karl Kraus & Spengler
• Rosenzweig & Spengler
• Gabrielle Roy & Spengler
• Critique de Heidegger envers la morphologie des cultures
• Oswald Spengler (Encyclopédie de L'Agora) cf. La conception de Spengler
• Déclin de l'Occident ou débâcle de l'Europe ?
• La vengeance de Spengler
• « Ce que des auteurs infréquentables ont à dire à ceux qui ne veulent pas leur ressembler » (J. Bouveresse, Agône n°48, 2012)
• « Spengler l'infréquenté » [JL Evard, traducteur et documentaliste, est intéressant en ce qu'il montre également — à son insu — ce qu'il en est d'une certaine réception de Spengler. Voué à la manie comparatiste comme nombre d'auto-proclamés historiens des idées qui sont de fait des (bien souvent mauvais) idéologues masqués (avec l'habituel souci d'objectivité comme cache-sexe d'une dépolitisation égotiste), il ne peut saisir ce qu'implique véritablement l'intempestivité (Unzeitgemäss) au sens nietzschéen, à savoir en quoi un enjeu civilisationnel fait historicité (bien qu'ayant pourtant traduit un court texte de G. Simmel dans la RMM rappelant la nécessité de construire un cadre historique pour contextualiser et expliciter son approche). L'auteur des Années décisives n'est pas interrogé quant à ce que recèle sa stratégie d'écriture, autrement dit sa volonté de destin devant rompre avec la logique d'un Occident malade en stade final, mais est momifié comme vieux réactionnaire atrabilaire prussien (en somme une icône néo-droitière), échappant de peu aux déjà menés procès inquisitoriaux estampillant de préfascisme, comme du temps de l'Allemagne années 50, Jünger pourtant en prise avec la question du nihilisme ou bien Klages mû par un romantisme anti-capitaliste faisant chair avec le cauchemar de l'histoire et en prise avec la question de l'aliénation posée vivement par un processus d'industrialisation déshumanisant, conforté alors par le mythe du Progrès]
• Divers articles (plusieurs langues)
• Aphorismes
• Articles en anglais

 

◘ Études critiques :

• Oswald Spengler (H. S. Hughes)
• Urkultur n°10
• Cahiers Science & Vie n°109
• Actualité de Spengler (R. Hervé, 1983)
• Nouvelle École n°59/60 (2011) [éditorial]
• Essai sur l'anti-progressisme, H. Kauffman, ch. VIII, Paris, thèse de 1936
• Irrationalisme et humanisme : critique d'une idéologie impérialiste (T. Schwarz)
• Oswald Spengler : Témoin de son temps, G. Merlio, 2 vol. (issus de sa thèse),  Akad. V., Stuttgart, 1982

◘ Sur notre site  :

• Entrée Spengleriana
• « Ernst Jünger et Oswald Spengler » (M. Hietala)
• « Du déclin de l'Europe : de Nietzsche à Rohrmoser » (B. Sob)
• « Défis postmodernes : entre Faust et Narcisse » (R. Steuckers)
• « Spengler, Marx, Heidegger : penser la technique » (A. de Benoist) |à venir]
• « Altheim, Spengler, Nietzsche et la décadence, mythe de la Révolution conservatrice » (L. Arcella)

The Revolutionary Conservative Critique of Oswald Spengler 

Lucian Tudor

Ex: https://motpol.nu

Oswald Spengler is by now well-known as one of the major thinkers of the German Conservative Revolution of the early 20th Century. In fact, he is frequently cited as having been one of the most determining intellectual influences on German Conservatism of the interwar period – along with Arthur Moeller van den Bruck and Ernst Jünger – to the point where his cultural pessimist philosophy is seen to be representative of Revolutionary Conservative views in general (although in reality most Revolutionary Conservatives held more optimistic views).[1]

To begin our discussion, we shall provide a brief overview of the major themes of Oswald Spengler’s philosophy.[2] According to Spengler, every High Culture has its own “soul” (this refers to the essential character of a Culture) and goes through predictable cycles of birth, growth, fulfillment, decline, and demise which resemble that of the life of a plant. To quote Spengler:

A Culture is born in the moment when a great soul awakens out of the proto-spirituality of ever-childish humanity, and detaches itself, a form from the formless, a bounded and mortal thing from the boundless and enduring. It blooms on the soil of an exactly-definable landscape, to which plant-wise it remains bound. It dies when the soul has actualized the full sum of its possibilities in the shape of peoples, languages, dogmas, arts, states, sciences, and reverts into the proto-soul.[3]

There is an important distinction in this theory between Kultur (“Culture”) and Zivilisation (“Civilization”). Kultur refers to the beginning phase of a High Culture which is marked by rural life, religiosity, vitality, will-to-power, and ascendant instincts, while Zivilisation refers to the later phase which is marked by urbanization, irreligion, purely rational intellect, mechanized life, and decadence. Although he acknowledged other High Cultures, Spengler focused particularly on three High Cultures which he distinguished and made comparisons between: the Magian, the Classical (Greco-Roman), and the present Western High Culture. He held the view that the West, which was in its later Zivilisation phase, would soon enter a final imperialistic and “Caesarist” stage – a stage which, according to Spengler, marks the final flash before the end of a High Culture.[4]

Perhaps Spengler’s most important contribution to the Conservative Revolution, however, was his theory of “Prussian Socialism,” which formed the basis of his view that conservatives and socialists should unite. In his work he argued that the Prussian character, which was the German character par excellence, was essentially socialist. For Spengler, true socialism was primarily a matter of ethics rather than economics. This ethical, Prussian socialism meant the development and practice of work ethic, discipline, obedience, a sense of duty to the greater good and the state, self-sacrifice, and the possibility of attaining any rank by talent. Prussian socialism was differentiated from Marxism and liberalism. Marxism was not true socialism because it was materialistic and based on class conflict, which stood in contrast with the Prussian ethics of the state. Also in contrast to Prussian socialism was liberalism and capitalism, which negated the idea of duty, practiced a “piracy principle,” and created the rule of money.[5]

Oswald Spengler’s theories of predictable culture cycles, of the separation between Kultur and Zivilisation, of the Western High Culture as being in a state of decline, and of a non-Marxist form of socialism, have all received a great deal of attention in early 20th Century Germany, and there is no doubt that they had influenced Right-wing thought at the time. However, it is often forgotten just how divergent the views of many Revolutionary Conservatives were from Spengler’s, even if they did study and draw from his theories, just as an overemphasis on Spenglerian theory in the Conservative Revolution has led many scholars to overlook the variety of other important influences on the German Right. Ironically, those who were influenced the most by Spengler – not only the German Revolutionary Conservatives, but also later the Traditionalists and the New Rightists – have mixed appreciation with critique. It is this reality which needs to be emphasized: the majority of Conservative intellectuals who have appreciated Spengler have simultaneously delivered the very significant message that Spengler’s philosophy needs to be viewed critically, and that as a whole it is not acceptable.

The most important critique of Spengler among the Revolutionary Conservative intellectuals was that made by Arthur Moeller van den Bruck.[6] Moeller agreed with certain basic ideas in Spengler’s work, including the division between Kultur and Zivilisation, with the idea of the decline of the Western Culture, and with his concept of socialism, which Moeller had already expressed in an earlier and somewhat different form in Der Preussische Stil (“The Prussian Style,” 1916).[7] However, Moeller resolutely rejected Spengler’s deterministic and fatalistic view of history, as well as the notion of destined culture cycles. Moeller asserted that history was essentially unpredictable and unfixed: “There is always a beginning (…) History is the story of that which is not calculated.”[8] Furthermore, he argued that history should not be seen as a “circle” (in Spengler’s manner) but rather a “spiral,” and a nation in decline could actually reverse its decline if certain psychological changes and events could take place within it.[9]

The most radical contradiction with Spengler made by Moeller van den Bruck was the rejection of Spengler’s cultural morphology, since Moeller believed that Germany could not even be classified as part of the “West,” but rather that it represented a distinct culture in its own right, one which even had more in common in spirit with Russia than with the “West,” and which was destined to rise while France and England fell.[10] However, we must note here that the notion that Germany is non-Western was not unique to Moeller, for Werner Sombart, Edgar Julius Jung, and Othmar Spann have all argued that Germans belonged to a very different cultural type from that of the Western nations, especially from the culture of the Anglo-Saxon world. For these authors, Germany represented a culture which was more oriented towards community, spirituality, and heroism, while the modern “West” was more oriented towards individualism, materialism, and capitalistic ethics. They further argued that any presence of Western characteristics in modern Germany was due to a recent poisoning of German culture by the West which the German people had a duty to overcome through sociocultural revolution.[11]

Another key intellectual of the German Conservative Revolution, Hans Freyer, also presented a critical analysis of Spenglerian philosophy.[12] Due to his view that that there is no certain and determined progress in history, Freyer agreed with Spengler’s rejection of the linear view of progress. Freyer’s philosophy of culture also emphasized cultural particularism and the disparity between peoples and cultures, which was why he agreed with Spengler in terms of the basic conception of cultures possessing a vital center and with the idea of each culture marking a particular kind of human being. Being a proponent of a community-oriented state socialism, Freyer found Spengler’s anti-individualist “Prussian socialism” to be agreeable. Throughout his works, Freyer had also discussed many of the same themes as Spengler – including the integrative function of war, hierarchies in society, the challenges of technological developments, cultural form and unity – but in a distinct manner oriented towards social theory.[13]

However, Freyer argued that the idea of historical (cultural) types and that cultures were the product of an essence which grew over time were already expressed in different forms long before Spengler in the works of Karl Lamprecht, Wilhelm Dilthey, and Hegel. It is also noteworthy that Freyer’s own sociology of cultural categories differed from Spengler’s morphology. In his earlier works, Freyer focused primarily on the nature of the cultures of particular peoples (Völker) rather than the broad High Cultures, whereas in his later works he stressed the interrelatedness of all the various European cultures across the millennia. Rejecting Spengler’s notion of cultures as being incommensurable, Freyer’s “history regarded modern Europe as composed of ‘layers’ of culture from the past, and Freyer was at pains to show that major historical cultures had grown by drawing upon the legacy of past cultures.”[14] Finally, rejecting Spengler’s historical determinism, Freyer had “warned his readers not to be ensnared by the powerful organic metaphors of the book [Der Untergang des Abendlandes] … The demands of the present and of the future could not be ‘deduced’ from insights into the patterns of culture … but were ultimately based on ‘the wager of action’ (das Wagnis der Tat).”[15]

Yet another important Conservative critique of Spengler was made by the Italian Perennial Traditionalist philosopher Julius Evola, who was himself influenced by the Conservative Revolution but developed a very distinct line of thought. In his The Path of Cinnabar, Evola showed appreciation for Spengler’s philosophy, particularly in regards to the criticism of the modern rationalist and mechanized Zivilisation of the “West” and with the complete rejection of the idea of progress.[16] Some scholars, such as H.T. Hansen, stress the influence of Spengler’s thought on Evola’s thought, but it is important to remember that Evola’s cultural views differed significantly from Spengler’s due to Evola’s focus on what he viewed as the shifting role of a metaphysical Perennial Tradition across history as opposed to historically determined cultures.[17]

In his critique, Evola pointed out that one of the major flaws in Spengler’s thought was that he “lacked any understanding of metaphysics and transcendence, which embody the essence of each genuine Kultur.”[18] Spengler could analyze the nature of Zivilisation very well, but his irreligious views caused him to have little understanding of the higher spiritual forces which deeply affected human life and the nature of cultures, without which one cannot clearly grasp the defining characteristic of Kultur. As Robert Steuckers has pointed out, Evola also found Spengler’s analysis of Classical and Eastern cultures to be very flawed, particularly as a result of the “irrationalist” philosophical influences on Spengler: “Evola thinks this vitalism leads Spengler to say ‘things that make one blush’ about Buddhism, Taoism, Stoicism, and Greco-Roman civilization (which, for Spengler, is merely a civilization of ‘corporeity’).”[19] Also problematic for Evola was “Spengler’s valorization of ‘Faustian man,’ a figure born in the Age of Discovery, the Renaissance and humanism; by this temporal determination, Faustian man is carried towards horizontality rather than towards verticality.”[20]

Finally, we must make a note of the more recent reception of Spenglerian philosophy in the European New Right and Identitarianism: Oswald Spengler’s works have been studied and critiqued by nearly all major New Right and Identitarian intellectuals, including especially Alain de Benoist, Dominique Venner, Pierre Krebs, Guillaume Faye, Julien Freund, and Tomislav Sunic. The New Right view of Spenglerian theory is unique, but is also very much reminiscent of Revolutionary Conservative critiques of Moeller van den Bruck and Hans Freyer. Like Spengler and many other thinkers, New Right intellectuals also critique the “ideology of progress,” although it is significant that, unlike Spengler, they do not do this to accept a notion of rigid cycles in history nor to reject the existence of any progress. Rather, the New Right critique aims to repudiate the unbalanced notion of linear and inevitable progress which depreciates all past culture in favor of the present, while still recognizing that some positive progress does exist, which it advocates reconciling with traditional culture to achieve a more balanced cultural order.[21] Furthermore, addressing Spengler’s historical determinism, Alain de Benoist has written that “from Eduard Spranger to Theodor W. Adorno, the principal reproach directed at Spengler evidently refers to his ‘fatalism’ and to his ‘determinism.’ The question is to know up to what point man is prisoner of his own history. Up to what point can one no longer change his course?”[22]

Like their Revolutionary Conservative precursors, New Rightists reject any fatalist and determinist notion of history, and do not believe that any people is doomed to inevitable decline; “Decadence is therefore not an inescapable phenomenon, as Spengler wrongly thought,” wrote Pierre Krebs, echoing the thoughts of other authors.[23] While the New Rightists accept Spengler’s idea of Western decline, they have posed Europe and the West as two antagonistic entities. According to this new cultural philosophy, the genuine European culture is represented by numerous traditions rooted in the most ancient European cultures, and must be posed as incompatible with the modern “West,” which is the cultural emanation of early modern liberalism, egalitarianism, and individualism.

The New Right may agree with Spengler that the “West” is undergoing decline, “but this original pessimism does not overshadow the purpose of the New Right: The West has encountered the ultimate phase of decadence, consequently we must definitively break with the Western civilization and recover the memory of a Europe liberated from the egalitarianisms…”[24] Thus, from the Identitarian perspective, the “West” is identified as a globalist and universalist entity which had harmed the identities of European and non-European peoples alike. In the same way that Revolutionary Conservatives had called for Germans to assert the rights and identity of their people in their time period, New Rightists call for the overcoming of the liberal, cosmopolitan Western Civilization to reassert the more profound cultural and spiritual identity of Europeans, based on the “regeneration of history” and a reference to their multi-form and multi-millennial heritage.

Lucian Tudor 

 

Notes

[1] An example of such an assertion regarding cultural pessimism can be seen in “Part III. Three Major Expressions of Neo-Conservatism” in Klemens von Klemperer, Germany’s New Conservatism: Its History and Dilemma in the Twentieth Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1968).

[2] To supplement our short summary of Spenglerian philosophy, we would like to note that one the best overviews of Spengler’s philosophy in English is Stephen M. Borthwick, “Historian of the Future: An Introduction to Oswald Spengler’s Life and Works for the Curious Passer-by and the Interested Student,” Institute for Oswald Spengler Studies, 2011, <https://sites.google.com/site/spenglerinstitute/Biography>.

[3] Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West Vol. 1: Form and Actuality (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1926), p. 106.

[4] Ibid.

[5] See “Prussianism and Socialism” in Oswald Spengler, Selected Essays (Chicago: Gateway/Henry Regnery, 1967).

[6] For a good overview of Moeller’s thought, see Lucian Tudor, “Arthur Moeller van den Bruck: The Man & His Thought,” Counter-Currents Publishing, 17 August 2012, <http://www.counter-currents.com/2012/08/arthur-moeller-van-den-bruck-the-man-and-his-thought/>.

[7] See Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair (Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974), pp. 238-239, and Alain de Benoist, “Arthur Moeller van den Bruck,” Elementos: Revista de Metapolítica para una Civilización Europea No. 15 (11 June 2011), p. 30, 40-42. <http://issuu.com/sebastianjlorenz/docs/elementos_n__15>.

[8] Arthur Moeller van den Bruck as quoted in Benoist, “Arthur Moeller van den Bruck,” p. 41.

[9] Ibid., p. 41.

[10] Ibid., pp. 41-43.

[11] See Fritz K. Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890–1933 (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1990), pp. 183 ff.; John J. Haag, Othmar Spann and the Politics of “Totality”: Corporatism in Theory and Practice (Ph.D. Thesis, Rice University, 1969), pp. 24-26, 78, 111.; Alexander Jacob’s introduction and “Part I: The Intellectual Foundations of Politics” in Edgar Julius Jung, The Rule of the Inferiour, Vol. 1 (Lewiston, New York: Edwin Mellon Press, 1995).

[12] For a brief introduction to Freyer’s philosophy, see Lucian Tudor, “Hans Freyer: The Quest for Collective Meaning,” Counter-Currents Publishing, 22 February 2013, <http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/02/hans-freyer-the-quest-for-collective-meaning/>.

[13] See Jerry Z. Muller, The Other God That Failed: Hans Freyer and the Deradicalization of German Conservatism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 78-79, 120-121.

[14] Ibid., p. 335.

[15] Ibid., p. 79.

[16] See Julius Evola, The Path of Cinnabar (London: Integral Tradition Publishing, 2009), pp. 203-204.

[17] See H.T. Hansen, “Julius Evola’s Political Endeavors,” in Julius Evola, Men Among the Ruins: Postwar Reflections of a Radical Traditionalist (Rochester: Inner Traditions, 2002), pp. 15-17.

[18] Evola, Path of Cinnabar, p. 204.

[19] Robert Steuckers, “Evola & Spengler”, Counter-Currents Publishing, 20 September 2010, <http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/09/evola-spengler/> .

[20] Ibid.

[21] In a description that applies as much to the New Right as to the Eurasianists, Alexander Dugin wrote of a vision in which “the formal opposition between tradition and modernity is removed… the realities superseded by the period of Enlightenment obtain a legitimate place – these are religion, ethnos, empire, cult, legend, etc. In the same time, a technological breakthrough, economical development, social fairness, labour liberation, etc. are taken from the Modern” (See Alexander Dugin, “Multipolarism as an Open Project,” Journal of Eurasian Affairs Vol. 1, No. 1 (September 2013), pp. 12-13).

[22] Alain de Benoist, “Oswald Spengler,” Elementos: Revista de Metapolítica para una Civilización Europea No. 10 (15 April 2011), p. 13.<http://issuu.com/sebastianjlorenz/docs/elementos_n__10>.

[23] Pierre Krebs, Fighting for the Essence (London: Arktos, 2012), p. 34.

[24] Sebastian J. Lorenz, “El Decadentismo Occidental, desde la Konservative Revolution a la Nouvelle Droite,”Elementos No. 10, p. 5.

ACTUALITÉ DE CARL SCHMITT: Les notions de politique, de guerre discriminatoire et de grands espaces

ACTUALITÉ DE CARL SCHMITT:

Les notions de politique, de guerre discriminatoire et de grands espaces

Sur le NOMOS de la Terre et la dissolution de l'ordre européen

par Irnerio Seminatore

Ex: http://www.ieri.be

TABLE DES MATIÈRES

La République de Weimar et ses débats

L'ami et l'ennemi

La théorie moderne de l’État

La dissolution de l'ordre européen

Union européenne et Confédération d’États. De la guerre inter-étatique à la "guerre civile mondiale"

Ordre cosmopolitique, logique de la terre  et droits circonscrits

Le "pluriversum" comme nouvel ordre planétaire

Le Nomos de la Terre, la criminalisation de l'ennemi et la géopolitique des grands espaces

Types de Guerre et ordres juridiques

L'unification des théâtres et la sécurité collective

Conflits et systèmes d'équilibre: C.Schmitt et H.Kissinger

Le dilemme de l'ordre international. Système de règles ou système de forces? 

L'Europe, la démondialisation et les dangers du consensus de masse.

**********************************************

La République de Weimar et ses débats

Carl Schmitt (1888-1985),  figure centrale  de la "révolution conservatrice" allemande fut l'une des personnalités  marquantes du débat constitutionnel  de la République  de Weimar, puis de la montée et triomphe du national-socialisme des années 20 et 30.

Ses ouvrages et en particulier "La notion de politique" ne cessèrent d'être les références de base de la politologie allemande de l'époque.

Quant à cette notion, il bouleversa les paradigmes de la politique, comme lieu de discrimination de l'ami et de l'ennemi et dans le sillage  de celle-ci  il décela les fondements  des concepts de souveraineté et de décision, en gardant pour maîtres Machiavel, Bodin et Hobbes. Sa contribution est au confluant de doctrines et de situations diverses et elle est  redevable,pour l'aspect doctrinal de  la mise en relation de la métaphysique et de la théologie politiques, propres à  la tradition de la "Respublica Christiana" du Moyen Age , avec le rationalisme de la politique moderne et, pour la conjoncture politique et intellectuelle, de  la période d'incertitudes et d'instabilité, ouverte par le Traité de Versailles et par le passage de l'Empire allemand à la République de Weimar.

Lorsque parut, en 1927, la "Notion de politique", la plupart des politistes déduisaient la spécificité de la politique de la théorie générale de l’État. Or la politique est une activité primordiale, consubstantielle à la constitution de la société et précède l'invention moderne  de l’État, forme historique et périssable de la politique. Puisque Schmitt refuse de définir la politique par le droit ou par l'institution de l’État, il en radicalise le trait essentiel, celui d'une "relation spécifique et fondamentale, ne se laissant déduire d'aucune autre relation et à laquelle on peut réduire toute autre activité et tout motif politique, qui est celle de l'ami et de l'ennemi".

Dans la conception de Schmitt le primat du  politique sur le droit est fondé sur la distinction, selon laquelle le politique est constituant et le droit régulateur. Ce primat repose en effet  sur une décision souveraine, qui rend effectives, en temps de crise ,les situations d'exception, car "il n'existe pas de normes, que l'on puisse appliquer au cahos".

"Souverain est qui décide de l'exception en situation d'exception. En effet la normalité ne prouve rien et l'exception prouve tout, car la règle ne vit qu'à partir  de l'exception". Dans ces conditions, la dictature souveraine préserve l'unité, face au danger d'une situation prolongée de crise. Ici le risque extrême est la dangerosité existentielle de l'ennemi, à combattre et à anéantir. Dans ce cas la dictature du souverain rétablit l'ordre détruit, le droit bafoué et la sécurité menacée , par un pouvoir d'exception et d'urgence.

L'ami et l'ennemi

C'est par le primat du politique qu'on peut faire le partage entre l'ami et l'ennemi, fondement du concept de politique dans sa réalité existentielle, lorsque l’État est mis lui même en question et qu'une lutte est à mener sans limites juridiques.

La distinction entre l'ami et l'ennemi est d'exprimer le"degré d'intensité d'un lien, ou d'une séparation, d'une association ou d'une dissociation". Quant à la figure de l'ennemi, il s'agit d' un ennemi public (hostis) et non privé (inimicus), contre lequel une guerre est toujours possible.Or, pour qu'une guerre soit déclarée contre l'ennemi interne ou extérieur, il faut qu'un certain type d'ordre soit  remis en cause. Or,à l'époque de Weimar,cette remise en cause concernait la stabilité politique, par l'absence d'un État fort et d'une économe saine. Ce fut alors la raison pour laquelle, dès cette période, la constitution de l’État opposa C.Schmitt à l'inspiration libérale de la période et à la démocratie de masse, professés par les courants sociaux démocrates, en raison de leur capacité  de dissolution de l' homogénéité sociale du pays.

L'homogénéité est ici à entendre comme l'accord de tous sur les décisions fondamentales de l'être politique, ce qui constitue une masse en unité. Or la substance  de cet ensemble   est de l'ordre des sentiments et des affects, tandis que sa dissolution résulte de la problématisation de la raison moderne, sans foi ni transcendance.

Poussant plus loin sa critique de la  paralysie de la démocratie de Weimar, et opposant à l'idéologie du progrès  l'image de l’État qui décide et qui gouverne, Carl Schmitt blâme  la neutralisation et la dépolitisation du régime des partis, le parlamentarisme érodé et la ploutocratie, ainsi que la "passivité" de la bourgeoisie, comme classe "discutidora" (Donoso Cortès) et devient un partisan de "l’État fort" et  de la "démocratie plébiscitaire".

La théorie moderne de l’État

Quant à la Constitution de la République de Weimar, paralysée par le pluralisme des intérêts particuliers et le libéralisme montant, considéré comme l'indécision organisée au sein de débats parmementaires sans fin, l’État se  rend incapable, selon Schmitt,  d'affronter la démocratie de masse. En se démarquant des droits de l'homme universel, indépendants du droit positif,  Schmitt soutient l'idée que toute constitution politique résulte d'un ordre qui se rend effectif par le droit, sans s'identifier à celui-ci. Or, dans toute constitution le souverain,( homme ou office), crée le cadre des conditions préalables du droit, l'ordre fondateur, la constitution.  Sous cet angle, l’État moderne est  légitimé démocratiquement, mais la démocratie, comme régime politique, est conditionnée à son tour, par la forme d’État et par l'homogénéité du peuple.
Enfin, en matière de relations internationales, Schmitt est à considérer comme le dernier représentant du " Ius Publicum Europaeum", le courant de pensée qui esquissa la trame du droit public européen, fondé sur la reconnaissance de la légalité et légitimité du "droit à la guerre" des États , au XVI ème et XVIIème siècles, tant exalté au XVIIIème, remis en cause par la Révolution française, repris avec le Congrès de Vienne en 1815 et prolongé jusqu'à l'universalisme abstrait de la Société des Nations et des Nations Unies au XXème siècle.

La dissolution de l'ordre européen

L'universalisme des institutions internationales   du premier et du deuxième après guerre, est tenu comme inapte à concevoir la variété des formes de la communauté juridique mondiale , car fait défaut à la Société des Nations et aux Nations Unies "toute pensée constructive  et toute substance d'une communauté" de peuples.

Quant au système international international publique, l'architecture  de celui-ci ne peut être assurée par une quelconque application de la "théorie pure du droit" ,à la Kelsen, dérivée d'une "Grundnorm", car celle-ci est de nature logico-transcendentale et  occulte l'origine profonde des normes.

D'après le Traité de Versailles et vis à vis  de l'Allemagne, les institutions universelles prolongeraient, pour Schmitt, sous un manteau juridique formel, la situation de guerre, derrière un ordre de façade et une paix "inauthentique".

Dans le cadre d'une situation européenne instable ou menaçante, la possibilité de l’État de s'autoconserver repose, pour Schmit, sur une action qui émane de sa souveraineté et de son autonomie, la capacité d'une décision  d'exception.

Ainsi , la survie  d'une communauté politique a besoin d'un État pourvu du "ius belli", car la guerre comme inimitié radicale ne peut exister que d’État à État et seul l’État peut lui consacrer des ressources vitales.

Sous cet angle, l’État qui mène une politique pacifiste ou humanitaire cesse d'être un sujet politique ou une unité significative du système international (Union européenne), car seul l’État, caractérisé par un rapport stable à son territoire et qui reste dans une relation de possession naturelle avec lui,  peut assurer l'auto-conservation d'une société.

Union européenne et Confédération d’États. De la guerre inter-étatique à la "guerre civile mondiale"

La naissance de l'Union Européenne,dans les années 50, anticipant sur un monde pacifié, remplace l'ancien ordre étatique autour d'un concept dépolitisé et fonctionnel, l'intégration régionale, se situant entre les deux niveaux, du globalisme  et les États nationaux classiques. Elle marque la fin de la géopolitique traditionnelle, comme rivalité entre sujets belliqueux et résiste à la tendance continentale et eurasienne  des "grands espaces", ainsi qu'à la diversification du monde multipolaire.
Sa constitution d'acteur incomplet, lui interdit de se ranger du coté des puissances eurasiennes  et de pratiquer un jeu d' équilibre  et de contre-poids entre le pouvoir thalassocratique dominant et la logique continentale du Heartland. Par ailleurs elle participe du politéisme des valeurs,  propre à l'universalisme  mondialiste et ne peut saisir les occasions de l'ère post-moderne, pour profiter de la reconfiguration du monde.

Avec le désencrage de la Grande Bretagne du continent  se confirme  la prépondérance des puissances de la mer sur celles de la terre et la déterritorialisation du pouvoir d'éversion, qu'il prenne la forme du néo-terrorisme global ou d'autres formes de conflit armé. Ceci  implique  une transformation de la guerre inter-étatique en "guerre civile mondiale". La politique devient une simple potentialité d'opposition et de révolte, au cœur d'un universalisme nihiliste. Dans ce contexte le processus de démondialisation en cours, avec l'irruption du politique  et le retour sécuritaire de la forme étatique, implique une revendication d'indépendance et d'initiative stratégique, autrefois impensable, vis à vis de l'Amérique. Cette revendication postule également une réforme institutionnelle profonde .Selon l'ancien président de la Commission, Jacques Delors, l'Union européenne devrait s’inspirer du modèle de la confédération d’État et des capacités d'action de troisième force. Conçue en revanche comme espace euro-atlantique et comme appendice de l'Amérique, sa liberté de manœuvre est limitée, bien qu'elle puisse se donner le but commun de la conservation politique, si son existence politique était assortie d'un "ius belli". Or, l'objectif historique d'Hégémon est d'éviter la constitution d'un bloc continental eurasien, le Heartland, rivalisant avec les États-Unis. Pour rappel, l'évolution planétaire du monde, depuis l'effondrement de l'Union Soviétique a comporté une déterritorialisation des sociétés, dépourvues de frontières et la soumission du monde à la logique des flux, ou, en définitive,à la logique de la mer. Au même temps l'élargissement de l'Union européenne et de l'Otan vers les grands espaces d'Asie a substitué le principe d'ordre des relations internationales, de l'universalisme abstrait du droit international public aux rapports de force du réalisme classique.

Ordre, cosmopolitisme, logique de la terre et droits circonscrits

L'affaiblissement des États souverains, débuté dans les entre deux guerres,  fait perdre aux conflits leur caractère limité aux profit des notions de guerre illimitée et  d'alliances militaires, qui coïncident aujourd'hui, avec les pôles de pouvoirs d'un système désormais planétaire.

Par ailleurs, l'apparition des grands espaces, depuis le XVIème siècle avec la découverte des Amériques, pose  le problème d'un nouvel ordre, qui puisse devenir le fondement de nouvelles légitimités et allégeances.

Avec le "Nomos de la terre"(1950) Schmitt exprime l'exigence d'une réflexion qui rende possible l'instauration de ce  nouveau droit et identifie cette condition dans l'enracinement des  nouvelles lois dans la logique de la terre , comme unités d'un ordre et d'un espace circonscrits.

La  condition de l'espace est primordiale, pour Schmitt, car elle définit le fondement de la légalité internationale,  toute forme d' ordre comportant  une délimitation de l'espace. C'est d'ailleurs la raison pour laquelle la modernité occidentale peine à imposer des formes de pouvoir stables, puisqu'elle a remplacé l'ordre concret de la terre par l'ordre abstrait de la loi . On comprendra mieux l'opposition de Schmitt à la pensée positiviste (H.Kelsen) et à l'idéal cosmopolitique (E.Kant),car Schmitt fait appel au substrat originel de toute société, la terre,comme fondement ancestral du droit

L'occultation de l'origine des normes par H.Kelsen, fait rappeler à Schmitt la  conception pluraliste des sources du droit, comme socle de toutes les manifestations  de l'ordre social

Il en découle que tout peuple, est lié à son environnement géopolitique, dont il est empreint et que la négation, par les universalistes, de tout enracinement à une source de vie, est une négation des souverainetés qui s'y exercent.

La conception actuelle du "nouvel ordre mondial" (W.Bush) rompt avec la diversité des attachements aux sols, politiques et moraux, civils et religieux, par l'universalisme fictif d'un modèle  unique,le régime démocratique, comme modèle de déracinement et d'aliénation culturelle.

Ainsi , à titre de prévention, le "pluri-versum" des peuples et des États, qui  est le nom schmittien de la multipolarité actuelle,représente  la succession historique des souverainetés européennes et leur dépassement, dans  la perspective des "grands espaces" et dans l'irruption planétaire d' un ordre global.

Le "pluriversum" comme nouvel ordre planétaire

A la fin du deuxième conflit mondial, Schmitt tire le bilan de l'affaiblissement de l’État souverain et de la  fin du système international euro-centrique. Le constat d'un universalisme sans espace et d'un normativisme abstrait, dépourvu  d'une légalité sur  laquelle fonder des accords, pousse Schmitt à interroger le nouvel ordre planétaire, afin de dégager les règles communes à une pluralité d'acteurs dissemblables. Ça lui saute aux jeux avec évidence que le nouvel ordre ne peut être le produit d'une logique juridique, mais d'un ordre spatial délimité. Le nouveau Nomos,se dessine ainsi, comme"la forme immédiate, par laquelle l'ordre social et politique d'un peuple, devient spatialement visible". La lecture planétaire  de Schmitt est celle d'une diversification du monde en grands espaces autonomes, globalement opposés à l'universalisme de la puissance hégémonique et alternatif à un univers d'Etats-Nations déclinant. Le Nomos de la Terre, la criminalisation de l'ennemi et la géopolitique des grands espaces

Avec "Le Nomos de la Terre" (de 1950), Schmitt consacre sa réflexion aux relations internationales, une constante omniprésente de sa conception de la politique. Il semble même que les relations extérieures aient constituées une priorité sur la politique intérieure, où le critère de l'ami et de l'ennemi reste latent. Schmitt remonte en effet, dans cet ouvrage, aux origines ancestrales du droit inter-étatique, émanant de l'Europe, jusqu'au début de l'âge moderne, après l'effacement de la République Chrétienne et la fin des guerres de religions. Il repère là un ordre spatial, précédant l'ordre juridique, car, pour être concret et non "utopique", tout ordre juridique est , pour Carl Schmitt, un ordre de la terre et une délimitation territoriale . Contre " l'humanisme neutralisant" de More et d’Érasme, qui deviendra plus tard, la philosophie de la paix internationale de la Société des Nations et des Nations Unies, Schmitt, vise la limitation de la guerre et non la criminalisation de celle-ci (avec ses corrélats de crimes et d'atrocités). qui conduisent  à la "guerre totale" et à la volonté d'anéantissement de l'ennemi. En effet la criminalisation de l'ennemi en droit international du XXIème siècle par les tenants de la sécurité collective des Nations-unies, se démarque de la conception des juristes  du "Ius Publicum Europaeum", qui faisaient abstraction de la "guerre juste",sur la base du concept de guerre entre souverainetés, réciproquement égales et menant des guerres limitées. La philosophie  du nomos de la terre  est ainsi, pour résumer,  la limitation de la guerre, finalité essentielle de tout droit international, une guerre envisagée sous l'angle des transformations, qui lui font subir l'extension des "théâtres" et la nouvelle "géopolitique" de l'ordre juridique.

Types de guerre et ordres juridiques

Ainsi et de manière analytique Schmitt y met en évidence les transformations de la relation entre guerre et ordres normatifs.

Ainsi ,dans la "guerre juste", élaborée par les théologiens du Moyen Age,sous la double autorité du Pape et de l'Empereur, garants suprêmes d'un droit des gents, chrétien, européen et terrien , l'inégalité des adversaires était une supposition bien réelle, qui faisait de ce type de conflit une guerre unilatérale et limitée, au delà de la qualification juridique de la "iusta causa".

La guerre- duel, entre souverainetés régulières des temps modernes ( issues du traité de Westphalie, 1648 ), fondée sur l'égalité formelle des belligérants, demeurait bilatérale et circonscrite.

En revanche la guerre discriminatoire ou guerre sanction du XXème siècle tend à devenir totale,  sous l'effet des conceptions universalistes et "utopiques", étendues à un ordre global (l'émisphère occidental) et comporte la criminalisation de l'ennemi, dans  le but de l'éradiquer, en agresseur et en coupable, rabaissé au rang de criminel. L'exemple majeur a été  le Traité de Versailles, qui manqua à sa tache primordiale de rétablir la paix.

L'ouvrage est reparti en  quatre grandes sections, qui  scandent  l'élargissement de la scène géopolitique et différencient les nouveaux  théâtres sur la base de stratégies euro-centriques du monde.

A_La première partie repose sur l'idée que tout ordre juridique est situé dans une région du monde  et ancré dans les clôtures d'un sol. Une "prise de terres" ancestrale est donc le titre de légitimité fondamental de tout ordre juridique, qui implique souvent une action de guerre.

B-La deuxième  traite de l'expansion coloniale européenne vers le Nouveau Monde. Elle se traduit par la découverte  des Amériques et la délimitation de champs d'action distincts entre l'Espagne et le Portugal par deux lignes globales, fixant leurs zones respectives d'influence,de commerce et d'évangélisation ( traité de Tordesillas, 1494),intégrées par des "lignes d'amitié" assignées aux deux puissances neutres ,la France et la Grande Bretagne. Au delà régnait, en principe, par  convention admise ,un état de nature sans foi ni loi, où une guerre de conquête sans limites pouvait opposer les belligérants européens. La guerre était corsetée en Europe, dans l'utilisation de la violence armée,par l'impératif religieux de la République Chrétienne, de telle sorte que Grotius et  Pufendorf formalisèrent le "ius gentium", oubliant que le titre de légitimité des États souverains d'Europe découlait de la "découverte" et de "l'occupation" des terres des Amériques.

C-La troisième partie parvient à la description de la guerre-sanction. En effet, comme suite à une "prise de terre" planétaire de la part des puissances européennes s'affirme la coexistence de deux ordres concrets   aux statuts distincts, le statut homogène de la mer et les statuts hétérogènes des terres.
C'est seulement la puissance globale qui opère la  jonction entre ces deux ordres et garantit un équilibre de pouvoir entre terre et mer (l'Angleterre d'abord et les États-Unis ensuite), conforme à ses intérêts géopolitiques. On passe ainsi, à la fin du XIXème ,de l'ordre territorial et souverain de l'Europe, celui du "Ius publicum europaeum", purement inter-étatique, à un ordre d'essence mixte, qui distingue les relations  métropolitaines étatiques (ou européennes), des rapports  coloniaux, non étatiques  et non européens. Les grandes transformations géopolitiques entraînent avec elles ,des changements importants dans les deux sphères,  du droit privé et du droit publique, qui sont respectivement, topique et  concret le premier( le commerce) et utopique et abstrait le deuxième ( les droits universels). Dans le même temps la guerre devient limitée et d'occupation (en Europe),  mondiale , totale, illimitée et d'anéantissement (dans les deux hémisphères) La figure de l'ennemi change également de statut et configure la puissance hostile en ennemi de l'humanité, en figure éversive, par rapport à celle d'un acteur local, bien identifié et souverain . Le processus de criminalisation de la politique étrangère et mondiale s"achève enfin , par une plongée tragique, non pas dans  l'anarchie hobbesienne, mais dans une sorte de nihilisme apocalyptique.

D-Dans la quatrième partie Schmitt approfondit la dichotomie des deux ordres, métropolitain et colonial et analyse la fin du dualisme, qui a caractérisé le  "ius publicum européum", suite à l'émergence d'un droit international indifférencié, par l'affirmation  de la notion d'Occident au niveau planétaire (XXème siècle).

L'unification des théâtres et la sécurité collective

Les théâtres de guerre, jadis séparés, sont unifiés conceptuellement par une vision universaliste et utopique de l'ordre mondial, assurée par l'abstraction du droit, la moralisation des litiges et la doctrine de la sécurité collective (la SdN  et les ONU). Une sécurité,garantie  par l'interventionnisme de l'acteur hégémonique (les Etats-Unis), ou encore, par l'adoption d'une repartition territoriale du monde, qui intègre la conception "multipolaire" de la planète, dans  la défense concrète  du nouveau nomos  atlantique et globaliste, aujourd'hui à son déclin.

Schmitt, en  excluant toute conception universaliste du droit international parvient à la conclusion que l'ordre du monde ne peut se réaliser sans antagonismes entre les grands espaces, ou sans la domination d'un centre sur sa périphérie. Toutefois il reconnaît l'exigence d'une autorité supérieure, en mesure de trancher sur les différends et les tensions entre forces régulières et irrégulière, intérieures et extérieures. Il est incontestable que l’État moderne se distingue de tous les autres, pour avoir dompté,  à l'intérieur de ses frontières,  la relation ami-ennemi , sans l'avoir totalement supprimée.

Par ailleurs et dans  l'ensemble de son œuvre, Schmitt semble privilégier la priorité de la politique extérieure sur la politique interne, confirmée par sa recherche en matière de droit international public, qui porte sur le  principe de limitation de la guerre et sur la source de stabilité,  constituée par l’enracinement géopolitique  de tout système normatif.

Ainsi se conclut l'immense effort de théorisation, entrepris sous la République de Weimar et achevé, en ses grandes lignes, avec le "Nomos de la Terre".

On passe du cadre intellectuel de la politique interne  et donc de la distinction entre l'ami et l'ennemi, avec, en corrélat, la problématique de l’État moderne et de ses oppositions intérieures maîtrisables , à l'ordre imprévisible des relations internationales de l'âge planétaire.

Conflits et systèmes d'équilibre : C. Schmitt et H. Kissinger

La conclusion du système de pensée schmittien, élaboré au courant de trente ans, viendra de Carl Schmitt lui même, avec l'observation selon laquelle :" La pratique du "Ius publicum Europaeum" tendait à comprendre le conflit, dans le cadre d'un système d'équilibres. Désormais on les universalise, au nom de l'unité du monde".

Conclusion à laquelle parviendra également H.Kissinger dans "L'Ordre du Monde", lorsqu'il essaie de définir l'ordre souhaitable du XXIème siècle,  sur le modèle de la paix  de Westphalie (1648), rappelant  que "La paix de Westphalie ne reflétait pas une perspective morale unique, .......mais reposait sur un système d’États indépendants, acceptant que leurs ambitions respectives soient freinées par l'équilibre général des forces, réduisant l'ampleur des conflits ".

Le dilemme de l'ordre international. Système de règles ou système de forces?

Comment parvenir à la constitution d'une structure d'ordre ,capable de limiter les conflits et de préserver la paix ,dans un monde global?

C'est la question ontologique du système international actuel.

Par un système de règles admises et respectées, qui limitent  la liberté d'action des États, ou par un équilibre des forces, qui interviennent en cas d'effondrement des règles?

Ce dilemme et cette  problématique rapprochent Schmitt et Kissinger, au delà de leur plaidoirie respective en faveur de l'Allemagne ou des Etats- Unis.

Deux éléments sont aujourd'hui communs à l'analyse des réalités internationales et apparaissent tout à fait incontournables, la multiplicité des acteurs, des civilisations et des cultures et, à l'opposé, l'unicité du cadre d'action, l'unité d' un monde clos, limité et interdépendant .

En revanche deux moyens demeurent optionnels: celui des règles communes d'ordre conventionnel et celui du système des forces, aux références divergentes et aux objectifs incompatibles.

Nous retrouvons dans ce dilemme de l'art de gouverner et de la High Polics l'éternelle opposition entre la loi et la force,  au service de l'idéal de la paix et de la sécurité, auquel ont consacré leurs esprits Schmitt et Kissinger,le premier avec la dialectique de l'ami et de l'ennemi, le deuxième dans la perspective du consensus et du rôle de l"Amérique, les deux en l'absence de la figure du perturbateur radical , la figure du peuple.

L'Europe, la démondialisation et le danger du consensus de masse

Au moment où l’irruption de la politique dans un monde dépolitisé, éveille  les peuples sous la bannière inattendue du populisme ou de l'éversion violente, suggérant l'exigence d'un nouveau compromis historique entre le démos et les élites, le danger de la "guerre civile mondiale" vient de l'absence conjointe du consensus de masse et de la négation de normes universelles observées.

Il en découle la perte de contrôle des pouvoirs, affranchis de la logique des équilibres et des contre-poids assurés au système de Westphalie par l'assurance des rapports de force, désagrégés aujourd'hui par le choc des civilisations et des cultures, qui engendrent un ordre chaotique du monde et une vision nihiliste de l’avenir.

 

 

The Future Belongs to Polymaths

Natella Speranskaya

 

Ex: https://medium.com

I want to start with a little story. Many years ago, I saw a fresco by Raphael. “The School of Athens” is one of the pearls of Renaissance art. On it, the artist depicted immortal images of great thinkers: Heraclitus, Empedocles, Parmenides, Pythagoras, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates…and there was among them the only one woman who has always been for me a kind of model, an archetype of female wisdom — Hypatia of Alexandria. Raphael gave her the features of his beloved Margherita Luti. I looked at this collection of great minds of mankind and even then I understood that I knew the one secret. Lorenzo de’ Medici also knew it.

In the XV century, he established the Platonic Academy in Florence, headed by Marsilio Ficino. This Academy brought together outstanding philosophers, artists, architects, sculptors, and poets of the Renaissance. This was the time of the total triumph of a new type of man — homo universalis, a prominent representative of which was Leonardo da Vinci-painter, architect, sculptor, inventor, writer, musician and scientist. The very embodiment of the Union of music and mathematics, science and art. Why did this type of personality disappear today-in an era of deep specialization, and the place of the universal thinker who saw the whole picture of the world was taken by the one who looks at the world through the keyhole of his profession? These are the questions I started asking.

The XXI century presents us with global challenges. We are watching the rapid development of new technologies. But it seems that neither politicians, nor businessmen, nor inventors know the opportunities and risks associated with the development of Artificial Intelligence and biotechnologies. The problems we will soon have to deal with are beyond our comprehension. Fundamental climate changes and the risk of environmental disaster, the growth of the world’s population and migration processes, unknown epidemics and pandemics, unemployment-these are just some of the problems that can radically change our lives. These are the main questions that we have to answer.

But to solve these problems, you need a different type of thinking. As Albert Einstein said, “We can not solve our problems with the same level of thinking that created them.” To understand these problems, we need a global perspective. But where does the global perspective come from if narrow specialization is imposed everywhere? However, it is not enough today. I told you I knew a secret. It’s time to tell it.

The future belongs to polymaths. The polymaths were the most influential people in the history of mankind. They could create atypical combinations of skills, to combine and synthesize knowledge from different disciplines. Only polymaths can comprehend and respond to the challenges facing man in the XXI century.

How to create conditions for the formation of individuals with polymathic thinking? To do this, it is necessary to transform the entire educational paradigm and create a new educational model. How? We need to unite the best minds of mankind. Lorenzo de ‘Medici had a Big Idea. She inspired me. We live in an era when we need to dare to think on a larger scale. For many years, while developing a project called Janus Academy, I tried to create a matrix of the future educational system that will replace or become a real alternative to the educational model being implemented today.

The modern educational model is focused on the formation of a specialist of a narrow profile who has passed the “school of skills and competencies”, but not the “school of knowledge”. The result is obvious: the skills and competencies acquired today need an immediate upgrade tomorrow because they are outdated. A student enters an endless race by replacing one worn-out part with another. Without a basic knowledge axis, he simply has nowhere to integrate the acquired skills. As a result, we do not get a person who has realized his potential, but a “one-button specialist” with a “passport of competencies”, who adapts flexibly to changing trends. An individual who knows how to use Agile, but knows nothing about the history of civilizations, structural linguistics, world culture, classical and modern art.

Today, education has ceased to be a way of inheriting culture and has become a tool for achieving career success.

However, if we look at the founders of the five largest companies in the world - Bill Gates, Larry Page, Steve Jobs, Warren Buffett and Jeff Bezos - we find that they are all polymaths, universal personalities, but not narrow specialists.

The same universal personalities were Aristotle, Ptolemy, Leonardo da Vinci, Newton, Kepler, Leibniz, Descartes, Thomas Edison, Benjamin Franklin and others.

When we dream of succeeding in a rapidly changing world, we often forget that the most successful people are polymaths. And gradually, interdisciplinary employees, people with polymathic thinking become one of the most valuable assets.

We are afraid that soon robots will replace us in the workplace and all processes will be automated. The machine will surpass man in his abilities. Of course, it will surpass — if we are talking about the abilities of a narrow specialist. But she would never be able to beat the polymath. Historian Felipe Fernandez-Armesto emphasizes: “Specialists can invent gadgets, formulate algorithms and exchange blows. But to transcend experience and change the world, ideas need mental space where influences from all disciplines can mingle alchemically. Those spaces are in polymaths’ brains. To conquer empires of the intellect, you have to exceed your own domain. Classical Greece, Renaissance Italy and Victorian England all revered and rewarded generalists, for whom today universities have little or no space or patience. “

Society abandoned the idea of polymaths after the industrial revolution. As Ellwood Cubberley, was an American educator and a pioneer in the field of educational administration, said in 1898: “Our schools are, in a sense, factories, in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned into products to meet the various demands of life.”

What problems do polymaths face today, does society accept them, does it allow them to discover their deep potential, apply all their knowledge and skills and be at the center of world processes? In one of the articles I met the opinion that in our society there is a clear rejection of people who lead a polymathic lifestyle. However, it does not get tired of encouraging narrow specialists in every possible way. This is one of the consequences of industrialization: the idea that man is just a mechanism in a huge machine. Moreover, this is the result of the industrialization of consciousness. Because of the reaction of society, many polymaths avoid calling themselves polymaths. Some people start deliberately talking about themselves as specialists, believing that this will help them have a successful career. Others name different functions, depending on the context. Still, others are waiting for an opportunity to demonstrate their many skills, i.e. they are waiting for a “request” from the society itself.

Leonardo da Vinci, the most outstanding example of a polymath, also faced serious problems. Waqas Ahmed, the author of the fundamental study “The Polymath: Unlocking the Power of Human Versatility” says in an interview: “If you look at Leonardo Da Vinci, who’s considered the archetype of the polymath in the Western mind, he faced a lot of adversity. He did not have the socioeconomic status to excel in one field, let alone multiple fields, but he had an innate curiosity and that curiosity overcame any obstacles that he faced in his work environment or in his social environment. And so that curiosity does inevitably build in a kind of fearlessness that you see in many polymaths over history. ( … ) You need to have unfaltering belief in your method to creativity and to progress and you need to be able to deal with the kind of cynicism and skepticism and even envy that you will inevitably face moving forward.”

I face this problem. The question of the nature of my work has always puzzled me. Of course, over time, I had to introduce myself as: “Philosopher, publicist, cultural scientist, a specialist in Antiquity, curator of Janus Academy” (sometimes even shortening all this to: “philosopher, a specialist in Antiquity”). But the field of my interests and intellectual practices covers the entire field of Humanities, and if I am so passionate about antiquity, it does not mean that I am limited by It. Also, I specialized in personalized learning, developing individual educational programs. Organizing conferences, seminars, presentations, and cultural events; strategic planning; experience in public speaking; working with experts, embassies, and public figures; negotiating; creating (and curating) intellectual and art clubs; developing educational programs for cultural venues; conducting interviews; and working as an editor-compiler of scientific magazines. Besides, writing books, playing in the theater. So who am I? And most importantly, how can I design my life so that the diversity of my knowledge and experience can open up to the world and change something in it?

And in response to this question, I decided to release my “Black Swan”. To create a project that will mark the beginning of a revolution in education. The mission of this project is to consolidate all the most important thinkers, researchers, cultural figures and scientists who set themselves the goal of creating a new interdisciplinary educational program that meets the challenges of the XXI century and can maintain its main task — to be a way of inheriting culture.

Often can you see students who do not listen to what their lecturers say? And only imagine that this very lecture is given to a student by his favorite writer or scientist, whose books he reads with great interest. Will he be more attentive to every word, will he take the learning process more seriously and most importantly-will he has a passion, a passion for learning, for mastering new disciplines, new areas, and directions? Would you like to learn from the best of the best? Learn in the process of live communication?

In Janus Academy students do not acquire a narrow specialization, but fundamental knowledge that allows them to unlock their cognitive and intellectual potential.

1. interdisciplinary program “POLYMATH” (2 years of study)

2. 32 directions

3. more than 150 author’s courses that form a unique educational complex:

- a complex of humanitarian disciplines that give students fundamental knowledge,

- a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) complex that develops innovative thinking and the ability to collect, analyze, systematize and critically comprehend information.

4. brilliant teaching staff (about 200 leading Russian and European scientists and specialists, researchers, philosophers, cultural and artistic figures)

5. training of international communities of polymath teachers to solve global problems of mankind.

My friend told me that you should be able to explain an interesting idea even to a 6-year-old child. And he asked me to explain to his 6-year-old daughter the purpose of my project. “How will you tell her about the polymaths, about the Renaissance man?” And I said to the little girl,” Imagine a small island. Did you imagine? Now imagine a vast continent, no! — imagine a whole world! See how different they are? In ordinary educational institutions, people are made into small Islands, and in my Academy, everyone will have the opportunity to become a whole world!” And the little girl understood me.

How do I see the project, for example, in 10 years? From the very beginning, I laid the Foundation of Janus Academy not only with the revolutionary potential but also with the potential for growth. In other words, I have a good idea of how this project will grow to an entire Empire within a few years, with its well-thought-out, branching structure. It will cover the whole world and unite the best minds of mankind. And at the center of this Empire will be the idea of a polymath.

If this type of personality does not begin to form now, if it is not allowed to express itself as much as possible in all areas of human activity, if it is not allowed to find the key to the global challenges that the XXI century throws at us, we will disappear as metaphysical beings, as intellectual individuals, and as a biological species. We have entered a transitional stage, Interregnum, when the outdated paradigm has already been destroyed and the new one has not yet emerged. It’s time to “reinvent the world”.

Natella Speranskaya

Russian philosopher, cultural scientist, a specialist in Antiquity, curator of Janus Academy.

The Faustian impulse and European exploration

The Faustian impulse and European exploration

By Ricardo Duchesne

Ex: https://fortnightlyreview.co.uk

IN HIS 2003 book, Human Accomplishment: Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences, 800 BC to 1950, Charles Murray argued that the great artistic and scientific accomplishments were overwhelmingly European. ”What the human species is today,” he wrote, “it owes in astonishing degree to what was accomplished in just half a dozen centuries by the peoples of one small portion of the northwestern Eurasian land mass.”

This claim goes against the modern grain of the world history community – indeed, against fashionable belief. The New York Times unsurprisingly called it “more bluster than rigor” and “unconvincing”¹, but it was nonetheless the first attempt to quantify “as facts” the creative genius of individuals in terms of cultural origin and geographic distribution. Murray did this by calculating the amount of space allocated to these individuals in reference works, encyclopedias, and dictionaries. Based on this metric, he concluded that “whether measured in people or events, 97 percent of accomplishment in the sciences occurred in Europe and North America” from 800 BC to 1950.  Murray’s inventories of the arts also confirmed the overpowering role of Europe, particularly after 1400. Although Murray did not compare their achievements but compiled separate lists for each civilization, he noted that the sheer number of “significant figures” in the arts is higher in the West in comparison to the combined number of the other civilizations. He explained this remarkable “divergence” in human accomplishments in terms of the degree to which cultures promote or discourage autonomy and purpose. I am persuaded that individualism is one of the critical variables.²

The point I want to make, however, is that Murray pays no attention to accomplishments in other human endeavors such as leadership, exploration, and heroic deeds. The achievements he measures come only in the form of “great books” and “great ideas.” In this respect, Murray’s book is similar to certain older-style Western Civ textbooks where the progression of modern liberal ideals is the central theme. David Gress dubbed this type of historiography the “Grand Narrative.” By teaching Western history in terms of the realization of liberal democratic values, these texts “placed a burden of justification on the West … to explain how the reality differed from the ideal.’³ Gress called upon historians to do away with this idealized image of Western uniqueness and to emphasize the realities of Western geopolitical struggles and mercantile interests. Norman Davies, too, has criticized the way early Western civilization courses tended to “filter out anything that might appear mundane or repulsive.”⁴

MY VIEW IS that Europeans were not only exceptional in their literary endeavors, but also in their agonistic and expansionist behaviors. Their great books, including their liberal values, were themselves inseparably connected to their aristocratic ethos of competitive individualism. There is no need to concede to multicultural critics, as Davies does, “the sorry catalogue of wars, conflict, and persecutions that have dogged every stage of the [Western] tale.”⁵ The expansionist dispositions of Europeans as well as their literary and other achievements were similarly driven by an aggressive and individually felt desire for superlative and undemocratic recognition.

It has been said that when Mahatma Gandhi was asked what he thought of Western civilization he answered, “I think it would be a good idea.” Academics today interpret this answer to mean that the actual history of the West—such things as the conquest of the Americas and the expansion of the British Empire— belie its great ideas and great books. I challenge this naïve separation between an idealized and a realistic West borrowing Oswald Spengler’s image of the West as a strikingly vibrant culture driven by a type of personality overflowing with expansive, disruptive, and creative impulses. Spengler designated the West as a “Faustian” culture whose “prime-symbol” was “pure and limitless space.” This spirit was first visible in medieval Europe, starting with Romanesque art, but particularly in the “spaciousness of Gothic cathedrals;” “the heroes” of the Scandinavian, Germanic, and Icelandic sagas; the Crusades; the Viking sailing of the North Atlantic Ocean; the Germanic conquest of the Slavonic East; the Spaniards in the Americas; and the Portuguese in the East Indies.⁶

“Fighting,” “progressing,” “overcoming of resistances,” struggling “against what is near, tangible and easy”—these are some of the terms Spengler used to describe this soul. This Faustian being is animated with the spirit of a “proud beast of prey,” like that of an “eagle, lion, [or] tiger.” Moreover, the seemingly peaceful achievements of the West, not just its warlike activities, were infused with this Faustian impulse. As John Farrenkopf puts it:

[T]he architecture of the Gothic cathedral expresses the Faustian will to conquer the heavens; Western symphonic music conveys the Faustian urge to conjure up a dynamic, transcendent, infinite space of sound; Western perspective painting mirrors the Faustian will to infinite distance; and the Western novel responds to the Faustian imperative to explore the inner depths of the human personality while extending outward with a comprehensive view.⁷

IN MY BOOK, The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, I trace the West’s Faustian creativity and libertarian spirit back to the aristocratic warlike culture of Indo-European speakers who began to migrate into Europe roughly after 3500 BC, combining with and subordinating the ‘ranked’ Neolithic cultures of this region. Indo-European speakers originated in the Pontic-Caspian steppes. They initiated the most mobile way of life in prehistoric times, starting with the riding of horses and the invention of wheeled vehicles in the fourth millennium BC, together with the efficient exploitation of the “secondary products” of domestic animals (dairy goods, textiles, large-scale herding), and the invention of chariots in the second millennium. The novelty of Indo-European culture was that it was led by an aristocratic elite that was egalitarian within the group rather than by a single despotic ruler. Indo-Europeans prized heroic warriors striving for individual fame and recognition, often with a “berserker” style of warfare. In the more advanced and populated civilizations of the Near East, Iran, and India, local populations absorbed this conquering group. In Neolithic Europe, the Indo-Europeans imposed themselves as the dominant group, and displaced the native languages but not the natives.

I maintain that the history of European explorations stands as an excellent subject matter for the elucidation of this Faustian restlessness. An overwhelming number of the explorers in history have been European. The Concise Encyclopedia of Explorers lists a total of 274 explorers, of which only 15 are non-European, with none listed after the mid-fifteenth century.⁸ In the urge to explore new regions of the earth and map the nameless, we can detect, in a crystallized way, the “prime-symbol” of Western restlessness. We can also detect the Western mind’s desire – if I may borrow the language of Hegel – to expand its cognitive horizon, to “subdue the outer world to its ends with an energy which has ensured for it the mastery of the world.”⁹

The Greeks initiated the science of geography. But just as pertinent is how contentious individuals, born in a culture engaged in widespread colonizing activities between 800 and 500 BC, drove this science. Hecataeus (550 – 476 BC), the author of the first book of geography, Journey Round the World, based his knowledge on his extensive travels along the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. To be sure, the Phoenicians, starting around the first millennium BC, established approximately 30 colonies throughout the African shores in the western Mediterranean, Sardinia, Malta, and as far west as Cádiz in modern Spain. However, more than thirty Greek city-states each established multiple colonies, with some estimating that the city of Miletus alone set up ninety colonies. All in all, Greek colonies were stretched throughout the Mediterranean coasts, the shores of the Black Sea, Anatolia in the east, southern France, Italy, Sicily, and in the northern coast of Africa, not to mention the long colonized islands of the Aegean Sea.

A popular explanation as to why the Greeks launched these overseas colonies is population growth and scarce resources at home. But the evidence shows that much of these colonial operations were small-scale undertakings rather than mass migrations led by impoverished farmers. Commercial interests and the incentive to gain new agricultural lands were motivating factors. But I would also emphasize the “general spirit of adventure” permeating the Greek world since Mycenaean times. Many of the colonies, as A. G. Woodhead has shown, had “their origins in purely individual enterprise or extraordinary happenings.”¹⁰

Hecataeus envisioned the world as a disc surrounded by an ocean. But soon there would be a challenger – Herodotus, born in 484BC. He too offered numerous geographical and ethnographic insights based on his extensive travels, and he did so in explicit awareness of his own contributions and in direct criticism of his predecessor. This competitive desire on the part of individuals to stand out from others was ingrained in the whole social outlook of classical Greece: in the Olympic Games, in the perpetual warring of the city-states, in the pursuit of a political career, in the competition among orators for the admiration of the citizens, and in the Athenian theater festivals, where numerous poets would take part in Dionysian competitions amid high civic splendor and religious ritual. New works of drama, philosophy, and music were expounded in the first-person form as an adversarial or athletic contest in the pursuit of truth.

DURING THE HELLENISTIC centuries, explorers would venture into the Caspian, Aral, and Red Seas, establishing trading posts along the coasts of modern Eritrea and Somalia. Perhaps the most successful of Hellenistic explorers was Pytheas. In his book, On the Ocean, he recounts an amazing journey (ca. 310BC) northward to Brittany across the Channel into Cornwall, through the Baltic Sea, the coast of Norway, and even Iceland.¹¹

These explorations encouraged astronomical and geographical scholarship leading to the full conceptualization of the shape of the earth itself by Eratosthenes (276-185BC), who not only contextualized the location of Europe in relation to the Atlantic and the North Sea, but calculated the spherical size of the earth (within 5 percent of its true measure), with the obvious implication that the Mediterranean was only a small portion of the globe. This spirit of inquiry continued through the second century AD, when Ptolemy wrote his System of Astronomy and his Geography, where he rationally explained the principles and methods required in mapmaking and produced the first world map depicting India, China, South-East Asia, the British Isles, Denmark and East Africa.

There was far less desire to explore the geography and landscapes of the world among the peoples of the non-Western world. While in the first century BC the Han dynasty extended its geographical boundaries south into Vietnam, north into Korea, and east into the Tarim Basin, the Chinese showed little geographical interest beyond their own borders. What is striking about Chinese maps in general is how insular they were in comparison with the much earlier maps of Ptolemy. Even a sixteenth-century reproduction of Zheng He’s sailing maps lacks any apposite scale, size, and sense of proportion regarding the major landmasses of the earth.

The Chinese supposition that the earth was flat remained almost unchanged from ancient times until Jesuit missionaries in the seventeenth century brought modern ideas. In stark contrast, Greek philosophers of the fifth and fourth centuries BC were already persuaded that the earth was a sphere. Aristarchus of Samos, who lived about 310 to 230 BC, went so far as to postulate the Copernican hypothesis that all planets revolve in circles around the sun, and that the earth rotates on its axis once in twenty-four hours.

Indian civilization showed little curiosity about the geography of the world; its maps were symbolic and removed from any empirical concern with the actual location of places. Maritime activity among the isolated civilizations of America was restricted to fishing from rafts and canoes. The Phoenicians left no geographical documents of their colonizing expeditions.¹²

The Vikings “discovered in their gray dawn the art of sailing the seas which emancipated them”—so says Spengler.¹³ During the last years of the eighth century, marauding bands of Vikings pillaged their way along the coast lines of Northern Europe and down around Spain, into the Mediterranean, Italy, North Africa, and Arabia. Some hauled their long boats overland from the Baltic and made their way down the great Russian rivers all the way to the Black Sea. During the ninth and tenth centuries, their primary aim was no longer plunder as much as finding new lands to settle. Their voyages far into the North Atlantic were “independent undertakings, part of a 300-year epoch of seaborne expansion” which resulted in the settlement of Scandinavian peoples in Shetland, Orkney, the Hebrides, parts of Scotland and Ireland, the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Greenland, and Vinland (present-day Newfoundland).¹⁴ They colonized the little-known and unknown lands of Iceland from 870AD onward, Greenland from 980 onward, and then Vinland by the year 1000 AD. The Icelandic geographers of the Middle Ages showed considerable detailed knowledge in their descriptions of the Arctic regions, stretching from Russia to Greenland, and of the eastern seaboard of the North American continent. This is clearly attested in an Icelandic Geographical Treatise preserved in a manuscript dating from about 1300, but possibly based on a twelfth-century original.

Peter Whitfield speculates that “some conscious impulse towards exploration and conquest” must have motivated these voyages, “prompted by harsh living conditions at home.”¹⁵ Jesse Byock explains that the settlement of Iceland was led by sailor-farmers seeking to escape population pressures in the Scandinavian mainland, and that, in turn, the settlement of Greenland was initiated by Icelanders escaping Malthusian pressures in Iceland. At the same time, the cultural world Byock reveals, through his careful reading of numerous heroic sagas associated with these voyages and settlements, is that of aristocratic chieftains and free farmers venturing into unknown lands, competing with other chieftains and struggling for survival and renown.¹⁶

In the next centuries after the Vikings, the travels of Marco Polo (1254-1324) throughout the Asian world found expression in the Catalan Atlas of 1375, which was quite innovative in showing compass-lines, and in the accurate delineation of the Mediterranean. On the strength of Ptolemy’s work, Islam fostered its own geographical tradition with the benefit of their extensive dominions and travels. Ibn Battuta (1304-1374), the greatest Muslim traveler, visited every Muslim country and neighboring lands. But his “overmastering impulse,” to use his own words, was to visit “illustrious sanctuaries”¹⁷ – unlike Marco Polo’s desire, which was to visit non-Christian lands barely visited by Europeans and learn about the unknown tribes of Asia, including the numinous land of Cathay.¹⁸ In 1154, the greatest Islamic cartographer, al-Idrisi, produced a large planispheric silver relief map that was original in not portraying the Indian Ocean in a landlocked way and in offering a more precise knowledge of China’s eastern coast. But Islamic geography would go no further.

SPENGLER WRITES THAT the Spaniards and the Portuguese “were possessed by the adventured-craving for uncharted distances and for everything unknown and dangerous.’¹⁹ By the beginning of the 1400s, the compass, the portolan chart and certain shipping techniques essential for launching the Age of Exploration were in place. The Portuguese, under the leadership of Henry the Navigator would go on, in the course of the fifteenth century, to round the southern tip of Africa, impose themselves through the Indian Ocean, and eventually reach Japan in the 1540s. They would create accurate maps of West Africa as far as Sierra Leone, as well as rely on Fra Mauro’s new maps, one of which (1457) mapped the totality of the Old World with unmatched accuracy while suggesting, for the first time, a route around the southern tip of Africa. A mere two years after Diaz had sailed around the Cape; Henricus Martellus created his World Map of 1490, which showed both the whole of Africa generally and the specific locations of numerous places across the entire African west coast, detailing the step-by-step advancement of the Portuguese.

The question of what motivated the expeditions of the Portuguese is a classic one, and, conversely, so is the question of why China abandoned the maritime explorations started by Zheng He. Why were his expeditions not as consequential historically as the ones initiated by Henry the Navigator? For Felipe Fernández-Armesto, Zheng He’s voyages were displays of “China’s ability to mount expeditions of crushing strength and dispatch them over vast distances.” Zheng He’s expeditions did not last and were less consequential, according to Fernández-Armesto, because China’s Confucian government assigned priority to “good government at home” rather than “costly adventures” abroad, particularly in the face of barbarian incursions from the north.²⁰

At the same time, Fernández-Armesto portrays China’s mode of exploration in rather admiring terms: her peaceful commerce, scholarship, and even “vital contributions to the economies of every place they settled.’²¹He almost implies, indeed, that the Chinese, not the Europeans, were the true explorers, on the grounds that He’s expeditions along the Indian Ocean were more difficult (due to wind patterns) than the European ones through the Atlantic, and that the Europeans navigated through the Atlantic in order to overcome their marginalized economic position rather than to explore.

The major flaw in Fernández-Armesto’s account (as in all current accounts) is the unquestioned assumption that the Chinese expeditions were “explorations” stirred by disinterested curiosity while the Portuguese expeditions were primarily economic in motivation. The Chinese did little that can be considered new in the exploratory sense; they did not discover one single nautical mile; the Indian Ocean had long been a place of regular navigation, unlike the Atlantic and the western coasts of Africa. The Portuguese, it is true, were poor and many of the sailors manning the ships were longing for better opportunities, but what drove the leading men above all else was a chivalric desire for renown and superior achievement in the face of economic costs, persistent hardships, and high mortality rates.

The Chinese were ahead of Europe in technology when the 1400s started, but their technology thereafter remained for the most part unchanged; whereas the Portuguese (and Europeans) would advance continuously. Furthermore, the nautical problems the Portuguese had to face were more difficult.  As Joseph Needham has noted,

Almost as far as Madagascar the Chinese were in the realms of the monsoons, with which they had been familiar in their own home waters for more than a millennium. But the inhospitable Atlantic had never encouraged sailors in the same way, and though there had been a number of attempts to sail westwards, that ocean had never been systematically explored.²²

The main motivations of the Portuguese cannot be adequately explained without considering the chivalric and warlike spirit of the aristocratic fidalgos. Fernández-Armesto acknowledges that the ethos of chivalric honor “did make the region peculiarly conducive to breeding explorers.”²³ But to him this was an ethos rooted in medieval romances exclusive to Portugal and Spain. Besides, he rejects any notion of Western uniqueness, and does not properly explain the differences between economic, religious, and chivalric motivations.

As I see it, the chivalric motivations of the Portuguese colored and intensified all their other motivations, and this is why they exhibited an excessive yearning for spices, a crusading zeal against non-Christians, a relentless determination to master the seas. The chivalry of the Portuguese was a knightly variation of the same Faustian longing the West has displayed since prehistoric times. The ancient Greeks who established colonies throughout the Mediterranean, the Macedonians who marched to “the ends of the world,” the Romans who created the greatest empire in history, the Franks who carved out Charlemagne’s Empire, and the Portuguese, were all similarly driven by an “irrepressible urge to distance.”

NO SOONER DID Columbus sight the “West Indies” in 1492, than one European explorer after another came forth eager for great deeds. By the 1520s, Europeans had explored the entire eastern coast of the two Americas from Labrador to Rio de la Plata. From 1519 to 1522 Ferdinand Magellan led the first successful attempt to circumnavigate the earth through the unimagined vastness of the Pacific Ocean. It has been said that Magellan’s energy and vision equaled that of Columbus; he “shared with his great predecessor the tenacity of a man driven by something deeper than common ambition.’²⁴

Between 1519 and 1521 Hernán Cortés put himself at the command of an expedition that would result in the conquest of the Aztec Empire. These days many regard Cortés as something of a criminal, and this is true. The campaigns he conducted against the Mexicans were graphically barbaric. At the same time, Cortés was a prototypical Western aristocrat, or, as described by his secretary, a man “restless, haughty, mischievous, and given to quarrelling.’²⁵ The running story on Cortés today is that if he had not conquered Mexico someone else would have. The real agents were the guns, the steel swords, the horses, and the germs. Without denying any of these factors, I agree with Buddy Levy’s recent portrayal of Cortés as a man who displayed, again and again, an extraordinary combination of leadership, tenacity, diplomacy, and tactical skill. Finding gold was a priority for Cortés and his men, but, as Cortés’s impassioned speeches and the character descriptions of his contemporaries both testify, he was above all a man driven by an “insatiable thirst for glory and authority;” “he thinks nothing of dying himself, and less of our death.”²⁶ A similar account can be given of Francisco Pizarro.

The same spirit that drove Cortés and Pizarro drove Luther in his uncompromising challenge to the papacy’s authority: “Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise.” It drove the “intense rivalry” that characterized the art of the Renaissance, among patrons, collectors, artists, and that culminated in the persons of Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo, and Titian.²⁷ It motivated Shakespeare to outdo Chaucer, creating more than 120 characters, “the most memorable personalities that have graced the theater – and the psyche – of the West.’²⁸ Let us recall that the age of the conquistadores was Spain’s golden age; the age of El Greco, Velázquez, Calderón de la Barca, and Francisco López de Gómara; the time of Cervantes’s Don Quixote and the realist transformation of the chivalrous imagination, of Lope de Vega and the creation of a new literary style in the picaresque novel with its sympathetic story of thieves and vagabonds. This century saw, additionally, a veritable revolution in cartography. As early as 1507, the German cosmographer, Martin Waldseemüller, produced a map depicting a coastline from Newfoundland to Argentina, and showed the two American continents clearly separated from Asia.

IN THE FACE of a list of rather ordinary human motivations, such as the motivation to acquire wealth and conquer new lands, it is very difficult to ascertain the Faustian character of the explorers, extract its essential nature, and apprehend it for itself. I want to suggest, even so, that the history of exploration during and after the Enlightenment era offers us an opportunity to apprehend clearly this soul. For it is the case that, from about the 1700s onward, explorers come to be increasingly driven by a will to discover irrespective of the pursuit of trade, religious conversion, or even scientific curiosity. My point is not that the unadulterated desire to explore exhibits the Faustian soul as such. The urge to accumulate wealth and advance knowledge may exhibit this Faustian will just as intensively. The difference is that in the desire to explore for its own sake we can see the West’s psyche striving to surpass the mundane preoccupations of ordinary life, comfort and liberal pleasantries, proving what it means to be a man of noble character.

The minimization of any substantial differences among humans cultivated by the modern model of human nature has clouded our ability to apprehend this Faustian desire.  The original outlook of Locke and French Enlightenment thinkers, themselves the product of the persistent Western quest to interpret the world anew, fostered a democratic model wherein humans came to be seen as indeterminate and more or less equal, a “white paper,” a malleable being determined by outside circumstances, tradition-less and culture-less. This egalitarian view was nurtured as well in the philosophy of Descartes, Leibnitz, and Kant, with its emphasis on the innate and equally a priori cognitive capacities of humans qua humans.

It should come as no surprise, then, that historians (and psychologists) write of human passions and motivations as essentially alike across all cultures. In our subject of inquiry, exploration, we are normally told that “the desire to penetrate and explore the world’s wild places is a fundamental human impulse.” Frank Debenham’s Discovery and Exploration, a broad survey published in 1960, informs us that “man’s natural inquisitiveness has been a mainspring of discovery and exploration.”²⁹ Yet, much of Debenham’s book is about modern Europeans exploring the world. There is an appendix that lists a total of 203 famous explorers, of which only eight are non-Western.³⁰

Likewise, Fernández-Armesto’s book Pathfinders is described as “a study of humankind’s restless spirit,” but once he reaches the period after the 1500s, he has no explorers outside the West to write about. This may explain why he becomes disparaging toward European explorers, particularly those who came after the 1700s, describing them (David Livingstone, Henry Morton Stanley, Roald Amundsen, and others) as “failures,” “naïve,” “bombastic,” “mendacious,” “useless,” and “incompetent.”³¹

My view is the opposite: the history of exploration provides us with a profoundly revealing index of Western heroic self-fashioning. There is much to be learned about the uniqueness of the West in the life experiences and the motivations driving such men as Captain Cook. During the course of his legendary three Pacific journeys between 1768 and 1779, it is said that he explored more of the earth’s surface than any other man in history. His methods were said to be “practical and humane,” and yet he was also a heroic figure, filled with a zeal for greatness. In his own words, what he wanted above all else was the “pleasure of being first;” to sail “not only farther than man has been before me but as far as I think it possible for man to go.”³²

Fernández-Armesto is highly critical of Robert Falcon Scott’s somber expressions of boldness, risk, duty, and resolve during the last days of his tragic expedition to the South Pole in 1911-12. Max Jones offers a far more incisive assessment of the significance of Scott, less as a “great” explorer than as someone who “composed the most haunting journal in the history of exploration.’³³ Jones extols the captivating drama of the journals, the mounting tension and ever present anxiety as the ship battles to reach the Antarctica coast, and the epic-like account of the relentless march to the Pole. Jones situates Scott within a wider cultural setting: his immersion in polar literature, his awareness of characters in major novels who sought to prove themselves, his copy of Darwin’s Origins of Species and Scott’s “bleak vision of the universe as a struggle for existence,” the literary influences of Ibsen and Thomas Hardy and their fascination with the dependency of the human will on the indifferent power of nature and necessity.

Overall, the pervading idea of the journals is the heroic vision of exploration as a test of individual worthiness and national character. From his early manhood, Scott was filled with anxiety and doubts about his adequacy in life’s struggles: “I write of the future; of the hopes of being more worthy; but shall I ever be – can I alone, poor weak wretch that I am bear up against it all.”³⁴ Expedition narratives through the nineteenth century, Jones observes, became ever more focus on the character of the explorer than on the economic externalities, so exploration became an inner journey, “a journey into the self, nowhere more so than in the emptiest of continents, Antarctica.’³⁵ Scott understood this: “Here the outward show is nothing; it is the inward purpose that counts.” There was nothing to see in the center of Antarctica except the reflection of the inner Western quest to face the struggle of life in a heroic fashion.

 ♦

---

Ricardo Duchesne is professor at the University of New Brunswick, Department of Social Science, Saint John, Canada. He is the author of The Uniqueness of Western Civilization (2011). [US Amazon link.]

This article was revised 8 October 2012 to correct an editing error.

NOTES:

1. Judith Shulevitz, “‘Human Accomplishment:’ the Best and the Brightest,” The New York Times,  30 November 2003. ↩
2. Charles Murray, Human Accomplishment, The Pursuit of Excellence in the Arts and Sciences 800 BC to 1950 (New York: HarperCollins Publishing Inc, 2003), 252-259. ↩
3. David Gress, From Plato to NATO, The Idea of the West and Its Opponents (The Free Press, 1996). ↩
4. Norman Davies, A History of Europe (New York: Random House, 1997), 28. ↩
5. Davies, 15-16. ↩
6. Oswald Spengler, The Decline of the West: I: Form and Actuality, translated by Charles Francis Atkinson (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1973), 183-216. ↩
7. John Farrenkopf, Prophet of Decline: Spengler on World History and Politics (Louisiana State University Press, 2001), 46. ↩
8. Ibid. ↩
9. G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Mind. Being Part Three of the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences, translated by William Wallace (Oxford University Press, 1971), 45. ↩
10. A.G. Woodhead, The Greeks in the West (New York: Praeger, 1966), 32-33. Robin Lane Fox’s Travelling Heroes: Greeks and The Epic Age of Homer (Allen Lane, 2008), deals with how their travels from one end of their world to the other shaped the Greeks’ myth, heroes, and gods. ↩
11. For an up-to-date review of the Greek explorations of the Atlantic world, including a chapter on Roman expeditions to the North Sea, see Duane Roller’s Through the Pillars of Herakles: Greco-Roman Exploration of the Atlantic (Routledge, 2006). ↩
12. Rome is not known to have carried as many explorations as the Greeks; still, it should be noted that the Romans penetrated deeper into Africa than any European power until well into the nineteenth century; see L. P Kirwan, “Rome Beyond The Southern Egyptian Frontier,” The Geographical Journal, (123.1: 1957). ↩
13. Decline of the West, 332. ↩
14. Jesse Byock, Viking Age Iceland (Penguin Books, 2001). ↩
15. Peter Whitfield, New Found Lands. Maps in the History of Exploration (New York: Routledge, 1998), 18. ↩
16.  The Vinland Sagas, The Norse Discovery of America, translated with an introduction by Magnus Magnusson and Hermann Palsson (Penguin Books, 1965). ↩
17. Daniel Boorstin, The Discoverers (Vintage Books, 1985), 121. ↩
18. John Larner, Marco Polo and the Discovery of the World (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999). ↩
19. Decline of the West, 333. ↩
20. Pathfinders, A Global History (New York: Norton, 2006), 109-117. ↩
21. Ibid. ↩
22.  Joseph Needham, The Shorter Science and Civilization in China, Volume 3: A Section of Volume IV, Part I and a Section of Volume IV, Part 3 of Needham’s Original Text (Cambridge University Press, 1995), 141. ↩
23. Pathfinders, 145. ↩
24. Whitfield, 93. ↩
25. Buddy Levy, Conquistador, Hernan Cortes, King Montezuma, and the Last Stand of the Aztecs (Bantam Books, 2009), 3. ↩
26. Levy, 203. ↩
27. See Rona Goffe’s, Renaissance Rivals (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), for an account of the passionate strivings of the greatest artists of the Renaissance to outdo both living competitors and the masters of antiquity. ↩
28. Frank Dumont, A History of Personality Psychology (Cambridge University Press, 2010), 20. ↩
29. Frank Debenham, Discovery and Exploration (London: Paul Hamlyn, 1960), 6. ↩
30. The same line of reasoning occupies Piers Pennington’s The Great Explorers (London: Aldus Books, 1979): “this book tells the story of the world’s great adventures into the unknown,” yet the fifty-plus explorers listed are from the Occident. See also The Discoverers: An Encyclopedia of Explorers and Exploration, ed. Helen Delpar (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980). ↩
31. Pathfinders, 394. ↩
32. Cited in Hanbury-Tenison, ed., The Oxford Book of Exploration (Oxford University Press, 1993), 490-3. This book is an anthology of writings by explorers. ↩
33. Max Jones, “Introduction” in Robert Falcon Scott’s Journals: Captain Scott’s Last Expedition (Oxford University Press), xvii. ↩
34. Ibid., xix. ↩
35. Ibid, xxxiv-xxxv. ↩

Bachelard penseur de l’écologie ?

Bachelard penseur de l’écologie ?

par Frédéric Andreu

« Bachelard penseur de l’Écologie ? » n’est pas une problématique qui s’impose à l’esprit à la première lecture de l’œuvre du philosophe. En effet, dans cette œuvre foisonnante, le terme «écologie» semble anachronique ; quant à la notion de «nature», elle n’est jamais conceptualisée mais passe par le prisme d’un environnement natif magnifié. Bachelard évoque souvent sa « Champagne native » : «Je suis né dans un coin de la Champagne vallonnée, de ruisseaux et de rivières, dans le Vallage», image qui répond à l’ «appel des sources et des fontaines». La « nature », cher Bachelard, s’envisage incontestablement sur fond de nostalgie narrative.

Autre difficulté : l'écologie contemporaine, quant à elle, s’inscrit moins sur fond de nostalgie des origines que comme critique radicale du système capitaliste, un système qui entraînerait un innéluctable "réchauffement climatique" et autres «effet de serre».

Nous verrons en quoi la rêverie bachelardienne peut s'avérer utile à dépasser les testaments idéologiques de notre temps, a refuser d’entrer dans le jeu dialectique entre "partisans de la nature" et "partisan du progrès". A mon sens, cette problématique ne peut pas être élucidé  sans prendre en compte l’imaginaire contemporain de la nature. Nous n'hésiterons donc pas à emprunter "les avenues du rêve" auxquelles Bachelard nous invite. Si tels ou tels musiques, poèmes, événements rencontrés au cours de notre méditation nous y engagent, pourquoi ne pas les suivre ?

Mais commençons par rappeler le sens de quelques mots-clés contenu dans la question. Le mot "écologie", d'origine grecque, a étymologiquement partie liée avec la maison ("éco"). La maison est le circonscrit, le limité, la dualité ouvert/fermé matérialisé par les fenêtres qui s’ouvrent et se ferment, autant de notions incompatible avec l'"hybris" contemporain, tant redouté par les Anciens Grecs. C’est l’orgueil humain qui conduit l'abolition des limites, des bornes, entraînant la destruction de la diversité, sceau même du vivant. Les partisans écologistes s’inscrivent-ils dans cette conception traditionnelle ? tournent-ils le dos à l’ «hybris», ou bien partagent-ils avec les progressistes, une conception « ouverte » de la nature ? En d'autres termes, le «citoyen de la planète» se veut-il traditionnel ou progressiste, messianiste ?

Soulignons également que l’époque antique est celle où les dieux étaient les garants de l'harmonie du cosmos. Ils interviennent par ailleurs dans les rêves des hommes pour leur délivrer des messages. A plusieurs reprises, Athéna intervient dans les songes d’Ulysse pour le guider.

Que l'on prenne « Eco » au sens restreint d'"habitat" ou au sens large de "nature", Bachelard a donc toute légitimité. Pourquoi ?

L’auteur de ‘la Psychanalyse du feu’ a toujours gardé un contact charnel avec sa nature, puisqu'il a vécu dans la campagne de l'Aude, né dans une maison située "en lisière de la ville". Il nous rappelle qu’une maison doit avoir une cave "où l'on descend les escaliers avec un chandelier" et un grenier où «l'enfant boudeur peut monter les escaliers pour se réfugier». Si l’on transpose cette anecdote à la nature, on comprends que la cave et la grenier renvoie aux dimensions de la rêverie diurne, voire nocturne, quant les testaments idéologiques de notre temps équivaudrait plutôt à des appartements de HLM.

Voici tout l'art de Bachelard, refuser les raccourcis, les captations conceptuelles de la pensée abstraite, non pour les nier mais pour les ouvrir, les dilater a des dimensions plus grandes, plus oniriques.

Dans le même esprit, Bachelard critiqua en son temps la Psychanalyse dans une époque où elle se voulait souveraine sur les savoirs. A plusieurs reprises, il dit qu’elle aurait « dépoétiser les symboles ».

Refusant les génuflexions devant les idéologies totalisantes de son temps, Bachelard aurait-il accepter les nôtres ?

Rêvons avec Bachelard...

A la lecture de Bachelard, l’Homme ordinaire est un roi détrôné qui a oublié son royaume. Les rêveurs le savent bien eux, qui, au petit matin, pendant les instants dorés qui entrent dans l’état de veille se consument comme une comète dans l’atmosphère, portent encore la couronne étoilée du rêve.

Son double onirique retourne à l’oubli, le laissant orphelin, seul sur terre.

Nous sommes des rois sans couronne et nous habitons le pire des royaumes, celui qui se croit isolé, univers et universel, dans le plus absurde des théâtres où une planète se croirait isolée dans l'univers. Ayant substitué son imaginaire cosmo-centré autour de la figure du roi par un universalisme abstrait, la France est particulièrement touchée par ce sortilège. Seul existe l’individu-roi dans son royaume « technique » ; le règne qui nous entoure est devenu une sorte de méga-machine complexe, il est bien le résultat d’un messianisme, mais terrestre ; le monde de la technoscience est, lui, a côté de ce monde. D’années en années, la campagne préindustrielle recule au profit d’une périphérie Bouygues universelle. Quelques siècles d’idéologies matérialistes sont parvenu à faire de Pinocchio une marionnette de bois, incapable de se souvenir d'autre chose, au volant de son automobile, que du Code de la Route. Le conte dit que la Fée Bleue (la rêverie cosmique), celle qui donne la clé des songes, apparaîtra dans l’atelier de Gepetto.  

Le feu passe au rouge, tu t'arrêtes ; le feu passe au vert, tu avances.  Voici ta condition de marionnette. C'est tout ce qu'il nous reste du feu originel. Imaginaire normatif et atrophié.

La domestication du feu fut une avancée fulgurante de l’humanité, à côté de laquelle l’avion supersonique n’est qu’un jouet de bac-à-sable. Il paraît même que l'Homme a dérobé le feu aux dieux. Mais a-t-on pris conscience que le feu n'est pas de ce monde ? Voyons comme le feu (un vrai feu de camps) est à la fois difficile à allumer et difficile à atteindre comme s’il ne rentrait que difficilement dans les lois de ce monde. Le flamme monte verticalement comme si elle cherchait à fuir ce monde et retrouver sa patrie originelle.

Or, le feu et le rêve appartiennent au même monde. Ils partagent les mêmes propriétés peu à l’aise avec celles de ce monde. Le rêve est comme le feu, immatériel, fluctuant, instable, prompte à retourner dans son monde nocturne.  

Mais, alors que l'invention du briquet-à-galène s'est depuis longtemps banalisée, nous n'avons rien inventé d’équivalent pour le rêve, le "briquet-à-rêve" n’existe pas, à moins d'admettre qu'un poème de poche pourrait jouer cette fonction.

La banalisation du feu domestique, la perte du signifiant originel avec notamment la plaque électrique, n’est pas le moindre signe du matérialisme moderne. Il nous faut réapprendre à allumer un vrai «feu de camps», fendre le bois, frotter le silex, afin de redevenir spirituel c’est-à-dire retrouver l’Enfant Eternel. Pour cela, le bushkraft est une voie salutaire. La rêverie stimulée par le feu de camps m’emporte vers d’autres rivages. Elle me dit que la flamme est à la fois ici et ailleurs, simultanément. Un ailleurs non spatio-temporel, mystérieux, spirituel, onirique ; un feu sur la terre est aussi un feu dans une autre dimension du réel, dans un «ciel» imaginaire. C’est pourquoi le feu nous relie à l’ailleurs. Nous communions au spectacle des flammes ondulantes moins pour nous réchauffer que pour communier avec le monde des rêves.

De même, abandonné à la rêverie, nous sommes en deux endroits simultanés, le rêve fait de nous un bi-national. Il nous intime l’idée que, bien que de « citoyenneté terrestre », notre véritable patrie est ailleurs. Notre "patrie" est celle des dieux, l’azur immaculé de l’Enfant Eternel.

Nous avons été envoyés ici en mission exploratrice et nous avons oubliés de rentrer chez nous. La religion chrétienne est la religion insolite du « retour » allégorisée dans la personne de Jésus-Christ. Devant le gouverneur romain Pons Pilate, qui avait le pouvoir de la mettre à mort, Jésus dit «mon royaume n’est pas de ce monde». Beaucoup de Chrétiens inversent cette révélation sismique en son contraire : ils veulent faire de ce monde un royaume.

Devant cette tentation, le rêve marque un arrêt-sur-image, une piccure de rappel du véritable univers onirique et pré-onirique. Soudain, l'identification étroite du moi et de ce monde s'évanouïe. Le rêve est une ressouvenance lente, allégorisée, de l'Autre Monde.  

Poussée par force nostalgie, l’humanité est parvenue à se hisser dans l’espace. L’homme a marché sur la lune, escale retour d’un aller métaphorique vers la planète terre, vers le plan matériel, dont la mémoire s’est perdue. Vu sous cet angle, la conquête de l’Espace n'est qu’une manifestation de la nostagie profonde qui habite l’homme.

Elle donne l’impression d’un voyage-retour. Or, ce voyage-retour peut se faire sans quitter cette terre, dans sa rêverie du jour, étape de l’état d’homo mechanicus vers l’état d’Homo Legendicum.

Gaston Bachelard fut le Newton de la science du rêve ; il nous manque un Einstein de cette même science qui rendra fusées et roquettes totalement désuètes. Ce génie découvrira peut-être l’«atome-germe», l’agent actif surnaturel caché dans les images, les univers et les mondes pliés de l’imaginaire. Il faut « s’évertuer à trouver, derrière les images qui se montrent, celles qui se cachent, aller à la racine même de la force imaginante » nous exhorte Bachelard. Pour se faire, ni le microscope, ni le sonar ultramoderne ne seront d’un grand secours, ou du moins, le seront-ils pour confirmer les rêveries intimes du rêveur éveillé ayant rencontré en lui l'Enfant Eternel.

On découvrira alors que nos existences ne sont que les oripeaux d’anciennes croyances, de fausses identifications. Tel Ulysse de retour à Ithaque, l’Éveillé livrera un combat aux usurpateurs, les prétendants aux trône, ces fausses identifications de lui-même. Il renouera ainsi avec Pénélope, allégorie de cet atome autonome doué d’un puissance qui n’est pas de ce monde. Et si Ithaque était le cœur de l’Homme enfin investi du vrai germe-divin et si Pénélope était le germe divin, Ulysse la reddition du moi.  

Alors, comme l’écrit Victor Ségalen, ce bon voyageur «parviendra sans mérites ni peines, non pas au marais des joies immortelles, mais aux remous pleins d’ivresses du grand fleuve Diversité».

« Seul un dieu peut nous sauver » ou le barbare salvateur

En recherchant, tel un sourcier, les sources actuelles de l’imaginaire écologique, je vécu dans l'appréhension qu'une sorte de crochet conceptuel en vienne à déchirer brutalement la grande voile méditative de ma rêverie. Je ne voulais pas que la fleur vitale de l'âme se rétracte subitement en elle-même à cause d'une événement extérieure mineur. Son parfum est celle-même de la vie véritable qui est à la fois d'ici et d'ailleurs. Notre mémoire traumatique est polluée de semblables angoisses.

Je trouvais refuge dans le hors espace-temps de Conan le Barbare, un peu comme on se blotti prêt d'un feu en hiver. Diffusée tel un rempart, la musique recouvrait toute ma ville tel un vortex. Un morceau plus que les autres, à la grande beauté aurorale, enchanta mon âme. Je cherchais dans le dictionnaire le sens exact de son titre : "Orphans of Doom/Awakning» , et ce que je trouvais me subjugua au plus haut point. "Doom" veut dire à la fois «ruine» et «destin tragique», quant à Awakening, c'est "L'éveil oui, l'éveil, comment sortir de ce sortilège infernal. Le drame cosmique faite musique. Je me reportais à la scène correspondante du film : on y voyait Thulsa Doom, le Guru de la secte du Serpent, haranguant une foule d'adeptes anesthésiés et serviles. Subitement, le guru est décapité d'un coup d'épée par celui qui a gardé le secret de l'acier, Conan. Les "orphans" (orphelins du champs astral du guru) jettent un après l'autre leurs bâtons enflammés dans une fontaine. Cette fin rituelle me fit penser à la disparition des étoiles, au petit matin. Cette musique d’une étrange beauté métaphorise à merveille celle de la reddition du moi. Les adeptes s'en retournent chez eux comprenant que c'est la fin d'un monde. L’imaginaire individuel et collectif se retrouve tout-à-coup libéré de fascination nocturne du guru.

Pourquoi Conan, le libérateur, est-il un "barbare" ? Sans doute afin de surligner sa nature différente, étrangère à celle du monde. Moins au pays lui-même qu'à la nature même de ce monde. De même, Ulysse arrive en étranger à Ithaque, habillé en mendiant hirsute alors qu'il se présenta au palais d'Ithaque, prêt à en découdre avec les prétendants au trône.

La superbe musique de Basil Poledouris m'avait conduit ce matin vers des rivages du rêve où des fréquences de douceurs qui bercent quelque chose comme un souvenir d'enfance, comme si un drap onirique m'entraînait vers un repos profond. Ma rêverie matinale miroitait de mille images enchantées et douces, maternantes, bienveillantes.

Mais, au lieu de glisser dans la pente du sommeil, une idée me vint à l'esprit avec la vitesse d'un éclair. J'en étais venu à l'idée que derrière Conan le Barbare, le personnage de film, se cache une figure métaphorique centrale. On trouve bien sûr les héros tueur de dragon, Siegfried ou Saint Georges, mais Conan a une particularité. Il est revanchard. Son ennemi est un homme qui a le pouvoir de transformation. Il peut en effet se transformer en serpent. Il est un enchanteur car il symbolise l'enchantement coupé de sa source quant Conan représente la source elle-même.

Un des plus haut mystère qui touche à la littérature et au langage est de savoir pourquoi les mythes anciens métaphorisent le combat symbolique vers la lumière, l'entrée et la sortie du labyrinthe ? Un saut de géant s'est produit le jour où je compris que les mythes comportent une telle structure uniquement parce qu'ils portent eux-même les impulsions de l'imaginaire et que l'imaginaire est lui-même une ondulation divine, algorithmique, auto-structurante. C'est là un point capital, les légendes "racontées au coin du feu" proviennent d'un rayonnement qui n'est pas de ce monde. Pas étonnant qu'elles contiennent sous forme métaphorique, le fameux Plan de Retour. C'est en tout cas la seule explication rationnelle possible.

L'univers qui nous entoure peut parfois faire penser à une "ruine". Le HLM étant la ruine caractérisée. Incomplétude, brisement de l'origine, processus déshumanisant, le HLM est l'habitat de l'insecte mécanique. L'homme moderne est l'équivalent des ruines, désenchanté, mécanisé, interchangeable. Les ruines nourrissent aussi l'imaginaire du retour.

Face à ce déclin algorithmique, le combat le plus haut, le plus noble est le réenchantement qui seul peut être conduire par un "barbare radical", l'étranger provenant d'un autre monde, l'étranger en nous-même que Bachelard appelle l'"Enfant Eternel". Le prix du réenchantement, c'est le choc frontal entre les spectres d'une réalité desséchée et la puissance du rêve. Une version de ce combat s'est récemment illustré avec le magistral Cameraman Gods de Neil Gaiman. On y voit une lutte à mort entre les "nouveaux dieux" du système de la consommation et des médias de l'Amérique et les dieux anciens, oubliés et jusque-là réduits à la portion congrue.

A travers ces exemples, on est saisi par l'idée qu'un immense et implacable dispositif concerté a visé, depuis des temps immémoriaux (serait-ce même la pente de l'Histoire ?), a assécher l'imaginaire des peuples par un imaginaire de substitution. Ce dispositif est apparu historiquement avec le pouvoir centralisateur de l'Empire Romain, les Conciles, et devenu totalement incontrôlable par la suite, comme une machine planétaire devenue folle. Il poursuit aujourd'hui sa course folle avec la réplique de l'Empire qu'est l'Empire Américain, le Soft Power, le Nouvel Ordre Mondial qui contrôle à la fois le capitalisme avec sa technoscience destructrice de l'environnement et l'imaginaire de l'écologie et des médias.

Ce roman magistral montre que le combat pertinent et salvateur se situe moins entre la technoscience et l'écologie qu'entre deux imaginaires, l'ancien et le nouveau.

Les grands esprits de notre temps ont bien compris ce subterfuge. Bachelard exhortait a trouvé le germe-racine de l'imaginaire. Dans un entretien au Spiegel de 1956, Heidegger prononce une phrase énigmatique qui n’est pas sans évoquer la geste mythique de Conan le Barbare : "Seul un dieu peut nous sauver".

Quoi de commun entre la marionnette de bois et le petit garçon qui court et qui va à l'école? aucun. Une transformation totale les sépare.
Le "barbare" n’est-il pas, aussi, notre double onirique ?

« L’appel des sources » contre l’idéologie écologiste

A travers les exemples cités, on comprends que notre époque a sans doute moins besoin d’une pythie adolescente (Greta Gunberg) qu’un « dieu » au sens mystérieux donné par par Heidegger ou un « barbare» décliné dans la Science Fiction, notamment l’Héroic Fantasy. Ils répondent parfaitement à cet «appel des sources» cher à Bachelard.

On notera que l’imaginaire de la Fantasy n’est pas toujours celle d’une lutte à mort entre technologie et nature vierge, mais produit parfois des univers où la plus haute technologie cohabite avec la nature la plus luxuriante, univers « archéo-futuriste » où les hommes généralement cohabitent avec les dieux.

La croisade écologiste relayée par les mass-médias s‘inscrit tout comme la destruction de la nature sous l’horizon du progrès. Elle nous projette dans les mêmes espoirs et ornières que la psychanalyse au temps de Bachelard.

Gaston Bachelard s’en prend à la psychanalyse qui nous aurait  « écarté de la méditation de l’image primitive», « dépoétisé le rapport au monde» et aurait « intellectualiser les symboles». Gageons qu’il en dirait de même, aussi bien de la science désenchantée que de l’écologie militante !    

 

Oswald Spengler and the Morphology of Cultures

Arthur Chandler

Ex: http://www.arthurchandler.com

(originally printed in Humanities, 1978)

Morphology: “the study of the form and structure of organisms and their specific structural features” (Wikipedia)

Prelude

Under the gloom of the funeral day, adult hands persuade the child to the pews. The minister intones the solemn ceremony, while grown-up faces weep, or press their sadness between steady eyes and firm lips. The child feels the strange oppressiveness of the atmosphere, but as yet cannot fathom the reason. 

Then the final processional: grim men and women file by the casket. The father’s hands reach down and lift the child high: and there, hovering like a captive angel in his father’s grip, the child first sees the shell of his grandfather’s soul. He stares down at the face he knew last week: the same face, but now shrunken into something remote and unfamiliar. It’s not like grandfather sleeping: something is gone.

“The child suddenly grasps the lifeless corpse for what it is: something that has become wholly matter, wholly space; and at the same moment it feels itself an individual being in an alien and extended world. Here, in the decisive moments of existence, when the child first becomes man and realizes his immense loneliness in the universal, the world-fear reveals itself for the first time as the human fear in the presence of death.”

Later, back in the subdued warmth of his own home, the child gazes out the window. People walk, cats prowl, birds dart. All live — but not grandfather. He will never walk the earth again. Never.

The day completes its cycle. Distinctions blur in the landscape. Stars wink into sight — tiny brightnesses in a vast dark. People lie down to sleep. Some people, like grandfather, will never see the morning: this the child now knows with certitude. 

The tears well up and shatter down his cheeks. He cries not only for the loss of what grandfather was for him: he cries for the inescapable loneliness that the sureness of grandfather’s death now means.

In these moments, the soul of the culture, like the soul of the child, is born. 

First Act: The Birth of the Soul of the Culture

“Primeval man is a ranging animal, a being whose waking consciousness restlessly feels its way through life, under no servitude of place or home, keen and anxious in its senses, ever alert to drive off some element of hostile Nature. A deep transformation sets in at first with agriculture — for that is something artificial, with which the hunter and shepherd have no touch. He who digs and plows is seeking not to plunder, but to alter nature. To plant implies, not to take something, but to produce something. Man roots in the earth that he tends, the soul of man discovers a soul in the countryside, and a new earth-boundness of being, a new feeling, pronounces itself. Hostile Nature becomes the friend, earth becomes Mother Earth. Between sowing and begetting, harvest and death, the child and the grain, a profound affinity is set up.”

People in landscape — this is the one fundamental, the basic unity of life and place that accompanies the birth of every culture. And from the shared unity of experience of the landscape comes the Culture: that totality of traditions and institutions that marks the expansion of a people’s existence into an organic unity greater than the sum of the individual lives that compose it.

The local earth and air surround them. The new-born are delivered into a regional Nature that envelops them with its special shape of hills, demands of the soil, felt rhythm of the seasons, and sublime procession of the heavens at night. The old are finally delivered into the earth, or scattered to the winds — back to the mother-landscape. All life between infancy and death becomes a participation in the greater life of the Culture itself. 

In every culture, attitudes toward the surrounding world coalesce, and shape themselves, in their highest mode of expression, as religion. In the springtime of a society, the myth of a people expresses for them what the world is and means, why it is fashioned thus, and what they must do in obedience to the Ordering Principle. It is here, in the forms and assumptions of each religion, where cultural axioms reside.

Most of the countless human societies that come into being never become civilizations. With a very few Cultures, however, a new form of growth cycle begins. The first herald of this beginning is the birth of the soul of a town. “This is a mass-soul of a wholly new kind, which suddenly buds off from the general spirituality of its Culture. As soon as it awakes, it forms for itself a visible body. Out of the rustic group of farms and cottages, each of which has its own history, arises a totality. And the whole lives, breathes, grows, and acquires a face and an inner form and history.” When this budding culture metamorphoses into a civilization, the fateful and fated cycle has begun. Thenceforward the style-history of the Culture ever more resides in the town, the city, and finally in the gigantic megalopolis.

The Prime Symbol

As the town grows in the passage of time, the grand religious myths of its beginnings take on a style — those recognizable traits that separate each culture from all others — and mark the limits and possibilities of its soul. “Style itself is the rhythm of the process of self-implementing.” And it is the style that tells us that a building is Roman and not Renaissance, that a proof of a theorem belongs to Desargues and not Euclid, that a bas-relief is Assyrian and not Sumerian.

As an individual, everyone enacts a personal style of gesture, inflection, habit. The overall rhythm is given to us by the Culture, but its inflections are our own. Just so, people build and paint and create mathematics. Every architect, every artist, every mathematician shows forth in their work a style: unique personal inflections on the overarching rhythms of tradition. The unity of that cultural rhythm, the basic bond that integrates all branches of a culture into a pervasive whole, is its Prime Symbol. This symbol exists in every phase of a culture’s life, no matter how apparently grand or modest. But in its highest modes of creativity — in art, thought, political action and above all in religion, that the Prime Symbol is expressed with greatest purity and force.

“All that is, symbolizes.” In the great cultures — those entities that are destined to unfold into civilizations — world-fear and world-longing find expression in their Prime Symbols, which set the limits and define the possiblities of their growth and the secret of their inner principle of decay.

For Faustian Civilization — the outcome of the Culture of Western Europe and its siblings — the matrix of all reality, the core of its Prime Symbol, is infinite space.

The Gothic Cathedral’s spires and arches yearn upward for the infinite, just as its space-commanding giant of sound, the bellows organ, storms heaven with its counterpoint of expanding volume. In Faustian painting, the ever-present and unifying device of perspective commands the eye to follow out to the vanishing point at infinity. In the realm of mathematics — where cultures show their beliefs about reality in purest form — Western mathematicians posit an infinitely extensive and infinitesimally divisible grid of space-points which radiate out to infinity in three dimension — and later, in an infinite number of directions.

For the classical culture of Greece, the Prime Symbol was radically different — and so, too, was the form-ideal is sought to express in its arts and thought. For the people of classical civilization, the near and present bodily form of things made up the basis, the ἀρχή, of existence. Greek painting contains no ordered distances, only bodies. Euclidean geometry always gives us the mathematics of surface and volume, never point-systems of variables in a matrix of infinite, Cartesian space. Even the music of Greece, with its supposed harmonic connection with Western music, is in fact based on a sound-appreciation of a radically different sort. For the classical mind, harmony consists of the relationship of two sounded notes. To the Western sensibility, music consists of the ever-changing relationship among moving intervals — mobile spaces between note clusters — that provides the sense of sonic dynamism.

The Western/Faustian mind perceives the universe as infinite space: the Classical/Apollonian as well-ordered aggregates of bodily forms beneath a corporeal vault of the heavens. A third civilization — the Near-Eastern/Magian — conceives of the universe as a cavern. Here, the primordial light-versus-dark struggle pervades the cavern dome of the heavens even as it dominates the eternal wars among the human race. The Magian world is thus a cosmos of opposing substances: God versus the devil, the righteous versus the infidel. “Even death, for the author of the John Gospel, as for the strict Moslem, is not the end of life, but a Something, a death force that contends with the life-force for the possession of man.”

By setting the high cultural achievements of the Magian world alongside those of the Apollonian and Faustian, we perceive the radical dissimilarity among them. The classical temple is an architectural body of ordered elements, optically graspable in a single glance, designed as a completely exterior experience for the eye. The Western cathedral is an expression of an inward yearning for the light from infinity. The Near-Eastern mosque is a cavern from which the symbolic duality of light and dark contend in the enclosing dome.

In Classical mathematics, proportions among magnitudes comprise the entirety of number-thought. In the West, it is the relationships among varying functions operating in infinite space that make up the concept of number. In Arabian mathematics, is the “alchemical” transmutation of undefined qualities that pervades the essence of mathematics. “And as Euclidean geometry is to Attic statuary (the same expression-form in a different medium) and the analysis of space to polyphonic music, so is algebra to the Magian art of the gold mosaic and the arabesque.”

Infinite space, the cavern cosmos, the sum of the forms of bodies — these are the essential cultural axioms of three of the great civilizations that have actualized their Prime Symbols. To the historical imagination searching for the morphology of other cultures, other Prime Symbols can be discovered:

For the Egyptian, reality was “a resolute march down the path once entered.” The pyramids, seen in this light, are not buildings in the Western sense but pathways enclosed by mighty masonry.

“For the Chinese, the world-around is approached as a hither-and-thither wandering that nevertheless goes to the goal.” It is The Way: and in a culture where the path through Nature becomes the highest and deepest form of sensibility, landscape gardening becomes a high art, comparable in its richness and philosophical depth to the Gothic Notre Dame, the Magian Blue Mosque, and the Parthenon.

For the soul of India, the world is illusion, an existential zero, and its goal, the ever-circling phantom show of creation and destruction, to be escaped by attaining Nirvana. Here, the Prime Symbol is Zero — an idea which, in the realm of numbers, meant something entirely different to traditional Indian mathematicians than to their Faustian counterparts, for whom the 0 has always entailed deep paradoxes.

Interlude

The Child attains maturity. In the course of life, the growing youth encounters heroes and villains, profound thinkers and shallow phrased-spinners, firm friends and sly enemies. From all these people, real and fictional, we learn — but they do not influence us. We choose what we will take, and what we will ignore. Tough we expand and deepen our outlook throughout life, it is a deepening and expansion of our own nature. All outside forces are converted by our minds and bodies to our own uses. Those forces do not influence us: we pick and choose among them.  

We see a painting, hear a symphony, read a sonnet. In doing so, we “experience something in ourselves, but cannot give any account of the relation between this experience and what the creators lived in themselves. We see a form, but we do not know what in the other’s soul begat that form: we can only have some belief about the matter, and we believe by putting in our own soul. However definitely and distinctly a religion may express itself in words, they are words, and we put our own sense into them. However impressive the artist’s notes to colors, he sees and hears in them only ourselves, and if we cannot do so, the work is for us meaningless.”

Just so, the relationships between Cultures: connotations are not transferrable.

The Integrity of the Prime Symbol

Once a culture’s own Prime Symbol is established and expressed, its essence is unalterable. Individual works, or whole expression-forms such as Attic drama or Arabian alchemy, can be studied by Western dramatists or scientists. But outside their culture of origin, such works are lifeless. They have no power within themselves to move people of another origin. The choice to use this or that element must be made; and at that point, the user, not the work, dictates the nature to which the plot or formula will be put.

Furthermore, most alien works are never “borrowed” at all. “In all conventional history, it is only the relations that are accepted that we observe. But what of those that were not accepted? Why, for example, do we fail to find in Classical expression-forms — supposedly “influenced” by Egypt — the pyramid, pylon, obelisk, hieroglyphic? What of the stock of Byzantium and of the Moorish East was not accepted by Gothic art and thought in Spain and Sicily?”

“Consider how every living Culture is continuously bathed in innumerable potential influences. But out of these, only some few are admitted as such — the great majority are not. Is the choice, then, concerned with the works, or with those creators who choose or ignore them?”

In the end, nothing reaches maturity except through the fulfillment of its own nature. Each Culture transvalues all its borrowings and makes them its own. Denotations may be taken, but connotations are inevitably transformed. The Prime Symbol, the Culture’s basic attitude toward its environment, translates all influences, expands, grows deeper and richer thereby, but remains in its essence inviolable.

Finale

Children become men and women, marry, and beget their own children. In them and through them, the parents seem to be reborn, surrounding their offspring with affection, knowledge and moral lessons condensed from life. But for all the parents’ efforts, children still go their own ways, absorbing, rejecting, and recreating themselves with all that their environment offers them. The child is the father and mother of the adult.

And so the child grows old, following the unalterable decay endemic to all creatures born and moving through time. Early creativity stiffens into pattern and habit. The fire in the blood cools, leaving noble the lukewarm pleasures of the philosophic mind, or a death-driven flight into a second religiousness.

But even in the winter years, there are tasks to perform. Twilight and winter leave bare the shape of things: the darkening mountain, the leafless tree, the multicolored past stripped to its essential components and toned down by the blank certitude of impending death. Still the world-fear and world-longing are at work, even in the deficient veins of the old; and if accident and senility can be avoided, the prime feelings of meaning in the world may yet produce final, austere monuments as departing symbols of a mature mind drawing to a close.

And then, the only end of age.

The Last Task

Some civilizations, like the Egyptian and the Indian, prolong their final years into centuries. In extended crepuscule of long-lived civilizations, the main creative works had long since been accomplished, and only a diminished echo of earlier greatness lingered in art and thought.

In some instances, late megalopolitans yearn and clamor for barbarian vigor, and turn aside from their own spiritual sources in an attempt to rediscover  meaning in borrowed forms. This second religiousness sprouts like mushroom clusters on the great sitting tree of the civilization ion. And though the death of the Culture may be postponed, the decline may not, and must proceed on its destined course to the end.

For Western/Faustian culture, ripe autumn — the period known as the Enlightenment — has concluded. Already with the advent of Romanticism, the yellow softness of decay appears in the arts, and even in science and mathematics. “Impressionism is atheism in colors,” and n-dimensional geometry liberates Western mathematics from the obligation of perfecting the analogy between number and reality. Even the Prime Symbol of infinite space comes under challenge from thinkers who argue for a finite but unbounded universe.

In the sciences, arts, mathematics — in all of the highest orders of Faustian enterprise — the sureness of feel, the universal acceptance of the Prime Symbol of infinite space, has been lost. In all areas, a pervasive skepticism replaces certitude — a skepticism which is, in all cases, the mark of later stages of the Culture’s advance into Civilization. But in the West, this skepticism takes on an especially historical form. Faustian skepticism does not mean, as it did the Apollonian mind, a denial of the possibility of knowledge, nor, as it did for the Magians, a world-weary acceptance of Kismet. Faustian doubt takes the form of acknowledging that different conditions produce different results, that there is no truth that holds true everywhere and in all circumstances. In this connection, it is an occurrence of high cultural significance that Newton’s Laws have given way to Einstein’s theories.

With the loss of the sure feel of tradition, each of us stands at the center of our own conceptual universe and propounds our own unique theory of coherence. For each of us, this theory grows from the roots of Truth as we see it, and puts into practice the principles of action that anyone who aspires to first rank must have. But next to us in the city-scape grows another human-plant, sinking different roots and bearing different fruit. The whole of our era in Faustian civilization is a rich, varied complexity of such exotic growths, each one vying, unsuccessfully, to cover the land, to establish a new Prime Symbol.

Only in the world of technics is the high level of traditional Faustian world-view maintained, and where the Prime Symbol is pursued with something like the intensity of earlier centuries. In the realm of technics, Faustian longing aspires towards its final achievement: the application of power-knowledge for the conquest of astronomical space. “Not this or that bit of the world, as when Prometheus stole fire, but the world itself, complete with its secrets of force, is dragged away as spoil to be built into our culture.”

Religious faith comes at the beginning, practical results at the end. The faith that first sustained Western Culture comes to be superseded by causal, scientific myths which are, nevertheless, still predicated through and through upon the religious foundations at the origin of belief. It is the expansion, refinement, and universal application of technics for the mastery of endless space that constitutes the last and greatest task of Faustian Culture.

“And so the drama of a high Culture — that wondrous world of deities, arts, thoughts, battles, cities — closes with the return of the pristine facts of the blood eternal that is one and the same as the ever-circling cosmic flow. Time triumphs over space, and it is Time whose inexorable movement embeds the ephemeral incident of the Culture, on this planet, in the incident of Man — a form wherein the incident life flows on for a time, while behind it all the streaming horizons of geological stellar histories pile up in the light-world of our eyes.”

In the end, Faustian Culture, like all that lives, must pass away. “Even our machine technics, which seems so imperishable, a contribution to the history of civilization, will end with the Faustian civilization and one day will lie in fragments, forgotten — our railways and steamships as dead as the Roman roads and the Chinese wall, our giant cities and skyscrapers in ruins like old Memphis and Babylon.”

To hope, in fond and vain delusion, for renewed life, or for technics itself to save us from the decline is worse than folly. “Optimism is cowardice.” To recognize the inevitable, and yet perform what our heritage demands of us — this is the highest form of creativity left to us in the final season of our life-course. To face the world-fear of extinction, if not with the confidence of spring then with the determination of age — that is the last task of Faustian technics.

“We are born into this time and must bravely follow the path to the destined end. Our duty is to hold on to the lost position, without hope, without rescue, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a door in Pompeii, who, during the eruption of Vesuvius, died at his post because they forgot to relieve him. That is greatness. That is what it means to be a thoroughbred. The honorable end is the one thing that cannot be taken from a man.”

All quotations in this essay are from Oswald Spengler’s Decline of the West and Man and Technics, translated by Charles Francis Atkinson.

Backstory to “Oswald Spengler and the Morphology of Cultures”

When  I joined the interdisciplinary humanities program at my university, I at once recognized that I needed a unifying structure to unify the various works of literature, the fine arts, philosophy and history that I would be teaching — and, eventually, writing about. I had long been interested in all those fields, plus mathematics, film and photography — but had never thought about them or their interrelationships in any systematic way.

Over a lunch one day, a friend and colleague, David Renaker, suggested that I should look into Spengler’s Decline of the West for just such a unifying overview. I had heard of the book, but assumed it was just another one of the many apocalyptic pronouncements that had been popular in recent decades. But on the strength of David’s recommendation, I bought the book and started reading.

The Decline of the West, I discovered, as neither a traditional history book or a dirge predicting the end of civilization as we know it. Instead, Spengler opened up vast and profound vistas of world cultures, often with startling insights like this:

"Who amongst [present-day historians] realizes that between the Differential Calculus and the dynastic principle of politics in the age of Louis XIV, between the Classical city-state and the Euclidean geometry, between the space perspective of Western oil painting and the conquest of space by railroad, telephone and long-range weapon, between contrapuntal music and credit economics, there are deep uniformities?" (Spengler, Decline of the West, Volume I, page 7)

The special attraction of the book for me was Spengler’s unusual willingness to see mathematics, not as a system of universal truth, but as yet another creation of each culture, just as much bound to its cultural “Prime Symbol” as its works of literature, art, and religion.

Later, Spengler’s thought served as my inspiration for an essay I wrote for the Western Humanities Review (link here). And though, in the passage of time, I’ve become skeptical of some of his wide-ranging assertions, I still admire the power of his mind and his heroic determination to find unity in the infinite diversity of human history.

La Haute Culture Surhumaniste:
l’avenir de l’Occident

By Ted Sallis

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

English original here ^[2]

L’Occident et ses peuples peuvent-ils être sauvés ? Et que faudra-t-il pour cela – en particulier si nous recherchons une solution à long terme plutôt qu’une dernière digue « provisoire » ? Une nouvelle Haute Culture de l’Occident peut-elle naître pour assurer l’existence des peuples de l’Occident pour une longue durée ? Quelles caractéristiques une telle nouvelle culture devrait-elle posséder ?

Je supposerai que le lecteur connaît le the modèle civilisationnel d’Oswald Spengler ^[3], un  modèle en grande partie adopté par Francis Parker Yockey dans ses divers travaux sur l’Occident et ses possibilités futures. Avec un Printemps, un Eté, un Automne et un Hiver dans une Haute Culture, l’« Hiver » est la phase de la fin imminente. Il est clair, du moins pour moi (et il semble que Michael O’Meara soit d’accord avec cette évaluation), que nous sommes dans l’« Hiver » de notre Haute Culture Occidentale (c’est-à-dire « faustienne ») moderne actuelle. Et, immergée dans ce déclin, privée d’un principe organisateur dominant qui puisse fournir une structure spirituelle permettant la continuation de son existence, la race blanche est en train de mourir, ne parvient plus à se reproduire, est remplacée par des étrangers, et oppose un degré de résistance inapproprié à la mort de l’Occident.

Dans les véritables saisons du climat physique, le printemps suit l’hiver. La même chose peut-elle être vraie pour des peuples particuliers et leurs Hautes Cultures ? Si la volonté de (re)-naissance civilisationnelle conduit à la survie raciale à long terme, devrions-nous au moins examiner les possibilités ? Bien sûr, on ne peut pas prédire avec une entière exactitude si une (re)-naissance civilisationnelle aura lieu, et encore moins la forme précise qu’un tel événement prendra. De plus, on ne peut pas planifier à l’avance et créer une Haute Culture de la même manière qu’on établit la formulation générale d’une stratégie et qu’on conduit ensuite les troupes à la bataille. Une Haute Culture doit se développer selon ses propres lois, d’après des facteurs qui ne sont pas entièrement sous contrôle humain (conscient). Cependant, on peut et on doit examiner les données, envisager les possibilités, et, dans la mesure du possible, encourager les tendances conduisant à une (re)-naissance civilisationnelle. De plus, ces tendances pourraient et devraient être guidées, dans la mesure du possible, dans des directions qui seraient plus fructueuses et plus cohérentes avec la nature de notre peuple.

Un point de départ est d’examiner notre Haute Culture actuelle, dont nous voyons les vestiges mourant autour de nous. La dénommée civilisation « occidentale » ou « faustienne » a été décrite par Spengler, et est résumée ainsi ^[4]:

« …les Occidentaux ^[5] modernes étant faustiens ^[6]. D’après ses théories, nous vivons maintenant dans l’hiver de la civilisation ^[7] faustienne. Sa description de la civilisation faustienne est celle d’une civilisation où la masse recherche constamment l’inaccessible – faisant de l’Homme Occidental une figure fière mais tragique, car tout en luttant et en créant il sait secrètement que le but réel ne sera jamais atteint. »

Ici nous voyons deux caractéristiques définissantes de la civilisation « faustienne » de l’Occident moderne (c’est-à-dire post-antique) : d’abord, un accent placé sur l’infini et l’inconnu, et ensuite que l’effort dirigé vers cela sera toujours infructueux ; les objectifs de l’Occidental sont toujours « inaccessibles ». Le second point et ses implications seront discutés plus loin. Pour l’instant, acceptons le modèle spenglérien et acceptons aussi que nous sommes dans l’Hiver de la culture faustienne. Or l’école spenglérienne, imbue d’« acceptation stoïque » (de « pessimisme »), nous conseillera d’accepter nos circonstances et d’en tirer le meilleur parti. L’ère dans laquelle nous vivons est ce qu’elle est, et, comme le soldat romain montant la garde sous le Vésuve en éruption, nous devons rester à notre poste jusqu’à la fin, jusqu’à ce que tout soit submergé par le déclin inévitable (l’entropie civilisationnelle, si vous préférez).

Mais si la race et la culture sont liées, la disparition de la culture signifie la destruction de la race. Mais est-ce vrai ? La Culture Faustienne n’est pas la première Haute Culture de l’Europe ; elle fut précédée par la Culture Antique. Spengler et son adepte Yockey rompent avec les interprétations culturelles précédentes pour souligner la forte discontinuité entre cultures antique et faustienne. Elles sont perçues comme deux Hautes Cultures distinctes, aussi différentes l’une de l’autre que, disons, la culture égyptienne et la culture « magique ».

Par conséquent, dans le même article sur l’œuvre de Spengler, nous lisons:

Spengler emprunte fréquemment à la philosophie mathématique. Il affirme que les mathématiques ^[8]et l’art d’une civilisation révèlent sa vision-du-monde. Il note que dans les mathématiques antiques grecques il y a seulement des entiers ^[9] et pas de véritables concepts  des limites ^[10] ou de l’infini ^[11]. Par conséquent, sans le concept de l’infini, tous les événements du passé lointain étaient vus comme également lointains, et ainsi Alexandre le Grand ^[12] n’avait aucune gêne à se déclarer descendant d’un dieu. D’autre part, le monde occidental – qui a des concepts du zéro ^[13], de l’infini, et de la limite – possède une vision-du-monde historique qui accorde une grande importance aux dates exactes.

De même, Revilo Oliver écrit ^[14] :

« Spengler identifie comme deux civilisations entièrement séparées et distinctes la civilisation antique (‘apollinienne’), entre 1100 av. J.C. et 300 apr. J.C., et la civilisation occidentale (‘faustienne’), entre 900 et 2200 apr. J.C. Ce sont les deux pour lesquelles nous avons l’information la plus complète, et entre elles Spengler établit quelques-uns de ses plus brillants synchronismes (par ex., Alexandre le Grand correspond à Napoléon). Même un siècle plus tôt, cette dichotomie aurait semblé presque folle, car chacun savait et prenait comme allant de soi que quoi qu’il puisse en être des cultures étrangères, la nôtre était une continuation, ou du moins un renouveau, de l’antique. Le rejet par Spengler de cette continuité était l’aspect le plus radical et le plus étonnant de sa synthèse historique, mais son influence écrasante a été si grande que cet aspect a été accepté par une majorité des nombreux auteurs ultérieurs sur la philosophie de l’histoire, dont nous pouvons mentionner ici seulement Toynbee, Raven, Bagby et Brown (20). L’antique, nous dit-on, était une civilisation comme les Egyptiens, maintenant morte et enterrée et sans lien organique avec la nôtre. (…)

Spengler (que Brown suit particulièrement à cet égard) appuie sa dichotomie drastique en opposant d’une manière impressionnante les mathématiques et la technologie gréco-romaines aux nôtres ; à partir de cette opposition, il déduit des différences dans la perception de l’espace et du temps, manifestées particulièrement dans la musique, et parvient à la conclusion que la Weltanschauung antique était essentiellement statique, ne désirant et ne reconnaissant qu’un monde strictement délimité et familier, alors que la nôtre est dynamique et manifeste un désir passionné pour l’infini et l’inconnu. On peut avancer diverses objections aux généralisations que j’ai si brièvement et inadéquatement résumées (par ex., la différence de vision est-elle réellement plus grande qu’entre la littérature ‘classique’ de l’Europe du XVIIIe siècle et le romantisme de l’ère suivante ?), mais le point crucial est de savoir si les différences, qui appartiennent à l’ordre que nous devons appeler spirituel par manque d’un meilleur terme, sont fondamentales ou épiphénoménales. »

J’ai tendu vers l’explication épiphénoménale – mais en tous cas, on peut accepter la conclusion globale d’Oliver dans ses divers travaux : soit la civilisation antique et la civilisation faustienne sont des phases différentes mais connectées de la même Civilisation, soit, même si elles sont complètement distinctes, l’Homme Occidental est capable de produire de multiples Hautes Cultures. De toute manière, on peut en conclure deux choses : (1) un successeur de la Haute Culture faustienne est possible et a un précédent, et (2) ce successeur sera intimement connecté de manières importantes à son (ses) prédécesseur(s) (même si Spengler et Yockey nieraient que cela soit possible).

Par conséquent, soit la civilisation antique et la civilisation faustienne sont effectivement liées (par une réserve génétique commune, une « âme raciale », et une attitude occidentale), soit, si elles sont vraiment distinctes, elles ne sont pas complètement déconnectées, puisqu’elles proviennent d’une source commune ou d’un fondement commun (encore une fois, la réserve génétique générale, l’« âme raciale », et la mentalité occidentale d’individualisme et d’empirisme plus grands que dans d’autres peuples et d’autres cultures). Non seulement la civilisation antique et la civilisation faustienne sont en un certain sens liées, mais, contrairement à ce que disent Spengler et Yockey – et c’est en fait un blasphème pour l’école spenglérienne, qui rejette l’histoire linéaire –, il y a une idée de progression, car la vision-du-monde de la civilisation faustienne est plus large que celle de l’antique ; en effet, cette plus grande largeur de vision est une caractéristique définissante de la faustienne. Cette largeur se manifestant dans des phénomènes comme la technique de haut niveau, et une connaissance massive de base de la science, de l’histoire, de la philosophie et de la moralité et de l’éthique, les bases sont donc posées pour une nouvelle Haute Culture ayant une vision encore plus large que celle de la faustienne. Un spenglérien dirait qu’une Haute Culture de l’Occident, même si elle est possible (et il nierait peut-être cette possibilité), serait complètement déconnectée des aspects « faustiens » de la précédente Haute Culture faustienne occidentale (c’est-à-dire de l’actuelle). Cependant, je dirais que, ayant été éveillé à l’univers dans son ensemble, il est peu probable que l’homme blanc créerait une nouvelle Haute Culture qui serait insulaire, rejetant l’infini. Dans la mesure (limitée) où nous pouvons prédire, ou même influencer, le développement d’une nouvelle Haute Culture, une direction potentielle serait une direction qui ne serait pas purement « faustienne » – au sens de la recherche de l’inaccessible. Au lieu de cela, on pourrait projeter une future Haute Culture qui serait basée sur la réalisation ultime et réussie (finale) de ce qui était précédemment considéré comme « inaccessible ».

Je dirais que le fondement Chrétien de la Haute Culture faustienne est responsable du fait que les buts ultimes que l’homme occidental cherche à atteindre finissent par être « inaccessibles » – et qu’il sait secrètement qu’ils sont « inaccessibles ». La mentalité chrétienne place des limites inhérentes dans l’esprit de l’homme occidental, et il est donc condamné à échouer finalement même si le plein succès est théoriquement possible (finalement). Après tout, le centre d’intérêt du christianisme est Dieu et non pas l’Homme, c’est le « salut » et non le triomphe, et l’accent est mis sur « l’autre monde » et non celui-ci, notre monde réel. Car que l’homme parvienne à la divinité – ou même qu’il ait cela pour but – est une forme de « blasphème », c’est quelque chose qui ne peut pas être toléré. Par conséquent, l’échec ultime doit survenir, puisque la réalisation du but « faustien » (la réalisation elle-même ferait d’ailleurs en sorte que l’événement ne serait plus vraiment « faustien ») n’est simplement pas possible dans une Haute Culture basée sur le christianisme. Le plein développement de l’homme occidental a été restreint par une religion étrangère qui a placé des chaînes sur son esprit et son âme. Nietzsche a bien reconnu les contraintes imposées par le (judéo)-christianisme ; dans L’Antéchrist ^[15], nous lisons (caractères gras ajoutés) :

« A-t-on vraiment compris la célèbre histoire qui se trouve au commencement de la Bible – de la terreur mortelle de Dieu devant la science ?… Personne, en fait, ne l’a comprise. Ce livre de prêtre par excellence commence, comme il convient, avec la grande difficulté intérieure du prêtre : celui-ci connaît un seul grand danger ; par conséquent, ‘Dieu’ connaît un seul grand danger.

L’ancien Dieu, tout ‘esprit’, tout grand-prêtre, tout perfection, musarde dans ses jardins : il s’ennuie et cherche à tuer le temps. Contre l’ennui, même les dieux luttent en vain. Que fait-il ? Il crée l’homme – l’homme est distrayant… Mais ensuite il remarque que l’homme aussi s’ennuie. La pitié divine pour la seule forme de détresse qui envahit tous les paradis ne connaît plus de bornes : il crée sans tarder d’autres animaux. Première erreur de Dieu : l’homme ne trouva pas ces autres animaux distrayants – il chercha à les dominer ; il ne voulut plus être un ‘animal’ lui-même. – Dieu créa donc la femme. De cette manière il mit fin à l’ennui – et aussi à beaucoup d’autres choses ! La femme fut la seconde erreur de Dieu. – ‘La femme, dans son essence, est serpent, Heva’ – tout prêtre sait cela ; ‘de la femme proviennent tous les malheurs du monde’ – tout prêtre sait cela aussi. Par conséquent, la science aussi vient d’elle… C’est par la femme que l’homme apprit à goûter de l’arbre de la connaissance. – Qu’arriva-t-il ? L’ancien Dieu fut saisi par une terreur mortelle. Voici que l’homme lui-même était devenu sa plus grosse bévue ; il s’était créé un rival ; la science rend les hommes pareils aux dieux – c’en est fait des prêtres et des dieux quand l’homme devient scientifique ! – Morale : la science est l’interdit en soi ; elle seule est interdite. La science est le premier des péchés, le germe de tous les péchés, le péché originel. Voilà toute la morale. – ‘Tu ne connaîtras pas’ – le reste découle de cela. – La terreur mortelle de Dieu, cependant, ne le priva pas de son ingéniosité. Comment se défend-on contre la science ? Pendant longtemps ce fut pour lui le problème capital. Réponse : chasser l’homme du paradis ! Le bonheur, le loisir encouragent la pensée – et toutes les pensées sont de mauvaises pensées. – L’homme ne doit pas penser. – Et donc le prêtre invente la détresse, la mort, les dangers mortels de l’enfantement, toutes sortes de misères, la vieillesse, la décrépitude, la maladie surtout – autant d’armes dans le combat contre la science ! Les problèmes de l’homme ne lui permettent pas de penser… Et pourtant – quelle horreur ! – l’édifice de la connaissance commence à s’élever, assaillant le ciel, faisant de l’ombre aux dieux – que faire ? – L’ancien Dieu invente la guerre ; il sépare les peuples ; il les fait se détruire les uns les autres (– les prêtres ont toujours eu besoin de la guerre…). La guerre – parmi d’autres choses, un grand perturbateur de la science ! – Incroyable ! La connaissance, l’affranchissement du joug des prêtres, prospère en dépit de la guerre. – Alors l’ancien Dieu en arrive à sa dernière résolution : ‘L’homme est devenu scientifique – il n’y a plus rien à faire, il faut le noyer !’… »

Effectivement. Si « les doux hériteront de la Terre », il n’y a pas de place pour un effort humain vers l’infini, qui atteigne son but, et qui place l’Homme sur le même plan que Dieu. Si la douceur, l’humilité, l’« humble agneau de Dieu » est l’archétype fondateur d’une culture, alors bien sûr l’infini et l’inconnu ne pourront jamais être atteints. « Tu ne connaîtras pas » : il est étonnant de voir tout ce que nous avons réalisé en dépit de cela, et ces remarquables réalisations occidentales sont survenues – pas par hasard – principalement pendant les périodes automnale et hivernale de la Haute Culture faustienne. C’est seulement quand les contraintes imposées par la culture à définition chrétienne se sont dissipées dans une large mesure que l’acceptation a priori de l’échec s’est affaiblie. Le problème est qu’avec une haute Culture décadente et mourante, cette émancipation (partielle) vis-à-vis du culte de l’humilité ne mènera nulle part. Seule une nouvelle Haute Culture bâtie sur le concept fondamental de la transcendance humaine, et sur la conquête de l’infini et de l’inconnu, permettra à l’Homme Occidental d’accomplir son destin. Les ruines croulantes de la Haute Culture précédente peuvent servir de blocs de construction pour le futur, c’est certain, elles peuvent fournir une inspiration, certainement, et être une source de fierté, c’est sûr. Mais nous devons regarder vers le Futur, et non pas monter la garde auprès d’un Passé mourant ou mort, comme le soldat romain de Spengler.

Si je n’ai aucun dédain pour les croyances des gens, qu’elles soient chrétiennes ou païennes, je ne vois pas un renouveau des anciens dieux païens comme une amélioration avancée par rapport au déclin du faustianisme. Remplacer Jésus par Thor, à mon avis, revient simplement à remplacer une béquille par une autre. Les hommes blancs ne devraient plus aller chercher des dieux exogènes, qu’ils soient nouveaux ou anciens ; nous devrions plutôt rechercher la divinité pour notre race. Pour l’homme blanc, il est temps de grandir et de rejeter les fantaisies de l’enfance, les fantaisies des dieux et des forces intelligentes externes contrôlant un destin que nous devrions être les seuls, vraiment les seuls, à modeler. La devise du monde antique était « Connais-toi toi-même », alors que celle de l’Age Faustien était une combinaison de « Tu ne connaîtras pas » et de « Tu tenteras de connaître et tu échoueras ». Pour la nouvelle Haute Culture de l’Occident, je propose la devise : « Tu connaîtras et tu triompheras ». Cela inaugurera une ère dans laquelle l’Homme Occidental libérera son potentiel en brisant les chaînes imposées par une infériorité supposée devant des dieux imaginaires.

La citation suivante de Yockey, dans The Enemy of Europe ^[16], résume l’objectif palingénésique que nous tenterions d’atteindre, si nous le voulions :

« Notre Mission européenne est de créer la Culture-Nation-Etat-Imperium de l’Occident, et ainsi nous accomplirons de telles actions, accomplirons de tels travaux, et transformerons tellement notre monde que notre descendance lointaine, en voyant les vestiges de nos édifices et de nos remparts, dira à ses petits-enfants qu’une tribu de dieux vivait jadis sur le sol de l’Europe. »

En d’autres mots, pas de dieux imaginaires. C’est l’Homme qui deviendra « Dieu ». Dans le livre The Portable Nietzsche, l’éditeur Walter Kaufmann interprète ainsi le « surhomme » de Nietzsche :

« ce qui est évoqué n’est pas une super-brute mais un être humain qui a créé pour lui-même cette position unique dans le cosmos, que la Bible considérait comme son droit de naissance. »

Tout cela est très bien sauf la dernière partie : « La Bible ». Non, monsieur Kaufman, la Bible ne considère pas le Surhomme comme le droit ultime de l’humanité, elle considère plutôt que c’est le « dernier homme ». C’est nous qui devons choisir ce qu’est notre « droit de naissance », pas les fantaisies délirantes de « la Bible ». Cependant, cela étant dit, le reste de la description est sain, si nous considérons qu’elle est appliquée à la race dans son ensemble et pas seulement à des individus sélectionnés dans cette race. Plus d’échec « fier et tragique » dans « l’effort vers l’inaccessible » comme dans la culture « faustienne » – au contraire, la Culture Surhumaniste sera caractérisée par le fier accomplissement réussi de la recherche de l’infini. C’est ce qu’un individu optimiste peut envisager comme nouvelle Haute Culture de l’Occident, avec des liens avec la culture antique et avec la culture faustienne, mais surpassant les deux dans le but et l’objectif de l’esprit humain. Voilà ce que peut être et doit être le Destin Occidental.

Que pouvons-nous faire pour pousser les choses dans la bonne direction ?

Bien que l’auteur juif Isaac Asimov ne soit peut-être pas très populaire parmi les nationalistes blancs, sa série Fondation ^[17] peut fournir une analogie utile. « La Fondation » était conçue comme piste de lancement pour une nouvelle civilisation après l’effondrement de l’« Empire galactique », afin que l’« ère barbare » après l’effondrement ne dure que quelques milliers d’années, au lieu de 30.000 ans. Placés comme nous le sommes devant l’effondrement de l’Occident à travers l’Hiver de l’Age Faustien, il serait prudent de semer les graines d’une nouvelle civilisation occidentale blanche émergente sur le long terme, tout en luttant aussi à court terme et à moyen terme pour préserver la race blanche et sauver la plus grande partie possible de la civilisation faustienne occidentale. Sans ces objectifs à plus court terme, la renaissance civilisationnelle à long terme ne sera pas possible. Inversement, sans une renaissance civilisationnelle, le préservationnisme blanc à long terme serait contestable.

Ainsi, il y a deux choses qui sont nécessaires ici. D’abord il y a la lutte pour la préservation raciale blanche et pour sauver autant que possible de la culture faustienne, pour servir de base de connaissance et de blocs de construction pour la nouvelle Haute Culture de l’Occident. Ensuite, il faut initier un effort pour commencer à poser les fondations de cette nouvelle Haute Culture. Comme indiqué plus haut, une Haute Culture est bien sûr un phénomène organique qui ne peut pas être créé sous une forme préparée à l’avance et artificiellement imposée à un peuple. Néanmoins, il est possible de semer les graines et d’avoir quelque choix concernant les gaines qui doivent être semées. Et ensuite, nous pourrons nourrir le jeune plant pendant qu’il poussera, et pendant qu’il se développera d’après son propre caractère inhérent. Cela, nous pouvons le faire et nous devons le faire.

C’est une question sérieuse requérant une stratégie pensée à l’avance et d’un caractère visionnaire extrême, pas une chose qui peut être « discutée » légèrement sur des « liens de blogs » ou sur des forums publics (typiquement malsains). Ce n’est pas une chose qui peut être faite en un jour. C’est un projet à long terme, sur plusieurs générations, qui doit être entrepris par des individus dévoués voulant poser les fondations de quelque chose de grand et de noble pour la postérité. Ce ne sera pas une « réparation rapide » dont les résultats pourraient être vus dans une décennie ou deux ; au contraire, c’est un projet qui a le potentiel pour influencer le cours de l’histoire humaine, et il doit être mis en œuvre à ce niveau supérieur.

Par conséquent, cet essai est simplement un appel à l’action et un examen initial et rapide des possibilités. Si un tel projet est initié un jour, il ne devrait pas et ne doit pas se perdre dans les détails des « mouvements » habituels qui obsèdent beaucoup de militants, et ne peut pas non plus être lié à l’activisme « défensif » plus sérieux, mais à court terme, qui est requis pour sauver notre peuple et notre culture aujourd’hui. C’est une autre question, sur un plan entièrement différent.

Beaucoup sont appelés ; peu sont élus. Le Futur attend.

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: https://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2012/06/la-haute-culture-surhumaniste-l-avenir-de-loccident/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://cdn.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/DaliColossus.jpg

[2] here: https://www.counter-currents.com/2010/10/the-overman-high-culture-future-of-the-west/

[3] modèle civilisationnel d’Oswald Spengler: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spengler%27s_civilization_model

[4] ainsi: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Decline_of_the_West

[5] Occidentaux: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_world

[6] faustiens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faustian

[7] civilisation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization

[8] mathématiques: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics

[9] entiers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer

[10] limites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_%28mathematics%29

[11] infini: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity

[12] Alexandre le Grand: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great

[13] zéro: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0_%28number%29

[14] écrit: http://www.revilo-oliver.com/rpo/Enemy_1.html

[15] L’Antéchrist: http://www.fns.org.uk/ac.htm

[16] The Enemy of Europe: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Francis_Parker_Yockey#The_Enemy_of_Europe_.281953.29

[17] Fondation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series

 

 

Le métissage des cultures est-il possible?

Le métissage des cultures est-il possible?

par Pierre Marcowich

Ex: https://oswald-spengler-le-retour.e-monsite.com

Pour Oswald SPENGLER, les cultures sont des courants de vie organiques, c’est-à-dire un ensemble d’organes par lesquels la vie s’exprime et constitue un processus créateur de formes diverses (peuples, État, nation, religion, langues, droit, art, économie, coutumes, etc.). 

Remarquons, au passage, que, pour Oswald SPENGLER, c’est la culture qui crée le peuple, et non pas le peuple qui crée sa culture, comme il est d’usage de penser. 

Oswald SPENGLER constate que moins la pensée historique connaît ces courants de vie (cultures), plus elle s’acharne à considérer que la vie se trouve dans les relations multiples de ces cultures entre elles, et, par conséquent (et paradoxalement) moins elle comprend ces relations elles-mêmes : 

« Quelle richesse de psychologie dans ces cultures qui s’attirent, se repoussent, se rapprochent, s’étudient, se corrompent, s’entrechoquent ou se sacrifient, soit qu’elle s’admirent ou se combattent en contact immédiat, soit qu’elles vivent isolées en face du monde formel d’une culture défunte, dont le paysage montre encore les ruines. » (1) 

Oswald SPENGLER porte, à mon avis, un regard très perspicace sur les différentes sortes de relations que peuvent avoir les cultures entre elles. Qui d’entre nous, lecteur, je vous le demande, n’a pas lu un ouvrage ou un article répertoriant et décrivant avec minutie les relations commerciales depuis 1.000 ans entre l’Occident et le monde arabe, ou entre le monde arabe et la Chine, dans lequel l’auteur conclue, péremptoire, que ces relations démontrent l’influence réciproque des cultures, sans analyser plus au fond, c’est-à-dire sans tenter de découvrir l’univers intérieur produit dans chaque être par les différentes cultures qui se rencontrent. 

En effet, la pensée historique actuelle ne voit ou ne comprend pas l’univers intérieur des hommes de cultures différentes, nous dit Oswald SPENGLER. Ce sont alors deux mondes aux antipodes l’un de l’autre. Mais l’historien rationaliste et causaliste ne veut voir que les faits bruts avec lesquels il construit une chaîne continue de relations de cause à effet. 

Oswald SPENGLER nous donne l’explication du comportement de l’historien moderne : 

« À la base de cette mentalité scientifique se trouve l’image grandiose d’une unité de l’histoire humaine, telle qu’elle est apparue un jour aux grands maîtres du gothique. » (2) 

C’est donc, nous dit Oswald SPENGLER, une vision purement occidentale. L’homme occidental veut embrasser le monde entier pour le comprendre. Du coup, il s’élève à la généralisation des êtres humains la plus élevée possible, en ignorant les courants de vie qui sont propres aux cultures.

L’unicité de l’être humain, comme on dit au XXIème siècle, signifie que tous les êtres humains ont le même univers intérieur, le même regard sur le monde, les cultures n’étant qu’un habit superficiel. 

Et Oswald SPENGLER de constater : 

« C’est une dynamique purement faustienne. Aucun homme d’une autre culture ne s’est représenté ainsi l’histoire. » (3) 

En effet, nous dit Oswald SPENGLER, jamais l’esprit grec n’a recherché les effets des unités d’expression communes entre le drame attique et l’art égyptien. Pour l’homme antique, chaque nation menait sa vie propre. 

Qu’on pense également à la notion de gentils  ou d’infidèles (païens) propre à la culture arabe (qu’on la considère au stade juif ou au stade islamique) : pas de salut pour les païens. 

Nous sommes alors, dans ces cultures, en présence d’une ligne de démarcation infranchissable : grecs/barbares, peuple élu(juif)/gentilité (idolâtres), croyants(musulmans)/infidèles (qafir). 

Par contre, pour le christianisme, qui se trouve à la racine de la culture occidentale, le païen ou l’adepte d’une autre religion (musulman, juif, indou) peut toujours mériter le paradis chrétien, même s’il ne devient pas chrétien. 

C’est pourquoi, l’homme d’Occident fait la recherche chaque jour de l’élément spécifique et général de l’être humain. 

Mais pour ce faire, il doit théoriser toute chose pour parvenir, je dirais, au plus grand commun dénominateur général. 

Oswald SPENGLER nous décrit la logique de la pensée historique moderne : 

« On confond l’être avec l’être éveillé, la vie avec ses moyens d’expression […] la pensée théorique voit partout des unités théoriques mouvantes » (4) 

Oswald SPENGLER décrit alors la logique du chercheur faustien (=occidental) en sociologie, en histoire, psychologie, etc. : 

1)   il perçoit un système de formes d’expression (langue, coutumes, État, etc.) ;

2)   il lui donne un nom ;

3)    le nom dégage à ses yeux un réseau de rapports ;

4)   dès lors il croira que le nom est un organisme vivant ayant une fonction constituée de rapports entre des formes d’expression. 

On ne peut qu’admirer la perspicacité d’Oswald SPENGLER pour démonter le système de la plupart de nos théoriciens en sciences humaines, même contemporains, plagiant la méthode scientifique.

On ne peut pas, non plus, s’empêcher de penser, parmi d’autres, à Claude LEVY-STRAUSS avec son structuralisme, voulant, avec un acharnement inouï, construire un système de rapports de parenté global, applicable à toute l’humanité et à toutes les cultures et réussissant à obtenir que l’on mette à son service un mathématicien pour tenter (en vain) de traduire ce système structuraliste en fonctions mathématiques.

On comprend qu’un de ses laudateurs ait loué Claude LEVY-STRAUSS pour le fait qu’il voyait une égalité totale entre la diversité culturelle (humaine) et la diversité naturelle (végétale ?). On ne peut pas aller plus loin dans la généralisation théorique : le niveau supérieur consiste à intégrer les étoiles. Ce n’est plus seulement une simple spécificité occidentale. Cela devient de l’arrogance, la fameuse hybris occidentale ! 

Un autre exemple pourrait être pris dans la notion d’indo-européen qui représente un système de rapports entre diverses langues situées de l’Inde à l’Europe. À partir de ce système d’expression linguistique, on a créé ex nihilo le « peuple indo-européen » ! 

En réalité, nous dit Oswald SPENGLER, lorsque l’homme occidental découvre une structure étrangère à sa culture (religion, forme étatique, coutumes, etc.), il ignore, en général, ce qui l’a engendré dans l’âme de l’autre. Sa réaction immédiate, consiste à  projeter sa propre âme dans cette forme d’une culture qui lui est étrangère. 

Cette constatation d’Oswald SPENGLER, nous la découvrons quotidiennement dans les articles de journaux ou dans les ouvrages d’« experts » à la mode. Ainsi, cherchant à comprendre (ou plutôt « expliquer ») l’islamisme, ces « experts » considèrent que le monde musulman est divisé entre partisans de la laïcité (les « modernes ») et les intégriste (les « conservateurs »). L’Occidental ne peut même pas comprendre que la notion de « laïcité » ne peut se concevoir en Islam sans remettre en cause la nature même de l’Islam. Un « musulman avec une vision laïque » n’est déjà plus tout-à-fait musulman, me semble-t-il, ou c’est la religion islamique qui a muté, et c’est un autre problème. Il en de même pour la notion de « nation », typiquement occidentale, que l’Occidental tente de coller aux pays musulmans ou autres, et pour bien d’autres points. 

Mais, peut-on objecter, si l’on convertit l’homme de l’autre culture à notre religion, n’est-il pas possible de le transformer en Occidental ? 

La réponse d’Oswald SPENGLER est, sur ce point, formellement négative. 

En effet, selon Oswald SPENGLER, il ne peut pas y avoir de « transhumance psychique » (comme il dit) entre deux individus de culture différentes : 

« Une religion a beau se révéler dans des paroles aussi claires que possible, elle reste parole et l’auditeur y projette son sens intérieur. » (5) Il en est de même au plan artistique, politique, etc. 

Oswald SPENGLER concède tout de même que le don de « transhumance psychique », « très rare et très moderne est réservé à quelques hommes éminemment historiques », parmi lesquels, je me permets de l’ajouter, il se compte certainement, ce qui nous fait de bénéficier de son intéressante et magistrale vision de l’histoire universelle. 

Oswald SPENGLER précise qu’il y a incommunicabilité psychique entre deux cultures différentes que ce soit au niveau artistique ou religieux. Celui qui écoute ne fait qu’y projeter sa propre âme. 

Mais alors, que penser des influences indubitables que l’on peut constater entre deux cultures étrangères ? le chiffre 0 conçu par la culture indoue et transmis par les Arabes à l’Occident, l’arc en forme de voûte des églises romanes et gothiques empruntée à la culture arabe ? 

Oswald SPENGLER commence par définir ce qu’est une « influence » : 

Pour Oswald SPENGLER, une influence est une activité organique, c’est-à-dire qu’elle est une action exercée par un courant de vie organique, une unité cosmique (vision globale du monde), en l’espèce une culture. 

Par contre, les formes d’expression d’une culture donnée (art, langue, sciences, religion, formes étatiques, etc.) et- qui apparaissent concrètement dans les relations interculturelles, Oswald SPENGLER les définit comme des unités microcosmiques, car une forment un univers particulier, réduit à une sphère spécifique, produit par la culture, courant de vie organique. 

Et Oswald SPENGLER d’observer que, dans les multiples relations interculturelles, « ce ne sont pas les unités microcosmiques qui se déplacent, mais les unités cosmiques qui les choisissent et se les approprient. » (6) 

Autrement dit, lorsqu’un homme de culture A entre en relation avec un homme de culture B, chacun des deux dispose, pour lui-même, une multitude de systèmes d’expression (art, sciences, formes politiques, langues, coutumes, etc.) spécifiques à sa propre cultures. 

Pourtant, tout au long de la relation interculturelle, seuls quelques uns des systèmes d’expression passeront dans l’autre culture. 

En effet, si les influences entre les cultures s’étaient librement donné cours, il n’y aurait depuis longtemps qu’une seule « civilisation » éternelle. Ce n’est pas le cas. 

Lorsque deux hommes de cultures différentes entrent en relation, ce ne sont pas les unités d’expression (art, structures de la parenté, religion, etc.) qui sont actives, c’est, nous dit Oswald SPENGLER, l’homme seul qui est actif. Et l’action de l’un ne peut être intégré dans l’autre de façon vivante que si l’autre la sent dans son propre être. 

Ainsi, pour Oswald SPENGLER, ce n’est pas le bouddhisme qui a émigré de l’Inde dans la Chine, mais ce sont les Chinois d’une certaine culture (d’une certaine orientation de sentiments) qui ont accueilli le bouddhisme et l’ont transformé en une nouvelle sorte d’expression religieuse.

 En outre, Oswald SPENGLER constate que, au mépris de la théorie de ceux qui prétendre qu’il y a continuité entre les vieilles civilisations et les plus jeunes cultures, ce sont seulement les plus jeunes cultures qui empruntent aux organismes plus âgés un petit nombre d’éléments qu’elles interprètent sans égard à leurs significations originelles (dans la culture plus âgée). 

Pour Oswald SPENGLER, prétendre qu’il y a continuité entre la philosophie grecque et la nôtre, c’est utiliser un « jargon artificiel ». 

En effet, nous dit Oswald SPENGLER, l’interprétation de la philosophie grecque par les Grecs eux-mêmes, puis les Arabes et enfin par les Occidentaux constitue trois interprétations différentes. 

« […] : il n’ y a pas une seule proposition d’Héraclite, de Démocrite, de Platon, qui soit vrai pour nous, si nous ne l’avons pas tout d’abord rectifiée. » (7) 

On ne peut qu’être d’accord avec Oswald SPENGLER, en particulier lorsqu’on pense au destin de la fameuse proposition de PROTAGORAS « L'homme est la mesure de toute chose », qui était la marque d’un relativisme absolu (une sorte de nihilisme de l’homme antique), et à laquelle l’homme occidental déclinant donne spontanément un sens humanitariste, comme on a pu le constater notamment lors des affoulements provoqués par les déplacements de feu le Pape JEAN XXIII dans divers pays, durant lequels cette proposition avaient transformée en slogan sous le regard approbateur des grands médias. 

En outre Oswald SPENGLER pose alors la question que ne se posent pas les philosophes "modernes" : pourquoi certaines influences ne sont pas acceptés ? pourquoi ne montre-t-on que les influences acceptées ? 

En effet, observe Oswald SPENGLER, il est dit que la Renaissance fut entièrement sous l’influence de l’art antique. « mais alors qu’a-t-elle fait » de la forme du temple dorique, de la colonne ionique, de la tectonique des statues, etc. ? 

Pour Oswald SPENGLER, l’acceptation d’une influence, choix inconscient, constitue une exception qui va entraîner une nouvelle interprétation du sens profond de l’apport accepté. 

Oswald SPENGLER donne des exemples concrets de ces nouvelles interprétations dans le christianisme avec ses deux interprétations, sans qu’un seul mot du dogme soit modifié : culture magique (juive, arabe)  et culture faustienne (occidental). 

Ainsi, les premiers conciles chrétiens ressortaient de la conception magique (juive, arabe) où chaque homme est l’expression du pneuma (souflle, esprit) divin. Donc, dans le rassemblement conciliaire, l’idée d’origine était que  la majorité exprime la parole divine, la Vérité immédiate. Ce raisonnement était inintelligible pour l’homme d’Occident qui a fait du Concile un moyen de contrôle du pouvoir spirituel du Pape à l’époque gothique. Puis, dans un mouvement de spiritualisation totale, spécifique à l’esprit occidental, l’infaillibilité papale s’est imposée. 

On constate la même transformation du sens profond pour le dogme de la résurrection des morts, prise à l’origine au sens propre (résurrection de chair) dans la culture magique (juive), car le pneuma divin a élu domicile dans le corps humain. Cette résurrection de la chair, bien que jamais remise en cause, s’est transformée dans le christianisme occidental, porté à la spiritualisation, en l’immortalité de l’âme humaine. 

Oswald SPENGLER cite également d’autres exemples sur CALVIN et LUTHER dans ouvrage auquel j’invite le lecteur de se reporter. 

Comme le démontre Oswald SPENGLER, la jeune culture occidentale (faustienne), tout en maintenant le dogme ancien, l’a totalement réinterprété dans le sens d’une spiritualisation qui lui convenait, tout en créant de nouveaux dogmes (confession auriculaire) sur la base des Écritures évangéliques dont pas un iota n’aura été modifié depuis la période de la culture magique (juive). 

Pierre Marcowich 

(1)  Oswald SPENGLER, Le Déclin de l’Occident ; Éditions Gallimard, 1948, renouvelé en 1976, Tome II, Chap. I, Origine et paysage, § 12, page 54, alinéa 2 ;  

(2)     Ibidem, § 12, page 54, alinéa 3 ; 

(3)     Ibidem, § 12, page 55, alinéa 1 ; 

(4)     Ibidem, § 12, pages 54 et 55, alinéa 1 ; 

(5)     Ibidem, § 12, pages 55, alinéa 2 ; 

(6)     Ibidem, § 12, pages 56, alinéa 1 ; 

(7)     Ibidem, § 12, pages 57, alinéa 1 ; 

 

The Pre-Death Thoughts of Faust

The  Pre-Death  Thoughts  of  Faust

(1922 - #59)

N. A. BERDYAEV (BERDIAEV)

         The fate of Faust -- is the fate of European culture. The soul of Faust -- is the soul of Western Europe. This soul was full of stormy, of endless strivings. In it there was an exceptional dynamism, unknown to the soul of antiquity, to the Greek soul. In its youth, in the era of the Renaissance, and still earlier, in the Renaissance of the Middle Ages, the soul of Faust sought passionately for truth, they fell in love with Gretchen and for the realisation of his endless human aspirations it entered into a pact with Mephistopheles, with the evil spirit of the earth. And the Faustian soul was gradually corroded by the Mephistophelean principle. Its powers began to wane. What ended the endless strivings of the Faustian soul, to what did they lead? The Faustian soul led to the draining of swamps, to the engineering art, to a material arranging of the earth and to a material mastery over the world. Thus we find spoken towards the conclusion of the second part of Faust:

   Ein Sumpf zieht am Gebirge hin,
   Verpestet alles schon Errungene;
   Den faulen Pfuhl auch abzuziehn,
   Das letzte waer das Hoechsterrungene,
   Eroeffn ich Raeume vielen Millionen,
   Nicht sicher zwar, doch taetig-frei zu wohnen.

   Nigh the mountain a swamp doth stretch,
   Pollutes there every advancement;
   To drain off the foul pool,
   Would be the utmost highest achievement,
   I'd open up space for many a million,
   Not indeed secure, but active-free to be.

       And thus do end during the XIX-XX Centuries the searchings of the man of modern history. With genius Goethe foresaw this. But the final word for him belongs with the mystic chorus:

   Alles Vergaengliche
   Ist nur ein Gleichnis;
   Das Unzulaengliche,
   Hier wird's Ereignis;
   Das Unbeschreibliche,
   Hier ist's getan;
   Das Ewig-Weibliche
   Zieht uns hinan.

   All the Transitory
   Is but a Symbol Image
   The Insufficient
   Here doth transpire;
   The Ineffable
   Here doth act;
   The Eternal-Feminine
   Upward doth draw us.

        And draining the swamp is but a symbol of the spiritual path of Faust, merely a sign of spiritual activity. Upon his path, Faust passes from a religious culture over to an irreligious civilisation. And in this irreligious civilisation the creative energy of Faust becomes drained, his endless aspirations die. Goethe gave expression to the soul of Western European culture and its fate. Spengler, in his challenging book, "Der Untergang des Abendslandes" ["The Decline of the West"], announces the end of European culture, its ultimate transition over into civilisation, which is the beginning of the death-process. "Civilisation -- is the irreversible fate of a culture". The book of Spengler bears within it an enormous symptomatic significance. It conveys the feeling of crisis, of sudden impending change, that of the end of an entire historical era. It speaks about the great sorry affair of things in Western Europe. We, as Russians, have been split off from Western Europe already for many a long year, from its spiritual life. And since our access to it has been blocked, it has seemed to us to be more fortunate, more orderly, more happy, than it is in actuality. Even prior to the World War, I very acutely sensed the crisis of European culture, the impending end of an entire world era, and I expressed this in my book, "The Meaning of Creativity". During wartime also I wrote an article, "The End of Europe", in which I expressed the thought, that the twilight period of Europe has begun, that Europe is at an end as a monopolist of culture, that the emergence of culture out beyond the bounds of Europe has been inevitable, for other continents and other races. Moreover, two years back I wrote an etude, "The End of the Renaissance", and a book, "The Meaning of History: Attempt at a Philosophy of Human Fate", in both which I definitely expressed the idea, that we are experiencing the end of modern history, that we are living out the final remnants of the Renaissance period of history, that the culture of old Europe has tended towards deterioration. And therefore I read the book of Spengler with an especial tremulation. In our era, with its historical disintegration, thought is focused upon the problems of the philosophy of history. It was the same in the epoch, when Bl. Augustine conceived of his first rendering of a Christian philosophy of history. It is possible to foresee, that philosophic thought henceforth will be concerned not so much with problems of gnosseology, as rather by problems of the philosophy of history. In the "Bhagavad Gita" revelations occur during a time of warfare. During a time of war there can be resolved ultimate problems about God and the meaning of life, but it is difficult to get concerned over analytic gnosseology. And in out time is at work the thinking during a time of war. We live in an epoch inwardly akin to the Hellenistic epoch, the epoch of the collapse of the ancient world. The book of Spengler -- is a remarkable book, in places almost of genius, it stimulates and makes for thought. But it cannot be too much a surprise for those Russian people, who long since already have sensed the crisis, about which Spengler speaks.

* * *

       

Spengler can convey the impression of being an extreme relativist and sceptic. Even mathematics for him is something relative. There exists the ancient Apollonian mathematics, -- a finite mathematics, and there exists the European Faustian mathematics, -- an infinite mathematics. Science is not unconditional, not absolute, but is rather the expression of the souls of various cultures, of various races. But still, in essence, it is impossible to classify Spengler under any sort of current. Academic philosophy is quite alien to him, and he holds it in contempt. He is first of all his own unique individualist. And in this he is akin to the Goethean spirit of contemplation. Goethe intuitively contemplated the primal phenomena of nature. Spengler intuitively contemplates the history of the primal phenomena of culture. He, just also as with Goethe, is a symbolist as regards world-concept. He refuses to think employing abstract concepts, he does not believe in the fruitfulness of such thinking. All abstract metaphysics is foreign to him. From the morbid methodologism and gnosseologism, in which German great thought emerged, from the sick and futile reflection, Spengler has instead turned away towards living intuition. He casts himself into the dark ocean of the historical existence of peoples and penetrates into the soul of races and cultures, into the styles of the various epochs. He makes a break with the epoch of gnosseologism in the philosophy of thought, but he does not pass over to ontologism, he does not construct any sort of ontology and does not believe in the possibility of ontology. He knows only of being, as manifest in cultures, as reflected in cultures. The primal grounds of being and the meaning of existence remain for him hidden. The morphology of history for him -- is the solely possible philosophy. With him there is not even a philosophy of history, exclusively it is rather -- a morphology of history. All the truths, the truths of science, of philosophy, religion, -- are for Spengler merely the truths of culture, of cultural types, of cultured souls. The truths of mathematics -- are the symbols of various styles of cultured souls. Such an attitude towards cognition and being is characteristic to a man of a late and waning culture. The soul of a man set within an epoch of cultural decline tends to ponder over the fate of cultures, over the historical fate of mankind. It has always been so. Such a soul has no interest either in the abstract knowledge of nature, nor in the abstract knowledge of the essence and meaning of being. Of interest to it is the culture itself, and everything -- is merely reflected in the culture. It is struck by the dying off of once flourishing cultures. It is wounded by the inevitability of fate. Spengler is very capricious, he does not consider himself bound by anything in general obligatory. He is, first of all -- a paradoxicalist. For him, just as for Nietzsche, paradox is a means of cognition. In the book of Spengler there is a sort of affinity with the book of the youthful genius [Otto] Weininger, "Sex and Character", and despite all the different themes and spiritual outlook, the book of Spengler -- is just as remarkable a phenomenon in the spiritual culture of Germany, as is the book of Weininger. In breadth of intent, in scope, in its unique intuitive insights into the history of cultures, the book of Spengler can take its place alongside the remarkable book of [Houston Stewart] Chamberlain ("Die Grundlagen des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts" ["The Foundations of the Nineteen-Hundreds"]). After Nietzsche -- comes Weininger, Chamberlain and Spengler -- the sole genuinely original and remarkable figures in German spiritual culture. Just like Schopenhauer, Spengler has contempt for professors of philosophy. He offers a very arbitrary list of writers and thinkers, and in his opinion of the remarkable books, esteemed by him. These people are of a quite various a spirit. But they all bear some relationship to the principle of the will to live and the will to power, all have bearing on the crisis of culture. These are -- Schopenhauer, Proudhon, Marx, R. Wagner, Duhring, Ibsen, Nietzsche, Strindberg, Weininger. Is Spengler a pessimist? For many, his book has to produce the impression of a very boundless pessimism. But this is not a metaphysical pessimism. Spengler does not desire the quenching of the will to live. On the contrary, he desires the affirmation of the will to live and the will to power. In this he is closer to Nietzsche, than to Schopenhauer. All cultures are doomed to a withering away and death. Our European culture is also doomed. But it is necessary to accept fate, not oppose it, and to live it out to the end, and to the end manifesting the will to power. With Spengler there is the amor fati. The pessimism of Spengler, if such a term be properly applicable to him, is a pessimism culturo-historical, and is neither a pessimism individually-metaphysical nor individually-ethical. He -- is a pessimist on civilisation. He denies the idea of progress, and he returns to the teaching about cyclical returns. But with him there is no pessimistic balance of suffering and pleasure, of a pessimistic understanding of the very essence of life. He admits of an inexhaustible creative wellspring of life, lodged within the primal impulse, begetting culture all ever new and anew. He is fond of this will to cultural flourishing. And he perceives the death of a culture as a law of life, as an inevitable moment within the vital fate of a culture itself. Surprisingly strong with Spengler is a correlation of phenomena in various spheres of a culture and the discerning from them of an unique symbol, such as signifies that selfsame culture, that selfsame cultural style. He transfers concepts from mathematics and physics over into painting and music, from art into politics, from politics into religion. Thus, he speaks about an Apollonian and a Faustian mathematics. He discerns one and the same primary phenomenon within various epochs, within various cultures. And he regards it possible to admit of one and the same sort of such phenomena, as Buddhism, Stoicism and Socialism, belonging to various epochs and cultures. His most remarkable thoughts are about art and about mathematics and physics. And with him there are truly intuitions of genius.

         Spengler -- is of an areligious nature. In this is his tragedy. With him there is as it were an atrophied religious sense. Whereas both Weininger and Chamberlain -- are of a religious nature, Spengler -- is areligious. He is not only himself non-religious, but he also does not understand the religious life of mankind. Yet he examined the role of Christianity within the fate of European culture. This -- is the most striking side of his book. In this is its spiritual deformity, almost its monstrous defect. It is not necessary to be a Christian, in order to understand the significance of Christianity within the history of European culture. The pathos of objectivity ought to be brought to bear on this. But Spengler does not sense himself under the compulsion of any such objectivity. He does not ponder on Christianity within history, he does not see a religious meaning. He knows, that culture is religious by its nature and by this it is distinct from civilisation, which is irreligious. But he has been able to express very noble thoughts, such as only can be expressed by a non-believing soul in our epoch. Behind his civilised self-feeling and self-awareness can be sense the imprint of a culture, which has lost its faith and is tending towards decline.

* * *

Spengler understands and senses the world foremost of all as history. This he regards as the modern perception of the world. It is only to such an attitude towards the world that there belongs a future. Dynamism is characteristic to our times. And only a perceiving the world as history is a dynamic perception. The world as nature is static. Spengler contrasts nature and history, as two methods of viewing the world. Nature is expanse. History is time. The world presents itself to us as nature, when we view it from the perspective of causality, and it presents itself to us as history, when we view it from the perspective of fate. That history is a matter of fate, is all very well and good with Spengler. Fate cannot be conceived of by means of a causal explanation. Only the perspective of fate gives us a grasp upon the concrete. Spengler's assertion is quite correct, that for ancient man there was no history. The Greek perceived the world as static, for him it was from nature, from the cosmos, and not from history. He did not know historical remoteness. Spengler's thoughts on antiquity are very insightful. And it mustneeds be admitted, that Greek thought did not know of a philosophy of history. It was not a matter of either Plato, or of Aristotle. The point of view of a philosophy of history is contrary to the aesthetic ponderings of the Hellene. The world for him was a completed cosmos. Hellenic thought created the Hellenic metaphysics, so inconducive for conceiving the world as an historical process. Spengler senses himself as an European man with a Faustian soul, with its infinite aspirations. He not only sets himself distinct from ancient man, he moreover asserts, that the ancient soul for him is inconceivable, is impenetrable. This however does not prevent him from drawing upon its understanding and insights. But does history exist for Spengler himself, is he one for whom there is a world, as history, and not as nature? I think, that for Spengler history does not exist and for him a philosophy of history is impossible. Not by chance did he call his book a morphology of world history. The morphological perspective derives from nature-knowledge. Historical fate, the fate of culture exists for Spengler only in that sense, that fate exists for a flower. The historical fate of mankind does not exist. There does not exist a single mankind, a single subject of history. Christianity was the first to have rendered possible a philosophy of history, in that it revealed the existence of a single mankind with a single historical fate, having its own beginning and end. Thus first for the Christian consciousness is revealed the tragedy of world history, the fate of mankind. Spengler however turns back to the pagan particularism. For him there is no mankind, no worldwide history. Cultures, races -- are isolated monads with an isolated fate. For him the varied types of culture experience a cyclical turning of their own fate. He returns to the Hellenic perspective, which was surpassed by the Christian consciousness. With Spengler the Baptismal water as it were was missing. He abjures his own Christian blood. And for him, just as for the Hellene, there does not exist the perspective of an historical remoteness. The historically remote distance exists only in this instance, if there exists an historical fate of mankind, a worldwide history, if each type of culture is but a moment of a worldwide fate.

       The Faustian soul with its endless aspirations, with the distance opening up before it, is the soul of the Christian period of history. This Christianity shatters the boundaries of the ancient world, with its delimited and narrowed horizons. After the appearance of Christianity in the world, an infinity opened up. Christianity rendered possible the Faustian mathematics, the mathematics of the endless. Of this Spengler is not at all aware. He does not posit the appearance of the Faustian soul in any sort of connection with Christianity. He has made an examination of the significance of Christianity for European culture, for the fate of European culture. This fate however -- is a Christian fate. He wants to push Christianity back exclusively to the sense of a magical soul, to a type of Hebrew and Arabic culture, to the east. And he thus dooms himself to a lack of understanding of the meaning of European culture. For Spengler generally there does not exist a meaning to history. The meaning of history also cannot exist amidst such a denial of the subject of the historical process. The cyclical turnings of the various types of culture, lacking connections between them of a single fate, is totally meaningless. Moreover, the denial of a meaning to history makes impossible a philosophy of history. There remains but the morphology of history. But for the morphology of history there is merely the manifestation of nature, in it there is no unique historical process, no fate, as a manifestation of meaning. In Spengler the Faustian soul ultimately loses its connection with Christianity, which gave it birth, and in the hour of the waning of the Faustian culture it attempts to return to the ancient sense of life, tacking on it also the theme of history. In Spengler, despite his distasteful civilisation pathos, there is sensed also the exhaustion of a trans-cultural man. This weariness of a man of an era of decline quenches any sense of the meaning of history and its connections to historical fates. There remains only the possibility of an intuitive-aesthetic insight into the types and styles of the souls of cultures. Faust does not bear up under a time of historical fate, he does not want to experience it to the final end. He, weary and exhausted by the modern history, agrees it the better to die, having experienced a short moment of civilisation, set at the summit of culture. He is captivated by the thought, that he is to be given this final mitigation and consolation of death. But there is no death. Fate continues on even beyond this side of what the Faustian soul had acknowledged as the sole life. And the burden of this fate has to be carried across into the remote eternity. For Spengler's Faustian soul the remote eternity is hidden, the historical fate beyond the bounds of this life, of this culture and civilisation; to the end of his days he wants to restrict himself to the cycle of a dying civilisation. He foresees the rise of new cultures, which likewise will pass over into a civilisation and die. But these new souls of cultures are foreign to him and he regards them for himself as impenetrable. These new cultures which, perhaps, will arise in the East, will not have any sort of inward connection with the dying European culture. Faust loses the perspective of history, of historical fate. Culture for him -- is merely a springing forth, a blossoming and fading flower. Faust ceases to understand the meaning and the bond of fate, since for him the light of the Logos has grown dim, there has grown dark the sun of Christianity. And the appearance of Spengler, a man exceptionally gifted, at times close to genius in certain of his intuitions, is very remarkable for the fate of European culture, for the fate of the Faustian soul. There is nowhere further to go. After Spengler -- there is already the plunge into the abyss. With Spengler there is a great intuitive gift, but this -- is but the giftedness of a blindman. As a blindman, no longer still seeing the light, he throws himself off into the murky ocean of culturo-historical being. With Hegel there was still a Christian philosophy of history, in its sort no less Christian, than the philosophy of history of Bl. Augustine. It knows of an unified subject of history and meaning to history. It shines through everything with the rays of the Christian sun. With Spengler there are no longer these rays. Hegel belongs to a culture, possessing a religious basis; Spengler senses himself as already having passed over into a civilisation, bereft of religious basis. One might moreover still note, that the point of view of Spengler unexpectedly reminds one of the perspective of N. Danilevsky, as developed in his book, "Russia and Europe". The culturo-historical types of Danilevsky are very similar to the souls of the cultures of Spengler, but with this difference, that Danilevsky is quite lacking in the enormous intuitive gift of Spengler. Vl. Solov'ev criticised N. Danilevsky from the Christian point of view. For Spengler the fate of the history of the world remains unsolved, since for him history is but an aspect of nature, a phenomenon of nature, and it is not in that nature -- is an aspect of history, as it is for historical metaphysics.

* * *

  Every culture inevitably passes over into civilisation. Civilisation is the fate, the doomed lot of culture. Civilisation however ends up by death, it is already the beginning of death, the exhaustion of the creative powers of a culture. This -- is a central thought of Spengler's book. "We are civilised people, and not people of the Gothic or Rococco". What differentiates civilisation from culture? A culture -- is religious as to its basis, civilisation -- is irreligious. For Spengler -- this is a fundamental distinction. And he regards himself as a man of civilisation, since he is irreligious. A culture derives from a cult, it is bound up with a cult of ancestors, it is impossible without sacred traditions. Civilisation is the will to worldwide might, to an ordering of the surface of the earth. A culture -- is national. Civilisation -- is international. Civilisation is the worldwide city. Imperialism and socialism alike -- are civilisation, and not culture. Philosophy and art exist only in a culture, in a civilisation they are impossible and unnecessary. Possible and necessary within civilisation is only the engineering art. And Spengler gives the appearances, that he understands the pathos of the engineering art. Culture -- is organic. Civilisation -- is mechanical. Culture is grounded upon inequality, upon qualities. Civilisation in contrast is pervaded by the aspiration for equality, it seeks to be based upon quantities. Culture -- is something aristocratic. Civilisation -- is something democratic. The distinction of culture in contrast to civilisation is of something extraordinarily fruitful. With Spengler there is a very acute sense of an inexorable process of the victory of civilisation over culture. The decline of Western Europe for him is first of all the decline of the old European culture, the exhaustion within it of the creative powers, the end of art, of philosophy, of religion. Civilisation has still not reached its finish. Civilisation will still celebrate its victory. But after civilisation will come the onset of death for the Western European cultural race. And after this, culture can blossom forth only in other races, only in other souls.

       These thoughts are expressed by Spengler with an astounding brilliance. But are these thoughts something new? For us, as Russians, it is impossible to be taken aback by these thoughts. We long since already know of the difference of culture from civilisation. All the Russian religious thinkers have asserted this difference. they all sensed a certain sacred terror at the perishing of culture and the ensuing triumph of civilisation. The struggle against the spirit of philistinism, which so wounded Hertsen and K. Leont'ev, people of quite varied tendencies and outlook, was grounded upon this motif. Civilisation by its nature is pervaded by a spiritual philistinism, by a spiritual bourgeoisness. Capitalism and socialism entirely alike are infected by this spirit. Beneathe the hostility towards the West of many a Russian writer and thinker lies concealed not hostility towards Western culture, but rather hostility towards Western civilisation. Konstantin Leont'ev, one of the most insightful of Russian thinkers, loved the great culture of the West, he loved the colourful culture of the Renaissance, he loved the Catholic great culture of the Middle Ages, he loved the spirit of chivalry, he loved the genius of the West, he loved the mighty manifestation of the sense of person within this great cultural world. But he abominated the civilisation of the West, the fruition of the liberal-egalitarian process, the extinguishing of spirit and the death of creativity within civilisation. He comprehended already the law of the transition of culture over into civilisation. For him this was an inexorable law within the life of societies. Culture for him corresponded to that period in the developing of societies, which he termed as the period of the "blossoming of complexity", civilisation however corresponded to a period of "simplistic confusion". The problem of Spengler was quite clearly posited by K. Leont'ev. He likewise denied progress, he confessed a theory of cycles, he asserted, that after the complex blossoming forth of culture there ensues decline, decay, death. The process of "liberal-egalitarian" civilisation is the onset of death, of disintegration. For Western European culture he regarded this death as irreversible. He saw the perishing of the flourishing culture in the West. But he wanted to believe, that a flourishing culture was still possible in the East, in Russia. Though towards the end of his life he lost also this faith, he saw, that also in Russia civilisation was triumphing, that in Russia matters were going towards a "simplistic confusion". And then he came to be imbued with a dark apocalyptic outlook. So also Vl. Solov'ev towards the end lost faith of a possibility within the world of a religious culture and he had an anguished sense of the onset of the kingdom of the Anti-Christ. Culture is possessed of a religious basis, there is in it a sacred symbolism. Civilisation however is of the kingdom of this world. It is the triumph of the "bourgeois" spirit, of a spiritual "bourgeoisness". And it makes totally no difference, whether it be a civilisation capitalistic or socialistic, it is alike -- a godless philistine civilisation. Indeed even Dostoevsky was not an enemy of Western culture. Remarkable in this regard are the thoughts of Versilov in "The Adolescent". "They are not free, -- says Versilov, -- but we are free". "Only I alone in Europe with my Russian melancholy then was free... To the Russian, Europe is precious the same, as is Russia: each stone in it is dear and precious. Europe has been our fatherland the same, as also is Russia... O, to the Russian, dear are these old foreign stones, these miracles of God's old world, these bits of sacred wonders: and to us this is even more dear, than it is to them themselves. They have now other thoughts and other feelings, and they have ceased to appreciate the old stones". Dostoevsky loved these "old stones" of Western Europe, "these miracles of God's old world". But he, just as with K. Leont'ev, denounces the people of the West for this, that they have ceased to revere their "old stones", they have forsaken their own great culture and have surrendered themselves completely to the spirit of civilisation. Dostoevsky loathed not the West, not the Western culture, but rather the irreligious, the godless civilisation of the West. Russian Easternism, Russian Slavophilism was merely a veiled struggle of the spirit of a religious culture against the spirit of an irreligious civilisation. The struggle of these two spirits, of these two types, is innate to Russia itself. This is not a struggle of East and West, of Russia and Europe. And many Western people too have felt anguish, almost to the point of agony, at the triumph of the irreligious and monstrous civilisation over a great and sacred culture. Suchlike have been the romantics of the West. Suchlike were the French Catholics and symbolists -- Barbey d'Aurevilly, [Paul] Verlaine, Villiers de L'Isle-Adam, Huysmans, Leon Bloy. Suchlike was Nietzsche, with his anguish over the tragic Dionysian culture. Not only remarkable Russian people, but also the most refined and perceptive Western people with anguish felt, that the great and holy culture of the west was perishing, that it was dying, that coming to it was a civilisation alien to it, a worldwide city, irreligious and international, that a new sort of man was coming, a parvenue, obsessed with a will to world power and taking possession of all the earth. In this victorious march of civilisation was dying the soul of Europe, the soul of European culture.

The originality of Spengler was not in the positing of this theme. This theme had already been posited with an extraordinary alacrity by Russian thought. The originality of Spengler lies however in this, that he has no desire to be a romantic, he does not wish to anguish over the dying great culture of the past. He wants to live in the present, he wants to accept the pathos of civilisation. He wants to be a citizen of the worldwide city of civilisation. He preaches a civilisation's will to world power. He is consentual to trading off religion, philosophy, art for technology, for the draining of swamps and the erecting of bridges, for the invention of machines. The uniqueness of Spengler lies in this, that there has not been yet a man of civilisation, a drainer of swamps, endowed with such an awareness as with Spengler, a sad awareness of the inexorable decline of the old culture, endowed with such a keenness and such a gift of penetration into the culture of the past. Spengler's self-feeling for civilisation and his self-awareness are at the root contradictory and ambiguous. In him there is not civilisation's arbitrary sense of value and self-smugness, there is not that faith in the absolute excellence of its own epoch, of its own generation over all the epochs and generations that went before. It is impossible to construct a civilisation, to defend the interests of a civilisation, to dry up swamps with such a mindset as Spengler has. For these deeds what is necessary is a dulling of consciousness, becoming thick-skinned, with a naive faith in the endless progress of civilisation. Spengler tends to understand everything too well. He is not the new man of civilisation, he is rather, the dying Faust -- the man of the old European culture. He -- is a romantic in an era of civilisation. He wants to give the appearance, that he is interested by the engineering art, by the draining of swamps, by the erection of the world city. In actuality, he writes instead a remarkable book about the decline of European culture and by this he works a deed of culture, rather than of civilisation. He is as such unusual a cultural man, overwhelmingly a cultural man. Such people tend poorly to build the world city of civilisation. They are better at writing books. Faust hardly can be called a fine engineer, a fine maker of civilisation. He is dying at the very moment, when he decides to set about the draining of swamps. Spengler is not a man of civilisation, as he wants both himself and us to believe,  - he is a man of a late and declining culture. And therefore in his book is discerned the evidence of grief, foreign to a man of civilisation. Spengler -- is a German patriot, a German nationalist and imperialist. This is clearly expressed in his booklet, "Preussentum und Sozialismus" ["The Prussian and Socialism"]. In him there is the will to world power for Germany, there is the faith, that during the period of civilisation, such as still remains for Western Europe, this world power of Germany will be realised. He combines with civilisation this will and this faith for himself, he finds for himself a place within it. But the history of recent years has inflicted such a blow to the imperialistic mindset of Spengler. If imperialism and socialism -- be not one and the same thing, then -- certainly, Spengler is moreso the imperialist, than a socialist. The civilisation of a world city however is beginning to move more rapidly in the direction of realisation of a world power and world kingdom, the kingdom of this world, through socialism, rather than through imperialism.

* * *

       Our era has features of affinity with the Hellenistic era. The Hellenistic era brought to an end the culture of antiquity. And, according to the thought of Spengler, this was a transition of the culture of antiquity over into civilisation. Suchlike is the doomed lot of every culture. And for both our era and for the Hellenistic era alike there is characteristic the mutual interaction of East and West, the meeting and coming together of all cultures and all races, a syncretism, the universalism of civilisation, the feeling of an end-time, the demise of an historical era. And in our era too the civilisation of the West turns towards the East and the trans-cultural people of this civilisation seek for light from the East. And in our era too within the various theosophic and mystical currents there occurs the jumbling together and combining of various systems of beliefs and cults. And in our era too there is the will towards a worldwide uniting in imperialism and the selfsame will finds expression also in socialism. Cultures and states cease to be nationally isolated. The individuality of the cultures passes over into the universality of civilisation. And in our era too there is the thirst to believe and a powerlessness to believe, a thirst to create and a powerlessness to create. And in our era too there predominates an Alexandrianism both in thought and in creativity. Within history daylike and nightlike eras follow in succession. The Hellenistic era was a transition from the daylight of the Hellenic world over to the night of the Medieval Dark Ages. And we stand at the threshhold of a new night era. The daytime of modern history is at an end. Its rational light is dying down. Evening ensues. And it is not Spengler alone who sees the signs of the encroaching twilight. Our time in many of its portents is reminiscent of the beginning of the early Middle Ages. The have begun the processes of drawing back and consolidation, similar to the processes of drawing back and consolidation during the time of the emperor Diocletian. And it is not so improbable an opinion, to imagine that there is beginning a feudalisation of Europe. The process of the collapse of states is transpiring parallel to an universalistic uniting. There are occurring enormous transmigrations and displacements of masses of mankind. And there will perhaps ensue a new chaos of peoples, from which nowise quickly will a new orderly cosmos take shape.

        The World War has drawn Western Europe out of its customary, its established boundaries. Central Europe lies inwardly devastated. Its powers not only materially, but also spiritually, have become overstrained. Civilisation through imperialism and through socialism has to pour forth across the surface of all the earth, has to move even towards the East. Into the civilisation will be brought ever new masses of mankind, new segments. But the new Middle Ages will be a civilised barbarism, a barbarism amidst machines, and not amidst forests and fields. The great and sacred traditions of culture will turn inward. The true spiritual culture, perhaps, will happen to experience a catacomb period. The true spiritual culture, having survived its Renaissance period, having gone through its humanistic pathos, will happen to return to certain principles of a religious medieval culture, not a barbarian Middle Ages, but rather a cultural Middle Ages. Upon the pathways of the modern, the humanistic, the renaissance history, everything is already exhausted. Faust upon the paths of an outward endlessness of aspirations exhausted his powers, he wore down his spiritual energy. Still, there remains for him movement towards an inner infinity. In one of his aspects, Faust has had to totally surrender himself over to the external material civilisation, a civilised barbarism. Though in another of his aspects he has to be faithful to the eternal spiritual culture, the symbolic existence of which was expressed by the mystical chorus at the finish of the second part of "Faust". Suchlike is the fate of the Faustian soul, the fate of European culture. The future is twofold. With Spengler, the preeminence of spiritual culture is sundered. It passes as it were over totally into civilisation and dies. Spengler does not believe in an abiding meaning to world life, he does not believe in the eternal aspect of a spiritual reality. But even if spiritual culture should perish amidst the quantities, it then still will be preserved and abide amidst the qualities. It was carried forth both through the barbarity and night of the old Middle Ages. It will be carried forth also through the barbarity and night of the new Middle Ages, prior to the dawn of a new day, to a coming Christian Renaissance, when there will appear the St. Francis and the Dante of the new epoch.

* * *

       The truths of science for Spengler are not independent truths, but are rather truths relevant of the culture, of cultural styles. And the truths of physics are connected with the souls of a culture. There is a very remarkable chapter about the Faustian and Apollonian nature-knowledge. Mighty strides in physics have been characteristic of our era. Within physics there is occurring a genuine revolution. But the discoveries, which the physics of our era is uncovering, are characteristic of the decline of a culture. Entropy, connected with the Second Law of Thermodynamics, radioactivity and the decaying apart of atoms of matter, the Law of Relativity -- all this tends to shake the solidity and stability of the physico-mathematical world-perception, and it undermines faith in the lasting existence of our world. I might say, that all this -- represents a physical apocalypsis, a teaching about the inevitability of the physical end of the world, the death of the world. Only during the era of the waning of European culture does there arise such an "apocalyptic" disposition within physics. What a difference it is from the physics of Newton. Newton in his physics did not give his own interpretation of the Apocalypsis. The physics of our day can be termed the pre-death thoughts of Faust. It has become impossible to seek for stability in the physical world order. Physics posits a death sentence for the world. The world is perishing in its proportionate discharge of warm energy into the universe, of energy, unreturnable into other forms of energy. The creating energies at work in forming the manifold of the cosmos, are subsiding. The world is perishing from an irreversible and insurmountable striving towards physical equilibrium. And is not the striving towards equilibrium, towards equality, in the social world that same sort of entropy, that same ruination of the social cosmos and culture in a proportionate discharge of warm energy, unreturnable in any sort of energy as is creative of culture? A pondering over the themes, posited by Spengler, leads to these bitter thoughts. But the bitterness of these thoughts ought not to be inescapable and gloomy. Not only physics, but also sociology, do not have belonging to them the final word in deciding the fates of the world and of man. The loss of a physical stability is not an irreversible loss. It is in the spiritual world that it is necessary to seek for stability. It is in the depths that it is necessary to seek for points of support. The world as external lacks infinite perspectives. The absurdity within it has been shown over the ages. But there is apparent an infinite inner world. And it is with it that there ought to be connected our hopes.

* * *

        In the large book of Spengler nothing is said about Russia. Only in the table of contents of the projected second volume is there a final chapter entitled -- "Das Russentum und die Zukunft" ["The Russian and the Future"]. There are grounds to think, that Spengler sees in the Russian East that new world, which will come to replace the dying world of the West: in his booklet "Preussentum und Sozialismus" several pages are devoted to Russia. Russia for him -- is a mysterious world, incomprehensible for the world of the West. The soul of Russia is still more remote and ungraspable for Western man, than is the soul of Greece or of Egypt. Russia is an apocalyptic revolt against antiquity. Russia -- is religious and nihilistic. In Dostoevsky is revealed the mystery of Russia. In the East can be expected the appearance of a new type of culture, of a new soul of culture. Yet this too contradicts the suggestions about Russia as a land nihilistic and hostile to culture. In the thoughts of Spengler, ultimately not followed out to the end, there is a sort of something turned backwards, where its opposite end seems an assertion of Slavophilism. And for us these thoughts are of interest, this turning of the West towards Russia, these expectations, connected with Russia. We are situated in more propitious a position, than is Spengler and the people of the West. For us the Western culture is attainable and graspable. The soul of Europe does not represent for us a soul remote and incomprehensible. We are in an inner communion with it, we sense in ourselves its energy. And yet at the same time we are the Russian East. Therefore the scope of Russian thought has to be broader, from its apparent remoteness. The philosophy of history, towards which the thought of our era turns, with great success has to be worked out in Russia. The philosophy of history always was of a basic interest within Russian thought, beginning with Chaadayev. That, which we are experiencing at present, ought ultimately to lead us out of our isolated existence. Granted that at present we are still moreso pushed back eastwards, but at the end of this process we shall cease to be the isolated East. Whatever happens with us, we inevitably have to emerge onto the world stage. Russia -- is at the middle between East and West. In it clash two torrents of world history, the Eastern and the Western. In Russia is hidden a mystery, which we ourselves cannot fully fathom. But this mystery is connected with a resolving of whatever the themes of world history. Our hour has still not come. It will be connected with the crisis of European culture. And therefore such books, as the book of Spengler, cannot but excite us. Such books are closer to us, than to the European peoples. This -- is our style of book.

Nikolai  Berdyaev.

(1922)

©  2003  by translator Fr. S. Janos

(1922 - 59,1 -en)

PREDSMERTNYE  MYSLI  FAUSTA.  Berdyaev's article is the 3rd of a four part anthology, "Osval'd Shpengler i Zakat Evropy", first published by book-publisher "Bereg" 1922, Moscow, p. 55-72. This entire 1922 Oswald Spengler anthology has been included in the V. V. Sapov edited Berdyaev-reprint under the partially inclusive title, "Smysl Istorii; Novoe Srednevekov'e", Publisher "Kanon", 2002 Moscow, p. 312-404; the Berdyaev title p. 364-381. (The other three selections included in this Spengler anthology are: F. Stepun -- "Osval'd Shpengler i 'Zakat Evropy'", S. Frank -- "Krizis zapadnoi kul'tury", Ya. Bukshpan -- "Nepreodolennyi ratsionalizm".

 

---

Е-текст по-русский:  Кротова ..

Return to Berdyaev Online Library..

Renaud Beauchard : Christopher Lasch Une éthique de l'espérance

 

Cercle Aristote

 

Renaud Beauchard, universitaire, nous présentent ses travaux issus de son livre dédié à la pensée de Christopher Lasch https://www.amazon.fr/Christopher-Las...

 

Pour nous contacter (agenda des conférences, revue, propositions d'aide) : [e-mail]

Soutenez nous. Soyez mécène : https://www.tipeee.com/cerclearistote ou faites un don Paypal via notre site internet (lien en rouge, en bas à droite) : http://cerclearistote.com/

 

Carl Schmitt spiegato ai giovani

Carl Schmitt spiegato ai giovani

Intervista con Niccolò Rapetti

Ex: https://ragionipolitiche.wordpress.com

La complessità e la irriducibilità a formule del pensiero politico di Carl Schmitt sono immediatamente evidenti guardando alla sua travagliata fortuna scientifica. Si tratta innanzitutto di un reazionario cattolico, un conservatore compromesso nel regime hitleriano; negli anni però la sua critica anti-imperialista e anti-liberale ha iniziato a piacere molto anche alla sinistra e pur nel suo evidente anti-americanismo il suo libro Il nomos della Terra è oggi lettura obbligata per gli ufficiali di marina americana. Professor Carlo Galli, mi viene spontanea una domanda: di chi è Carl Schmitt?

È un grande giurista del diritto pubblico e del diritto internazionale, che ha avuto il dono di un pensiero veramente radicale, e la sorte di vivere in un secolo di drammatici sconvolgimenti intellettuali, istituzionali e sociali. Ciò ne ha fatto anche un grande filosofo e un grande scienziato della politica; e lo ha esposto a grandi sfide e a grandi errori.

È innanzitutto necessario chiarire la posizione di Schmitt nella storia delle idee e del diritto: Carl Schmitt è «l’ultimo consapevole rappresentante dello jus publicum europaeum, l’ultimo capitano di una nave ormai usurpata». Che cos’è lo jus publicum europaeum? Come e quando inizia il suo declino, che Schmitt attraversò «come Benito Cereno visse il viaggio della nave pirata»?

Lo jpe è l’ordine del mondo eurocentrico della piena modernità; un ordine che è anche Stato-centrico, al quale Schmitt sa di appartenere anche se è ormai in rovina. Un ordine, per di più, che egli stesso decostruisce, mostrando che si fondava sul disordine, cioè non solo sull’equilibrio fra terra e mare ma anche sulla differenza di status fra terra europea e terre extra-europee colonizzate. Il declino di quell’ordine nasce quando si perde la consapevolezza della sua origine di crisi: quando l’uguaglianza formale fra Europa e non-Europa viene affermata nelle teorie (gli universalismi dell’economia, del diritto, delle teorie politiche democratiche e della morale) e nella pratica (l’imperialismo delle potenze anglosassoni, la loro – interessata – esportazione del capitalismo e della democrazia). Cioè per Schmitt dai primi anni del XX secolo.

Come si coniugano gli elementi «febbrilmente apocalittici» (teologia) e quelli «causticamente razionali» (diritto) nel pensiero politico di Carl Schmitt? In che posizione si trova il giurista Schmitt nei confronti di tecnica e teologia, diritto positivo e katechon?

Schmitt non è un apocalittico in senso proprio, nonostante sia così interpretato da Taubes. La teologia è, nel suo pensiero, un punto di vista, sottratto all’immanenza moderna, a partire dal quale comprendere diritto e politica, e le loro dinamiche. La teologia non ha la pretesa di essere una sostanza fondativa (Schmitt non è un fondamentalista) ma è anzi la consapevolezza dell’assenza di sostanza (di Dio), nell’età moderna. Questa assenza, che Schmitt reputa irrimediabile, è la spiegazione del fatto che la modernità è instabile, e che il suo modo d’essere è l’eccezione: questa richiede la decisione perché si possano formare ordini, e continua a vivere dentro gli ordini e le forme, che quindi non possono mai essere chiusi, razionali, neutralizzati. Da ciò deriva anche l’importanza del potere costituente, ovvero dell’atto sovrano che fonda un ordine a partire da una decisione reale sull’amico e sul nemico. E da ciò anche la tarda insistenza sulla terra (sulla concretezza spaziale) come possibile fondamento stabile degli ordini.

Considerando la distinzione politica fondamentale Freund-Feind, che opinione può avere Schmitt di tendenze fondamentali del suo e del nostro tempo, universalismo e pacifismo, che escludono per definizione l’idea di nemico?

Schmitt pensa – e lo spiega in tutta la sua produzione internazionalistica, dal 1926 al 1978 – che ogni universalismo e ogni negazione della originarietà del nemico siano un modo indiretto per far passare una inimicizia potentissima moralisticamente travestita, per generare guerre discriminatorie. Per ogni universalismo chi vi si oppone è un nemico non concreto e reale ma dell’umanità: un mostro da eliminare. Perché ci sia pace ci deve essere la possibilità concreta del nemico, non la sua criminalizzazione, secondo Schmitt.

Dopo aver annunciato la morte dello Stato nel saggio Il Leviatano di Hobbes, Schmitt teorizzò un’alternativa al potere statale, adeguata alla nuova concezione globale del pianeta che conservando la natura plurale del politico, potesse compiere la grande impresa «degna di un Ercole moderno»: domare la tecnica scatenata. Stiamo parlando dei Grandi Spazi, la cui formulazione è contenuta nella conferenza L’ordinamento dei grandi spazi nel diritto internazionale scritto nel 1939. Ce ne può parlare?

Il Grande Spazio, o Impero, è la risposta di Schmitt al Lebensraum nazista. Non ha caratteristiche biologiche, ma è in pratica la proposta di egemonia di una forma politica all’interno di uno spazio geografico-politico in cui continuano a esistere altre forme politiche non pienamente sovrane. Il GS è più che una sfera d’influenza, perché è gerarchicamente organizzato al proprio interno e perché è chiuso a influenze esterne; ed è diverso dallo Stato perché non è del tutto omogeneo giuridicamente: perché non è un «cristallo». I GS sono i soggetti di una concezione plurale delle relazioni internazionali; le due superpotenze del secondo dopoguerra, invece, per Schmitt erano due universalismi (capitalismo e comunismo) in lotta fra di loro e in instabile equilibrio.

Negli interrogatori dell’immediato dopoguerra Schmitt difese strenuamente la propria concezione del nuovo ordinamento spaziale chiarendone la differenza rispetto alla vera dottrina politica del Terzo Reich cioè lo spazio vitale razziale-biologico. È però indubbio che nel grande spazio come pensato da Schmitt si annidi un antisemitismo coerente con ciò che è condizione sine qua non della teoria: un rapporto forte e concreto tra etnia-popolo e terra civilizzata. Il nemico quindi, per Schmitt, non è l’ebreo in quanto Un-mensch (sotto-uomo, razza inferiore), ma l’«ebreo assimilato» che si pone come elemento sradicante della territorialità e della concretezza di una cultura. Dove sta allora la verità, che cosa direbbe sull’imputato e sull’imputazione: ideologia o scienza?

In Schmitt ideologia e scienza non sono distinguibili: ogni scienza è orientata,  storica; è affermazione di un ordine concreto, oltre che ricostruzione genealogica degli ordini. L’antisemitismo, poi, è presente in tracce più o meno evidenti in buona parte della filosofia tedesca – da Hegel a Schopenhauer, da Marx a Heidegger –, in forme diverse e con significati diversi; nei grandi filosofi non è mai determinante – ovvero, non è il motivo che dà origine al filosofare –: l’ebreo è utilizzato come un esempio di non-appartenenza, di individualistico sradicamento, di coscienza infelice e al contempo aggressiva. Il capitalismo, il socialismo e  la tecnologia sono spiegati anche (certo, non soltanto – soprattutto nel caso di Marx –) attraverso l’ebraismo, insomma. Questo atteggiamento – che è presente con forse maggiore virulenza anche nella destra francese – è ai nostri occhi gretto, insensato, pericolosissimo e tendenzialmente criminale. Schmitt, come persona, è stato antisemita in seguito al suo cattolicesimo (una delle fonti dell’antisemitismo in Europa; ma anche Lutero era violentemente antisemita), senza però che l’antisemitismo fosse particolarmente rilevante o importante nel suo pensiero; la sua adesione al nazismo, che a suo tempo ha sorpreso tutti,  non è dovuta all’antisemitismo ma a un misto di disperazione (per la caduta di Weimar, che aveva cercato vanamente di salvare), di orgoglio (la pretesa di poter guidare il nazismo verso un pensiero «civilizzato» e verso la soluzione della crisi dello Stato) e di ambizione (la chiamata in cattedra a Berlino, la vicepresidenza della associazione dei giuristi tedeschi, il ruolo tecnico rilevantissimo nella stesura di alcune leggi costituzionali come quella dei «luogotenenti del Reich» – 1933 –, la nomina a consigliere di Stato prussiano). Data la struttura radicale del suo pensiero, cioè dato il nichilismo che dopo tutto vi alberga e che gli impedisce ogni valutazione di carattere morale, e dato anche il suo precedente larvato antisemitismo, Schmitt non ha avuto remore nell’adeguarsi all’antisemitismo nazista – ben diverso da ogni altro – che pure non gli apparteneva, e che ha prodotto effetti terribili e grotteschi nei testi da lui scritti dal 1933 al 1936 (anno della crisi del suo rapporto con il regime), con alcuni strascichi nel libro hobbesiano del 1938 e nei testi «segreti» del primo dopoguerra (in realtà scritti per essere pubblicati postumi). In generale, per lui l’ebraismo è un altro nome del liberalismo (il problema è che nella fase nazista è trattato come la causa del liberalismo). La responsabilità politica, morale e storica è tutta sua; gli studiosi devono sapere che la forza del suo pensiero sta altrove, e al tempo stesso devono sapere che quel pensiero è indifeso davanti a questo tipo di aberrazioni (ma anche ad altre analoghe, di altro segno).

Carl Schmitt si è spento nel 1985 a Plettenberg in Westfalia alla veneranda età di 97 anni. Ciò significa che il suo sguardo non supera la «cortina di ferro» e si estende solo alla realtà della guerra fredda. Anche durante questo delicato periodo Schmitt ha continuato la sua attività di studioso e attento indagatore delle questioni di diritto internazionale dei suoi anni. Si espresse quindi sul dualismo USA-URSS, vedendo in esso una tensione verso l’unità del mondo nel segno della tecnica che avrebbe sancito l’egemonia universale di un «Unico padrone del mondo». Superando il 1989, e guardando al presente, possiamo dire che gli Stati Uniti dopo il ’91 hanno definitivamente preso scettro e globo in mano? L’American way of life è il futuro o il passato? Già Alexandre Kojève, per esempio, parlava di un nuovo attore politico e culturale e di una possibile «giapponizzazione dell’occidente».

Lascerei da parte Kojève, a suo tempo affascinato da Schmitt ma studioso di tutt’altra provenienza e di altre ambizioni. Quanto al resto, non è vero che gli Usa siano stati i padroni solitari del mondo, se non forse negli anni Novanta quando hanno affermato che il cuore del nomos della Terra è il benessere del cittadino americano. Hanno esportato la democrazia, e in realtà il loro capitalismo, ovunque e con ogni mezzo, praticando guerre presentate come azioni di polizia internazionale, con o senza la copertura dell’Onu. Ma hanno anche trovato resistenze ovunque: i terrorismi che spesso hanno armato, e  che si sono rivoltati contro di loro; ma anche soggetti geo-politici e geo-economici abbastanza forti da essere in grado di  affermare le proprie pretese – Cina, Russia, Iran, la stessa Germania con la sua forza economica di esportazione, solo per fare qualche esempio –. In ogni caso, gli Usa hanno dovuto assumere, dopo la crisi del 2008, una postura difensiva: protezionismo, per difendersi da economie più dinamiche della loro; ritiro militare da aree un tempo strategiche, come parte del Medio Oriente; scarsa propensione a interventi massicci in aree di crisi (che è la vera differenza fra l’amministrazione Trump e quelle democratiche che lo hanno preceduto); severa compressione della omogenea diffusione del benessere nella loro società. Resta invariato il diritto che gli Usa rivendicano ed esercitano di intervenire ovunque nel mondo con azioni mirate contro i loro nemici, che ora come sempre essi criminalizzano. Ma oggi non sono i padroni del mondo: l’Eurasia (Cina e Russia) ha un peso pari a quello dell’Euro-America (a parte il fatto, importantissimo, che entrambe queste macro-realtà sono divise al loro interno).

Al conflitto parziale e regolato tipico dello jus publicum europaeum (1648-1914) Schmitt contrapponeva la moderna guerra discriminatoria condotta per justa causa dove il nemico è concepito come criminale sul piano legale e inferiore moralmente. Le parti in conflitto non si pensano più come justi hostes, nemici reali che si riconoscono reciprocamente come sovrani sui propri confini, ma esprimono una guerra giusta che legittima l’impiego dei moderni mezzi di annientamento. La guerra regolare e circoscritta diventa allora con i due conflitti mondiali, totale e discriminatoria alla stregua di una guerra civile su scala mondiale; una guerra non tra regolari eserciti ma in cui anche i civili e la proprietà privata diventano oggetto di annientamento attraverso i bombardamenti aerei. Eppure in questa lucida e terribile diagnosi Schmitt aveva ancora la forza della speranza e concludendo il Dialogo sul nuovo spazio scrive: «sono convinto che dopo una difficile notte di minacce provenienti da bombe atomiche e simili terrori, l’uomo un mattino si sveglierà e sarà ben felice di riconoscersi figlio di una terra saldamente fondata». La questione, invece, oggi non solo è irrisolta ma si è radicalizzata lasciandoci uno Schmitt spaesato. Come si configura una guerra in un mondo globalizzato dove «le uniche linee generate dall’economia che siano geograficamente leggibili sono quelle degli oleodotti» e la religione torna ad essere politica e fortemente identitaria?

Oggi la guerra non ha più, prevalentemente, le forme della guerra totale che ha assunto nella Seconda guerra mondiale. Ma resta una guerra discriminatoria, come fu quella: democrazia contro terrorismo, Bene contro Male (concetto reversibile, com’è evidente). Nell’età globale, poi, in un mondo reso indistinto dall’omogeneità spaziale richiesta dal capitalismo, con l’ausilio dell’elettronica, si è rafforzata la tendenza verso la guerra discriminatoria, poliziesca, asimmetrica (Stati – e i loro contractors– contro bande armate, in mezzo a popolazioni civili): una guerra globale che scavalca i confini e che piomba dall’alto ovunque siano lesi gli interessi di alcune grandi potenze. Una guerra, certo, che – da entrambi i lati – non rispetta i vecchi parametri: distinzione fra interno ed esterno, fra civile e militare, fra nemico e criminale, fra pubblico e privato, fra religione e politica. Una guerra tanto lontana dai modelli tradizionali che un generale inglese ha potuto scrivere, citando John Lennon, «war is over».

Che cosa rimane dello studio di Schmitt sulla figura del combattente partigiano nell’epoca del terrorismo islamico e delle «crociate» americane per la democrazia e la libertà? Oggi il partigiano è ancora «l’ultima sentinella della terra»?

La figura del partigiano, elaborata da Schmitt nei primissimi anni Sessanta del XX secolo, è uno dei tentativi di pensare il ‘politico’ – in sé destabilizzante – in modo concreto e relativamente stabile: il che è possibile perché il partigiano è tellurico, perché difende un territorio. Il partigiano è portatore di inimicizia reale, non assoluta: combatte per uno scopo, non per mera volontà di distruggere. Non è un terrorista, un figlio dell’universalismo, della tecnica, di una volontà di dominio  globale. Se al tempo di Schmitt il partigiano poteva essere il vietcong (il che provocò a Schmitt qualche precoce simpatia a sinistra), oggi non è chiaro dove e con chi possa essere identificato.

La grande questione dello Schmitt del secondo dopoguerra, concentrato su questioni di diritto internazionale, è l’urgenza di un «nuovo nomos della terra» che supplisca ai terribili sviluppi della dissoluzione dello jus publicum europaeum. Porsi il problema di un nuovo nomos significa considerare la terra come un tutto, un globo, e cercarne la suddivisione e l’ordinamento globali. Ciò sarebbe possibile solo trovando nuovi elementi di equilibrio tra le grandi potenze e superando le criminalizzazioni che hanno contraddistinto i conflitti bellici nel ’900. A scompaginare il vecchio bilanciamento tra terra e mare, di cui l’Inghilterra, potenza oceanica, si fece garante nel periodo dello jus publicum europaeum, si aggiunge, però, una nuova dimensione spaziale: l’aria. L’aria non è solo l’aereo, che sovverte le distinzioni «classiche» di «guerre en forme» terrestre e guerra di preda marittima, ma è anche lo spazio «fluido-gassoso» della Rete. Grazie ai nuovi sviluppi della politica nel mondo si rende sempre più evidente come l’era del digitale non apra solamente nuove possibilità (e nuovi problemi) per l’informazione e la comunicazione, ma si configuri, nella grande epopea degli uomini e della Terra, come l’ultima, grande, rivoluzione spaziale-globale. Come possono rispondere le categorie del nomos di Carl Schmitt al nuevo mundo del digitale?

Se Schmitt non è solo il pensatore del conflitto indiscriminato, ma di un conflitto che è destinato a produrre un ordine, sia pure transitorio e mai neutrale, è chiaro che allora non convive bene né col capitalismo mondializzato, né con la tecnica globalizzata, né con la dimensione fluida e virtuale della Rete. In realtà, un significato contemporaneo di Schmitt sta in varie altre circostanze: inizia un’età post-globale, e per molti versi post-liberaldemocratica (ma non necessariamente post-statuale), contrassegnata da un nuovo pluralismo politico fra Grandi Spazi (non chiusi economicamente, però: questo è il problema) e quindi da un nuovo rilievo delle logiche geopolitiche e geostrategiche (di cui Schmitt è stato interprete originale e non pedissequo); nascono nuove richieste di sovranità anche in Occidente, dove prima regnava l’ideologia del mercato; la gestione della politica è sempre più spesso affidata a esecutivi forti, che agiscono attraverso «stati d’eccezione» più o meno espliciti; le dinamiche dell’esclusione interna verso i «diversi» si fanno più esplicite e il conflitto si fa più aspro (anche su questioni simboliche di fondo). Ma più ancora che di una importanza di Schmitt per decifrare il presente, è da sottolineare il suo grandissimo rilievo per decifrare la modernità e la sua crisi; per ri-codificare e ri-trascrivere la storia intellettuale, istituzionale e politica degli ultimi tre secoli (si pensi solo ai suoi libri sul parlamentarismo, sulla dittatura, sulla costituzione); per criticare genealogicamente e per decostruire il razionalismo e il pensiero dialettico. È questo rilievo critico – da assumere in modo non a-critico – a spiegare l’immensa  fortuna attuale di Schmitt nella letteratura scientifica, filosofico-politica, a livello davvero mondiale, tanto a  destra quanto a  sinistra, tanto in Europa quanto nelle Americhe e in Asia: attraverso Schmitt si ri-pensa il rapporto fra ragione e politica, fra opacità e  trasparenza, fra conflitto e ordine.

Décadence, effondrement, apocalypse

par Antonin Campana

Ex: http://www.autochtonisme.com

L’idée de « décadence nationale » hante le XIXe siècle. Taine souligne la médiocrité de la vie intellectuelle et la futilité des nouvelles générations. Ernest Renan, espère une réforme intellectuelle et morale qui désintoxique le pays des idéaux qui compromettent « l’état moral de la France » (1874). Plus concret, l’écrivain légitimiste Claude-Marie Raudot s’alarme, chiffres à l’appui, de la diminution du nombre des naissances, du déclin de la moralité, des « dépenses énormes » et de la « déperdition de forces » causées par la colonisation de l’Algérie. Il accuse la fièvre du changement : « La France est continuellement en révolution, écrit-il, comme un malade qui s’agite, croit trouver dans le changement un soulagement à ses maux et ne fait que les aggraver, la France est en décadence, donc elle s’appuie sur des institutions funestes et des principes faux  » (De la décadence de la France, 1850). Avec une clairvoyance extraordinaire, il répond d’avance à ceux qui voudraient endiguer le reflux démographique par la fabrication de nouveaux Français : « N’est-ce pas un rêve, écrit-il en 1862, de croire qu’on fera des Français avec les Arabes et les Kabyles ? Nous aurons en eux des sujets obéissants, tant que nous serons les plus forts, des concitoyens jamais » (Mes Oisivetés ).

Tout ce qui a été craint par les esprits les plus affûtés du XIXe siècle est arrivé à la France, mais amplifié au centuple ! Ils se plaignaient du fléchissement intellectuel de leur siècle ? Mais celui-ci avait encore ses Lamartine, ses Auguste Comte, ses Proudhon, ses Verlaine et ses Stendhal !  Aujourd’hui, nous n’avons plus que des Badinter, des Attali, des Luc Ferry ou des BHL ! Ils se plaignaient de la diminution du nombre de naissances en France ? Mais aujourd’hui, les naissances françaises sont directement remplacées par des naissances étrangères ! Ils se plaignaient de l’état moral de la France ? Mais aujourd’hui le sens moral se vautre dans le transsexualisme, l’idéologie LGBTQ, le féminisme, l’idéologie du genre, l’idéologie « no-child » et la stigmatisation de « l’homme blanc hétérosexuel de plus de 50 ans » ! Ils craignaient que l’on fabrique un jour des Français de papier ? Mais aujourd’hui ces Français de papier se comptent par millions et font la loi ! 

Les intellectuels réalistes du XIXe siècle ne se trompaient pas : la décadence avait bien commencé. Mais la décadence qui est alors dénoncée nous paraît insignifiante au regard de l’effondrement multiforme et gigantesque que nous connaissons aujourd’hui. C’est que le  pourrissement commençait à peine. Seul un nez exercé en percevait les premiers effluves. De nos jours, les odeurs sont insupportables et le cadavre est à un stade de pourrissement avancé. Peut-on encore parler de « décadence nationale » quand la nation est déjà morte ?

Pourquoi la décadence ?

Les auteurs dont nous parlons sont unanimes à dénoncer les dérives du sens moral. Pour Renan, l’affaiblissement moral de la France explique largement la défaite. L’idée que la défaite de 1870 procède de causes spirituelles plutôt que politiques ou militaires est d’ailleurs largement partagée à cette époque. On se souvient ainsi que la basilique du Sacré-Cœur de Paris fut construite en réparation des fautes morales commises par le pays. Or, l’idée d’une décadence qui serait le résultat d’un affaissement moral et spirituel n’est pas aussi absurde qu’il peut paraître.

On le sait, la société européenne traditionnelle a toujours été le produit d’un équilibre subtil entre le spirituel et le temporel, entre ce qui appartient à Dieu et ce qui appartient à César. La société française traditionnelle n’échappe pas, jusqu’à la révolution « française » tout au moins, à cette loi d’équilibre. Par son action, la République atteint l’Eglise, c’est-à-dire un pilier essentiel de l’ordre moral et de l’ordre social. Comment s’étonner alors du déclin progressif de la moralité et de la société ? Le refoulement du spirituel, qui irrigue l’ordre moral et l’ordre social traditionnel, ne pouvait que provoquer une rupture des équilibres antérieurs.

Or, une société ne peut rester en déséquilibre très longtemps. En effet, un déséquilibre se traduit toujours par une souffrance, un manque, une tension qui préfigurent la rupture et une nouvelle recomposition. Le déséquilibre « précipite ». Mécaniquement, l’organisation sociale va donc agir sur elle-même pour trouver un nouvel équilibre. Mais cet équilibre sera impossible à atteindre puisqu’une de ses conditions anthropologiques fondamentales, la spiritualité, aura été écartée. La société va donc se lancer dans une quête perpétuelle de remise en question et de changements sans fin. Comme une personne sur le point de tomber enchaîne des pas de plus en plus rapides pour tenter de se rattraper, la société en déséquilibre va enchaîner des transformations de plus en plus rapides… qui vont accentuer son déséquilibre et précipiter sa chute ! On l’a vu, Claude-Marie Raudot exprime parfaitement ce processus lorsqu’il écrit que la France est « continuellement en révolution », qu’elle est « comme un malade qui s’agite » et que le « changement » grâce auquel le pays espère se rétablir ne fait au contraire qu’aggraver ses problèmes.

Prenons l’exemple de la dénatalité, puisqu’il est pointé par Raudot :

Au déséquilibre démographique, le régime répond ainsi par un « changement » : l’ouverture des frontières, l’organisation d’une immigration de masse et des naturalisations intensives (celles, précisément, que semblait redouter Raudot). Mais cette immigration crée à son tour des déséquilibres encore plus importants : des zones de non-droit apparaissent, la France connaît une guerre civile de basse intensité. Le régime cherche alors à résoudre ce nouveau déséquilibre par un nouveau « changement » : il discrimine économiquement la France périphérique, avantage les banlieues et tient un discours qui stigmatise les Français de souche. Mais ce changement engendre un autre déséquilibre : la France périphérique se révolte (Gilets jaunes) sans que pour autant les allochtones se tiennent tranquilles (Bataclan). Le régime répond à cette agitation par un nouveau changement : il accentue les violences policières et se dote de lois qui l’autorisent à placer la population sous surveillance. Mais ce changement exacerbe les tensions et rapproche le pays d’une guerre civile de forte intensité. Le régime y répondra sans doute par une violence encore plus dure, avant de disparaître définitivement sous le poids des changements qu’il a provoqués.  

Nous pourrions prendre d’autres exemples comme le mariage, la famille ou la langue. Comment est-on passé du mariage comme sacrement devant Dieu au « mariage pour tous » ? Comment est-on passé de la famille patriarcale à la famille homoparentale non genrée ? Comment est-on passé des sermons de Bossuet à l’écriture inclusive ? Ce sont bien des principes absurdes, avec la complicité d’institutions dévoyées, qui par étapes successives ont entraîné la décadence de tous les aspects de la France !

En fait, quand le spirituel « laisse les clés » au temporel, alors l’effondrement est inévitable. Pour Durkheim, la religion fait l’unité du groupe. Cela signifie que s’il n’y a plus de religion, alors il y a fractionnement. Et s’il y a fractionnement, il y a lutte d’intérêts entre les parties. Autrement dit, le déséquilibre de la société, implique une lutte de plus en plus âpre entre des parties qui auront tendance à se scinder en sous-parties, elles-mêmes en lutte les unes contre les autres et elles-mêmes se scindant à leur tour. Le déséquilibre engendre un déséquilibre de plus en plus grand, de plus en plus rapide, de plus en plus diversifié et de plus en plus diversifiant jusqu’à l’effondrement final. La société se cannibalise : les allochtones contre les Autochtones, les femmes contre les hommes, les homosexuels contre les hétérosexuels, les jeunes contre les vieux, le privé contre le public, les lesbiennes contre les gays, les végans contre  les végétariens, les végétariens contre les flexitariens…

Confirmant Durkheim, l’historien David Engels, explique que l’athéisme est l’un des marqueurs de la décadence de la République romaine (voyez ici).

L’Ancien Testament expose quant à lui que l’oubli des commandements de Dieu empêchera les champs de produire, transformera les villes en désert, dispersera le peuple parmi les nations. En d’autres termes, transparaît l’idée que l’athéisme est cause d’effondrement.

 A l’autre bout du monde, les études de Claude Lévi-Strauss montrent qu’il y a un rapport entre la destruction, par les missionnaires salésiens, des structures cérémonielles des indiens Bororos du Brésil (par le démantèlement de l’organisation géométrique de leur habitat) et l’effondrement ultérieur de leur société.

Chez nous, en France, le processus d’effondrement (économique, démographique, culturel, moral…) commence véritablement à partir de la Révolution. Or la Révolution installe, avec une violence inouïe, un régime qui systématise le rejet de la religion traditionnelle…

Il se pourrait que l’effondrement des sociétés humaines commence lorsque le spirituel n’est plus opérationnel dans le social, lorsqu’il n’irrigue plus le tissu social, lorsqu’il n’a plus son mot à dire dans la structuration sociale et la bonne marche de la société. Religion, religare, relier : quand le spirituel ne relie plus, alors la société se désagrège et disparaît.

Que rajouter de plus de notre point de vue autochtoniste, étant posé que cette société en putréfaction nous est désormais totalement étrangère ? Tout d’abord, que l’enchainement de plus en plus rapide des déséquilibres rend inutile de s’impliquer en faveur de l’une ou de l’autre des « parties » actuellement en lutte, sauf si des nécessités stratégiques ou tactiques l’exigent. Ensuite que le processus de désintégration du corps politique est maintenant irréversible : il ira jusqu’au bout, c’est-à-dire jusqu’à cet effondrement apocalyptique de la société que nous commençons à voir. Enfin, sans doute, qu’il est nécessaire que l’effondrement atteigne son terme. Il semble maintenant que notre peuple ne renaîtra pas avant que son « reste pur » ne puisse dire, tel Jésus sur sa croix :

« Tout est achevé ! ».

Antonin Campana

Julien Freund : La fin des conflits ?

Julien Freund : La fin des conflits ?

par Chantal Delsol

Ex: https://www.chantaldelsol.fr

Communication prononcée au colloque Julien Freund, Strasbourg, 2010

On sait que Julien Freund ne croit pas à la fin possible des conflits dans le monde humain. C’est bien d’ailleurs ce postulat, fondamental dans sa philosophie, qui l’avait opposé à son premier directeur de thèse, Jean Hyppolite, l’avait conduit à chercher un autre directeur de thèse qu’il avait trouvé en la personne de Raymond Aron, et avait occasionné un débat pathétique et drolatique avec Hyppolite lors de la soutenance de thèse.

L’accusation d’utopisme porté par Freund aux pacifistes ne l’englue pas dans un empirisme cynique, mais laisse la porte ouverte à une espérance qui est d’une autre sorte. Je voudrais montrer que cet idéal, outre qu’il marque l’empreinte religieuse dans l’esprit de notre auteur, signe la marque de son temps : il n’a pas pu voir quel genre de « fin des conflits » est attendue aujourd’hui, tout autre que celle des utopies présentes à son époque. Ce qui montre l’inscription de sa pensée dans une époque, en même temps que sa pérennité.

Appartenant à cette minuscule espèce des intellectuels non-marxisants de son temps, Freund use une bonne partie de son énergie à argumenter contre les utopies de la paix universelle. Il aime partir de l’argument kantien : si les rois européens ont réussi à éteindre les conflits privés sur leurs terres afin de constituer des Etats souverains nantis du monopole de la violence légitime, pourquoi un Etat universel ne pourrait-il un jour éradiquer les conflits inter-étatiques ? L’idée est belle, elle appelle l’instauration du souverain bien, si l’on veut apercevoir que le bien, inverse du diabolos, est lien, sumbolos – donc paix et fraternité. Mais l’instauration du souverain bien, déclinée comme un programme politique international, est simplement « l’un des rêves du socialisme ». La paix sous cet aspect universel et abstrait est une valeur non médiatisée, donc impraticable, car dès qu’il faudra en donner la définition, les conflits se développeront à ce sujet (« rien n’est plus ‘polémogène’ que les idées divergentes sur la perfection », Politique et Impolitique, Sirey, 1987, p.207). Pour Freund, les conflits existent simplement parce que les hommes nourrissent des croyances et des attachements, au nom desquels ils se querellent, et vouloir annihiler les conflits serait vouloir priver les hommes de pensée. Si l’on reprend un slogan actuel qui marque la misanthropie de notre contemporain : « les animaux, eux, au moins, ne se battent que pour manger », on pourrait dire que pour anéantir les conflits humains il faudrait tous nous décerveler, nous ramener à l’état animal… Cela signifie que l’Etat mondial ne sera pas soustrait, parce qu’unique, aux querelles et combats internes, d’autant qu’il pourra aisément, parce qu’unique, se retourner contre ses peuples (qui jugera le juge ultime ?). Freund se saisit lui aussi de la conclusion du dernier Kant : un Etat mondial serait despotique.

Il reste que la notion de « nature humaine », expression que Freund utilise souvent -je préfèrerais « condition humaine », qui est moins statique et moins fondée dans une dogmatique-, est plurivoque.

La « nature humaine » sous entend des caractères humains immuables et enracinés dans des spécificités : essentiellement, ici, quand il s’agit de la pérennité des conflits, la liberté humaine devant l’impossibilité d’atteindre la Vérité, et donc le débat infini entre les croyances ; et en même temps, l’enracinement de l’homme dans une culture particulière qu’il ne pourra que défendre face aux autres et contre les autres.

Mais aussi, la « nature humaine » comprise dans la dimension de l’espérance, sous entend que l’homme partout et toujours vise le bien parfait, entendu universellement comme un lien.

Ainsi, la paix est un idéal, et en tant que telle, comme l’espérance d’Epiméthée, elle mérite nos efforts plus que nos ricanements. Il est juste que nous fassions tout pour faire advenir une paix lucide, sachant bien qu’elle ne parviendra jamais à réalisation. En ce sens, l’aspiration à la société cosmopolite est une aspiration morale naturelle à l’humanité, et vouloir récuser cette aspiration au nom de la permanence des conflits serait vouloir retirer à l’homme la moitié de sa condition. En revanche, prétendre atteindre la société cosmopolite comme un programme, à travers la politique, serait susciter un mélange préjudiciable de la morale et de la politique. Parce que nous sommes des créatures politiques, nous devons savoir que la paix universelle n’est qu’un idéal et non une possibilité de réalisation. Parce que nous sommes des créatures morales, nous ne pouvons nous contenter benoîtement des conflits sans espérer jamais les réduire au maximum. Le « règne des fins » ne doit pas aller jusqu’à constituer une eschatologie politique (qui existe aussi bien dans le libéralisme que dans le marxisme, et que l’on trouve au XIX° siècle jusque chez Proudhon), parce qu’alors il suscite une sorte de crase dommageable et irréaliste entre la politique et la morale. Mais l’espérance du bien ne constitue pas seulement une sorte d’exutoire pour un homme malheureux parce qu’englué dans les exigences triviales d’un monde conflictuel : elle engage l’humanité à avancer sans cesse vers son idéal, et par là à améliorer son monde dans le sens qui lui paraît le meilleur, même si elle ne parvient jamais à réalisation complète.

Or sur quoi repose cette notion d’idéal, et l’espérance qui la fonde ? Sur une vision du temps fléché, vision apparue avec les judéo-chrétiens et poursuivie à partir de la saison des Lumières grâce à la croyance au Progrès. Julien Freund se situe dans le temps fléché.

Dans la conclusion de Politique et Impolitique, Freund évoque la désaffection du politique, désaffection en plein développement. Il la lie au désir de destruction qui caractérise les courants extrêmes de son époque, et il évoque la complexité croissante des problèmes et l’identification de la politique et de la technique. Mais Freund n’a pas connu le développement tout récent d’un âge vraiment technocratique, notamment à partir du « gouvernement » européen depuis le début des années 90. Il s’agit là d’une gestion plutôt que d’un gouvernement, d’une administration au sens où Platon prétendait qu’ « il n’y a pas de différence de nature entre une grande oikos et une petite polis » (aussitôt critiqué à ce sujet par Aristote dans La Politique). Freund n’a pas connu le déploiement récent de l’idée de « gouvernance », et la fascination qu’exerce sur nous l’idée de consensus.

Le consensus, « mot-hourrah », représente une aspiration permanente depuis la fin du XX° siècle, et traduit la méfiance vis à vis du vote majoritaire en vigueur en Europe depuis le XIII° siècle (et même depuis le VII° siècle dans les monastères). Le consensus était le système de décision qui prévalait dans toutes les assemblées populaires anciennes, depuis le purhum mésopotamien jusqu’au fokonolona merina malgache, en passant par les diverses assemblées populaires de la plupart des peuples avant l’apparition des régimes autocratiques. Le regain du consensus se développe d’abord aujourd’hui dans les sociétés scandinaves, mais il se déploie dans les organisations internationales (ce qui est logique, puisque chaque pays y représente une souveraineté : il faut s’y soumettre dans la plupart des cas à une sorte de liberum veto). Le consensus est à la mode dans les instances dites de gouvernance, assemblées horizontales censées se substituer à la souveraineté et à la contrainte gouvernementale, ou au moins s’y surajouter. La gouvernance, type de gouvernement sans gouvernement, voudrait remplacer le débat entre les visions du monde par la négociation des intérêts. Dans un monde dénué désormais de croyances et d’idéologies communes, et marqué par le matérialisme, la querelle entre les finalités (ou guerre des dieux) est censée être remplacée par un compromis entre les intérêts matériels (on peut négocier les intérêts, mais on ne peut négocier les croyances).

L’appel au consensus s’accompagne de la récusation de la démocratie, récusation présente depuis peu d’années (alors que la démocratie se trouvait encore en pleine gloire après la chute du Mur). Les perversions démocratiques (corruptions des gouvernants), la lassitude des citoyens marginalisés (absentéisme électoral massif), l’accusation d’incompétence des citoyens devant des décisions de plus en plus complexes, et en outre, le soupçon devant un peuple conservateur voire sauvage (vote sur les minarets en Suisse), apportent de l’eau au moulin des antidémocrates et suscite l’avènement d’une ère technocratique, du gouvernement des experts – dans son Livre Blanc de la Gouvernance, la Commission européenne parle d’expertise et non de gouvernement. C’est, en termes grecs, le remplacement de la polis par l’oikos.

Ces évolutions extrêmement rapides traduisent une nouvelle manière de voir la société, en terme de fin attendue des conflits. Elles sous entendent :

– la recherche de la paix comme unique horizon : répondant à la fatigue du fanatisme partout présent au XX° siècle, fanatisme suscité par la multiplicité des croyances. On pouvait dire : fiat justitia pereat mundus, on pouvait dire : que le monde périsse, pourvu qu’il nous reste la classe pure ou la race pure, au moins on ne peut plus dire : que le monde périsse, pourvu qu’il nous reste la paix, ce serait contradictoire dans les termes.

– des sociétés marquées par le soin exclusif de la vie quotidienne, qui se négocie toujours, et probablement la gouvernance indique-t-elle des sociétés corporatistes ou « organiques », communautaires selon les adeptes de la philosophie pragmatiste qui se trouve à la pointe de ces changements de mentalité.

– la fin des idéologies, certes, mais plus encore : la fin des visions du monde pluralistes au sens de la fin des croyances en des « vérités » plurielles.

Le consensus, qui remplace l’attente d’un monde meilleur par la recherche permanente de la paix, enferme le monde social en lui-même et par là nous sort de la flèche du temps. La vie morale sans recherche de vérité nous replace dans le monde de la sagesse qui avait cours avant les monothéismes et qui a cours dans toutes les civilisations hors la nôtre. C’est là un changement de monde tel que Freund n’a pu le prévoir. Cela ne remet pas en cause sa pensée, selon laquelle le monde politique s’enracine dans le conflit, et selon laquelle le conflit demeure essentiel à l’humain, parce que les tragiques questions humaines sont médiatisées par de multiples cultures. Car même dans les sociétés structurées par des sagesses, les conflits surviennent pour des raisons de territoires ou de puissance, hors les conflits religieux ou idéologiques inexistants. C’est dire que dans l’avenir, les combats idéologiques ont toute chance d’être remplacés, non par la paix consensuelle qui est encore une utopie, mais par des conflits d’identités : la fin des « vérités » de représentation (liberté, justice, droits de l’homme), engendrera le retour des « vérités » d’être (patries, tribus).

Il n’en reste pas moins que cette tentative nouvelle pour biffer les conflits était difficile à prévoir dans la seconde moitié du XX° siècle, même si les appels étaient fréquents dès après-guerre à la féminisation du monde (Giono, Camus, Gary) qui en est un signe avant-coureur. Freund se situe dans un monde dominé par les idéologies, qu’il récuse, et dans la vision du temps fléché, qui lui inspire l’idéal d’une paix toute kantienne (s’agissant du dernier Kant). La rupture dans laquelle nous sommes se produit juste après lui. Nous aimerions qu’il soit encore là pour analyser cet aspect du post-moderne qu’il n’a pas pu voir.

Pour lire et relire Julien Freund

par Georges FELTIN-TRACOL

Ex: http://www.europemaxima.com

Né le 9 janvier 1921 dans une famille nombreuse d’origine ouvrière et paysanne présente dans la commune lorraine de Henridorff en Moselle et décédé le 10 septembre 1993 à Colmar, Julien Freund appartient aux grands penseurs du politique, ce politique qu’il étudia dans une thèse dirigée par Raymond Aron, soutenue en 1965 et parue sous le titre de L’Essence du politique.

D’abord instituteur pour pallier la disparition brutale de son père, le germanophone Julien Freund se retrouve otage des Allemands en juillet 1940 avant de poursuivre ses études à l’Université de Strasbourg repliée à Clermond-Ferrand. Il entre dès janvier 1941 en résistance dans le réseau Libération, puis dans les Groupes francs de combat de Jacques Renouvin. Arrêté en juin 1942, il est détenu dans la forteresse de Sisteron d’où il s’évade deux ans plus tard. Il rejoint alors un maquis FTP (Francs-tireurs et partisans) de la Drôme. Il y découvre l’endoctrinement communiste et la bassesse humaine.

Après-guerre, il milite un temps à l’UDSR (Union démocratique et socialiste de la Résistance), une petite formation charnière de centre-gauche de la IV^e République, et au SNES (Syndicat national de l’enseignement secondaire). Il s’intéresse à la philosophie et en particulier à Aristote. C’est au début des années 1950 qu’il découvre le décisionnisme de Carl Schmitt. Las de l’instabilité gouvernementale, il se félicite du retour au pouvoir du Général De Gaulle en 1958 et approuve la V^e République dont il estime les institutions adaptées au caractère polémologique du politique français.

Philosophe, Julien Freund est aussi sociologue, politologue et, avec Gaston Bouthoul, polémologue, c’est-à-dire analyste du conflit. Dans La Décadence. Histoire sociologique et philosophique d’une catégorie de l’expérience humaine (Sirey, 1984), il considère en effet qu’il faut « savoir envisager le pire pour empêcher que celui-ci ne se produise (p. 386) ». Son tempérament bien trempé, son goût pour la provocation et son refus de déménager à Paris sans oublier une vive hostilité au gauchisme culturel le marginalisent au sein de l’univers feutré et guindé de l’enseignement supérieur. Il prend d’ailleurs sa retraite anticipée dès 1979 à l’âge de 58 ans. Il profite du village alsacien de Villé.

Il collabore à Éléments et à Nouvelle École, et participe à plusieurs colloques du GRECE et du Club de l’Horloge dont il est l’un des douze maîtres à penser. En préface de L’impératif du renouveau. Les enjeux de demain (Albatros, 1983) de Bruno Mégret et des Comités d’Action républicaine, il avoue que « par profession et par goût je suis amoureux des idées, mais je déteste les flatteries de l’intellectualisme, égaré dans les abstractions et les fictions superficielles (p. 7) ». Cette attitude le distingue de ses mornes collègues. Il écrit avec une ironie certaine en préface de son essai de 1970, Le Nouvel Âge. Éléments pour une théorie de la démocratie et de la paix (Marcel Rivière et Cie, coll. « Études sur le devenir social ») : « Je suis un réactionnaire de gauche (p. 9). » Il ajoute plus loin qu’« en réalité, les notions de droite et de gauche me sont devenues indifférentes; ce sont des catégories dans lesquelles je ne pense pas politiquement (idem) ».

Dans L’Aventure du politique. Entretiens avec Charles Blanchet (Critérion, 1991), ce catholique au chef toujours couvert d’un béret, se proclame « Français, gaulliste, européen et régionaliste ». Favorable à la réconciliation franco-allemande, il s’oppose néanmoins à la CED entre 1952 et 1954 avant de le regretter bien plus tard parce que, sans communauté militaire européenne effective, le projet continental perd toute consistance réelle. D’ailleurs, s’interroge-t-il dans La fin de la Renaissance (PUF, coll. « La politique éclatée », 1980), « les Européens seraient-ils même encore capables de mener une guerre ? (p. 7) » Il ne le pense pas, car « nous ne sommes pas simplement plongés dans une crise prolongée, prévient-il encore dans ce même ouvrage, mais en présence d’un terme, du dénouement d’un règne qui s’achève; un âge historique, celui de la Renaissance, est en train de se désagréger. L’Europe est désormais impuissante à assumer le destin qui fut le sien durant des siècles. Nous assistons à la fin de la première civilisation de caractère universel que le monde ait connue (p. 8) ». Un an auparavant, sa préface de L’impératif du renouveau exprimait son inquiétude lucide : « L’Europe est recroquevillée sur ses frontières géographiques, n’ayant guère plus d’autre puissance que sur elle-même, encore qu’il subsiste des vestiges de son ancienne grandeur. Elle a juste eu le temps de mettre en route la technologie moderne, mais l’exploitation lui échappe. Par rapport à ce qu’elle fut il y a à peine une cinquantaine d’années, elle est en déclin. Elle n’échappe pas aux vicissitudes historiques qui ont frappé toutes les civilisations, en dépit des progrès accomplis par chacune. C’est dans ce contexte de décadence que la France et l’Europe sont appelées à opérer leur renouveau. Elles ne pourront conjurer cette menace et réaliser leur redressement qu’à la condition d’assumer pleinement la situation actuelle, sans se perdre dans les rêveries prophétiques, utopiques ou nostalgiques.

La politique se fait sur le terrain, et non dans les divagations spéculatives (p. 13). » Il relève dans son étude remarquable sur la notion de décadence que « si les civilisations ne se valent pas, c’est que chacune repose sur une hiérarchie des valeurs qui lui est propre et qui est la résultante d’options plus ou moins conscientes concernant les investissements capables de stimuler leur énergie. Cette hiérarchie conditionne donc l’originalité de chaque civilisation. Reniant leur passé, les Européens se sont laissés imposer, par leurs intellectuels, l’idée que leur civilisation n’était sous aucun rapport supérieure aux autres et même qu’ils devraient battre leur coulpe pour avoir inventé le capitalisme, l’impérialisme, la bombe thermonucléaire, etc. Une fausse interprétation de la notion de tolérance a largement contribué à cette culpabilisation. En effet, ni les idées, ni les valeurs ne sont tolérantes. Refusant de reconnaître leur originalité, les Européens n’adhèrent plus aux valeurs dont ils sont porteurs, de sorte qu’ils sont en train de perdre l’esprit de leur culture et le dynamisme qui en découle. Si encore ils ne faisaient que récuser leurs philosophies du passé, mais ils sont en train d’étouffer le sens de la philosophie qu’ils ont développée durant des siècles. La confusion des valeurs et la crise spirituelle qui en est la conséquence en sont le pitoyable témoignage. L’égalitarisme ambiant les conduit jusqu’à oublier que la hiérarchie est consubstantielle à l’idée même de valeur (p. 364) ».

Ce conservateur libéral mécontent attaché au primat du régalien avance encore dans La fin de la Renaissance qu’« une civilisation décadente n’a plus d’autre projet que celui de se conserver (p. 22) ». Cette sentence réaliste explique le relatif effacement de son œuvre. Non réédités, ses ouvrages sont maintenant très difficiles à trouver chez les bouquinistes tandis que plusieurs manuscrits inédits attendent toujours quelques hardis éditeurs. Cette éclipse éditoriale contraste avec l’audience croissante de ses textes dans le monde hispanophone, dans le domaine germanophone, en Russie et chez les Anglo-Saxons. La découverte de Julien Freund à l’étranger coïncide avec la traduction soutenue des écrits de Carl Schmitt, y compris en Chine, en Corée et au Japon !

Par une franche liberté de ton, Julien Freund demeure un homme non seulement « mal-pensant », mais surtout intempestif, car « la vie est fondamentalement différenciation concrète et non universalisation abstraite (préface à L’impératif du renouveau, p. 7). Il avait deviné que le « festivisme » dépeint par Philippe Muray aboutirait à une nouvelle tyrannie postmoderniste. « Quand la transgression n’est plus occasionnelle mais devient un usage courant, ce qui s’accompagne en général d’une augmentation constante des effectifs de la police, on risque de péricliter insensiblement dans un État policier (La Décadence, p. 4). » Lire Julien Freund, c’est pouvoir aiguiser son intellect afin de mieux lutter contre le conformisme ambiant.

Georges Feltin-Tracol

• Chronique n° 32, « Les grandes figures identitaires européennes », lue le 28 janvier 2020 à Radio-Courtoisie au « Libre-Journal des Européens » de Thomas Ferrier.

Anton Mirko Koktanek: Oswald Spengler. Leben und Werk

Anton Mirko Koktanek: Oswald Spengler. Leben und Werk

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

nach umfangreichen Vorarbeiten können wir nun endlich die schon lange geplante Neuauflage der großen Spengler-Biographie von Koktanek für den 17. Februar 2020 ankündigen.

Bitte nehmen Sie diese herausragende Biographie des bedeutenden Philosophen in Ihren Vertrieb auf.

Im Anhang finden Sie das Inhaltsverzeichnis sowie eine Titelabbildung.

Anton Mirko Koktanek

Oswald Spengler. Leben und Werk
Eine Biographie
ISBN 978-3-938176-15-3
560 Seiten + 16 Bilderseiten, Paperback, Preis: 34,00 Euro
Erscheinungstermin: 17. Februar 2020

Oswald Spengler (geb. 29.5.1880, gest. 8.5.1936) war einer der wirkungsvollsten und zugleich umstrittensten Denker des 20. Jahrhunderts. Mit seinem Hauptwerk „Der Untergang des Abendlandes“, dessen erster Band im Frühjahr 1918 erschien, beanspruchte Spengler, eine kopernikanische Wende in der Geschichtsphilosophie einzuleiten. Seine Kernthese lautete, daß die Weltgeschichte die Abfolge von verschiedenen Kulturen darstelle, die von Gesetzmäßigkeiten determiniert sei: „Jede Kultur durchläuft die Altersstufen des einzelnen Menschen. Jede hat ihre Kindheit, ihre Jugend, ihre Männlichkeit und ihr Greisentum.“ In „Zivilisationen“ sah Spengler die Spätzeiten der einzelnen Kulturen, deren Erlöschen und Untergang wie bei alternden Organismen bevorstehe. Dem gegen Ende des Ersten Weltkrieges ins Zerfallsstadium eintretenden Abendland prophezeite er ein bevorstehendes Zeitalter der Diktaturen und des Imperialismus.

Anton Mirko Koktanek, Philosoph und Nachlaßverwalter Oswald Spenglers, konnte für seine große Spengler-Biographie zahlreiche unveröffentlichte Zeugnisse verwenden, darunter auch dichterische Entwürfe Spenglers, Tagebuchnotizen seiner Schwester und nicht zuletzt seine Selbstbetrachtungen, die er als Gedächtnisstützen für die von ihm geplante, jedoch nicht geschriebene Autobiographie verfaßte. So entstand eine außerordentlich kenntnisreiche Lebens- und Werkbeschreibung des Geschichtsphilosophen Spengler, die zugleich einen Schlüssel zum Verständnis der Krisen, Kriege und Revolutionen und der Tragödie der deutschen Geschichte im 20. Jahrhundert bietet.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen

Heiderose Weigel
Lindenbaum Verlag GmbH
Bergstr. 11, 56290 Beltheim-Schnellbach
Tel. 06746 / 730047
E-Brief: [e-mail]
Internetseite: www.lindenbaum-verlag.de

Le premier Carl Schmitt

par Richard Figuier

Ex: https://www.enattendantnadeau.fr

En cette rentrée où nous n’avons pas beaucoup de traductions de grands textes de sciences sociales à nous mettre sous la dent, on peut se réjouir que les Éditions de l’EHESS nous offrent l’accès à un texte clé d’un auteur dont le soupçon qui l’entoure, à juste titre au vu de son engagement nazi, nous fait trop oublier qu’il a été un très grand juriste : Carl Schmitt, qui publia Loi et jugement en 1912.

---

Carl Schmitt, Loi et jugement. Une enquête sur le problème de la pratique du droit. Trad. de l’allemand et présenté par Rainer Maria Kiesow. EHESS, 167 p., 22 €

---

De l’œuvre proprement juridique du jeune Carl Schmitt, disons de celle d’avant 1933, nous possédons en français Théorie de la constitution (1928, PUF 1993), La valeur de l’État et la signification de l’individu (1914, Droz 2003), mais il nous manquait jusqu’aujourd’hui un petit ouvrage de 1912 intitulé Loi et jugement, qu’Olivier Beaud, dans sa préface à l’édition française de Théorie de la constitution, qualifie de « véritable recherche de théorie du droit abordant les questions les plus fondamentales ».

Carl Schmitt a vingt-trois ans en 1912 et ce qui fascine dans ce texte, de jeunesse mais déjà très maîtrisé, c’est, avec la rigueur du questionnement, le souci constant d’éviter l’amalgame, la confusion et le malentendu ; l’éclairage qu’il jette sur la notion de décision telle que l’entendra l’auteur de la Théologie politique tout au long de sa vie. Rééditant Gesetz und Urteil en 1969, Carl Schmitt met lui-même en perspective son travail, en souligne les enjeux pour la pratique du droit d’abord, et laisse entendre toutes les conséquences que « l’autonomie de la décision », qu’il cherche à dégager, peut avoir sur la doctrine de l’État et de la souveraineté. Et il prévient qu’une « polémique farouche » a voulu travestir sa conception de la décision en « un acte fantastique de l’arbitraire ». Nous voilà avertis : si nous voulons évaluer l’œuvre de Schmitt, nous ne pouvons pas nous priver de lire Loi et jugement, car s’y trouve le « sens originel » dans sa « simplicité » de ce que signifie décider.

Alors que fleurissent les doctrines du droit dans le monde germanique de l’époque, mais aussi dans l’ensemble de l’Europe, Schmitt s’intéresse à la pratique. Mais il ne va pas le faire en sociologue, sa confrontation avec Marx et Weber n’a pas encore eu lieu, encore moins en psychologue – sans cesse dans l’ouvrage, Schmitt cherche à se démarquer de la psychologie et en particulier de celle du juge –, mais en restant à l’intérieur du droit, cherchant à élaborer une sorte de théorie de la pratique du droit possédant – l’auteur tient à éviter le terme d’autonomie – un « critère autochtone » par rapport au théorique. Hans Kelsen, le père de la Théorie pure du droit, n’a encore publié en 1912 que ses Problèmes fondamentaux de la doctrine du droit constitutionnel, mais il représente déjà le positivisme normatif que Schmitt s’emploie à disqualifier.

Le point de départ est une question (bien entendu elle-même « décisive », puisqu’elle décide déjà de ce qu’est l’ordre juridique ; en même temps, comme le dit Schmitt dans son avant-propos, elle « est décidée » par la pratique) : « quand une décision judiciaire est-elle correcte ? ». Commence alors un extraordinaire cernement de la question qui rappelle la méthode débouchant sur la définition du critère, et donc de l’essence, pour Schmitt, du politique. Ce n’est ni le comment on décide, ni les statistiques de décisions correctes, ni les diverses opinions sur leur correction ; la question n’interroge pas non plus l’histoire de la pratique, ni l’évolution historique des idéaux, mais « le critère de rectitude qui est spécifique à la pratique du droit ».

Une fois ce que l’on recherche déterminé, Schmitt se livre à la réfutation de différentes thèses : celle de la rectitude d’une décision par sa « conformité à la loi » ou à la « volonté du législateur » qui au mieux transforme le jugement en opération logique (« logicisme de la justice ») de subsomption du cas particulier sous la norme générale, au pire réduit le juge à un « automate ». De ce point de vue, Schmitt se démarque aussi bien de l’herméneutique jurisprudentielle, identifiant interprétation correcte et décision correcte, que du mouvement connu sous le nom d’« école libre du droit » (Freirechtsschule) qui cherchait à élargir de manière extra-juridique (jugements moraux, culture) le concept de loi et de norme et auquel Schmitt reproche d’être incapable à la fin de dégager un critère de rectitude autre que celui du normativisme juridique (la conformité à la loi).

Pour découvrir ce critère de rectitude spécifique, il faut d’abord bien distinguer la doctrine du droit et la pratique du droit, ce que Schmitt appelle sa « détermination » (Rechtsbestimmtheit ; à ce point central du texte, le traducteur fait opportunément remarquer que le terme de Besttimmtheit vient de la logique de Hegel, mais il ne va pas malheureusement plus loin dans son commentaire), autrement dit le moment où le juge statue sur un cas, dit le droit (iurisdictio ou iurisfactio), énonce, en le créant ainsi dans sa détermination hic et nunc, le to dikaion (le juste). Le résultat de cette opération ne peut être déduit, son caractère aléatoire et risqué ne peut être effacé. La motivation du jugement ne peut se superposer parfaitement à la décision. La pratique découvre là son autonomie, le droit statué n’existe pas avant le jugement, comme une pure et simple application. Il est produit. Ce qui ne fait pas pour autant du juge un législateur.

À la fin, quel est ce critère de rectitude appartenant de « manière autochtone à la pratique du droit » ? Une décision judiciaire est correcte si « l’on peut admettre qu’un autre juge aurait décidé de la même manière ». C’est ici que le décisionnisme du jeune Schmitt, mais il nous a prévenus que la polémique ultérieure avait défiguré son concept, doit devenir l’objet de toutes les attentions. Invoquer « l’autre juge », c’est introduire une collégialité, la position collective de gens de métier ; au-delà, c’est faire appel à une sorte de sensus judiciarii d’une société, d’une époque, bref, c’est réintroduire l’histoire et la sociologie, là où pourtant Schmitt voulait les écarter.

Mais introduire le tiers, c’est aussi consacrer un mouvement constant dans l’histoire moderne du droit, celui de la hiérarchisation des juridictions et de la complexité des relations entre les différentes cours. Surtout, en appeler à « l’autre juge » consiste à circonscrire le jugement dans la « prévisibilité » et la « calculabilité », même dans le cas où un jugement serait rendu contra legem. Ceux qui ont lu Derrida, et le Derrida lecteur de Schmitt pour qui l’expression schmittienne de « décision calculable » serait un oxymore, seront surpris par cette reprise (en main ?) soudaine du concept de décision, tout à coup arraché à l’indétermination (et pour cause puisque Schmitt parle de « détermination du droit ») au risque, au saut, à l’incommensurabilité des motifs et de l’acte de jugement. Mais on comprend que tous ces points qui caractérisent la rectitude de la décision autorisent Schmitt à penser qu’ainsi il échappe au « fantastique de l’arbitraire ».

L’auteur d’Ex captivitate salus ne réécrit pas en 1969 son texte de 1912 sous le coup de la querelle. Encore une fois, il nous indique que sa réflexion sur l’autonomie de la décision n’est pas restée sans conséquences sur la définition de la souveraineté étatique. En 1912, il cherche à isoler le propre de la pratique correcte du droit et veut en discerner le critère déterminant, et l’on découvre que ce n’est pas tant la décision qui l’intéresse que la mise au jour du degré d’autochtonie de la pratique du droit par rapport à la doctrine, et la définition de ce qu’est l’ordre juridique.

Peut-on affirmer que Schmitt, pour le politique, va suivre le même cheminement, guidé par la même préoccupation ? Répondre à cette question permettrait, non pas d’oublier son engagement nazi, mais de savoir si nous pouvons conserver la recherche du critère du politique (sans conserver la différence ami/ennemi) sans forcément se focaliser sur la souveraineté (est souverain celui qui décide) mais au contraire, comme semble s’y essayer en ce moment même Bruno Latour, sur l’autonomie de la pratique politique.

R. R. Reno’s Return of the Strong Gods

By Quintilian

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

R. R. Reno
Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the West
Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 2019

Most of the people who come to the Dissident Right do so in spite of the Dissident Right. It is a common experience for those who become red-pilled to discover that the hatred they have experienced from the Establishment for the “sins” of being white or heterosexual or male is matched in vehemence by the hatred exhibited by many on the Dissident Right for those whose “sins” consist of having been born between the years of 1946 and 1964 or for being believing Christians. I know that there are many “silent” members of the Dissident Right whose views are not even expressed anonymously, but who have decided to remained cloistered—not out of fear of being doxxed—but out of a desire to limit the explicit hatred they endure to that from just those whose politics they oppose.[1] ^[2]

I have argued in these pages and elsewhere that the Dissident Right only exists as an intellectual movement. It has been, and continues to be, completely bereft of any political leadership. Indeed, before it can even begin to entertain the idea of engaging in real political activity, the Dissident Right must learn how to educate and persuade white people of the rightness of our cause. This will involve engagement with caucasians of all stripes, including Baby Boomers and Christians.[2] ^[3]

R. R. Reno’s Return of the Strong Gods: Nationalism, Populism, and the Future of the West is an important book and one that needs to be taken very seriously by the Dissident Right. The author demonstrates that the origin of our current situation is much more complex than that put forward by the standard Dissident Right narrative. Furthermore, he presents a critique of laissez-faire capitalism, globalism, and radical individualism from a Christian standpoint that is as withering as anything emanating from the pagan Dissident Right.

Reno is a former Episcopalian who converted to Catholicism. He received a doctorate in theology from Yale and taught theology at Creighton University for twenty years. Currently, he is the editor of the Catholic journal First Things, which is gradually coming over to an editorial stance that is receptive to many of the ideas of the Dissident Right.

Reno’s thesis is that the generation that experienced the horrors of World War II came through that conflict with an understandable desire to prevent such a cataclysm from ever occurring again. With the best of intentions, they created a postwar consensus that sought to downplay what Reno calls the “strong gods,” that is, “the objects of men’s love and devotion, the sources of the passions and loyalties that unite societies” (p. xii). This movement was heavily influenced by Karl Popper’s book The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)—a book that was an expansion upon Max Weber’s concept of “disenchantment”—in which Popper argued that to avoid another world war it was necessary to “open up” society by emphasizing the individual over group solidarity. As Reno explains it, this can be summarized as the abandonment of the “strong god” of truth for the “weak god” of meaning. In Dissident Right terms, we would most likely refer to this shift as the abandonment of the biological imperative for the caprices of self-actualization.

The proponents of the postwar consensus believed that they were creating a post-ideological polity, one based entirely on the empirical results of social science research. Reno acknowledges that Popper himself was aware of the paradox that his position creates an ideology that is ultimately inflexible and hostile to dissent:

As Popper makes clear, pragmatism in politics—the end of strong truth-claims in public life—produces paradoxically powerful political and cultural imperatives. It requires denying principled political arguments and policies. Championing authenticity in personal life demands rejecting the authority of traditional moral norms. (p. 13, italics in original)

Reno then shows that the influence of two other books, Friedrich Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom (1944) and T. W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s The Authoritarian Personality (1950) contributed heavily to the process of “weakening” and “disenchantment” that has brought Western Civilization to its current predicament. In the former book, man is reduced by laissez-faire capitalism to the status of an atomized economic unit in which economic rights and individual economic freedom obviate the need for moral normativity. In the latter book by the two doyens of the Frankfurt School, any type of patriarchal family is a breeding ground for fascism and must be opposed.

While the pagan Dissident Right often talks about the Faustian nature of the white race (and very correctly, I believe) in which exploration, creativity, and an aristocratic disdain for the quotidian predominate, and in which the pursuit of truth and excellence results in an acknowledgement and celebration of true difference, Reno rephrases this pursuit of truth and excellence as the search for the transcendent. Here is an important nexus between the pagan and the Christian Dissident Right. Whether one aspires to the condition of the Übermensch or to eternal salvation, the Dissident Right is ultimately concerned with something beyond the self. The individual is not an atomized economic unit, and identity is not endlessly malleable.

In the very excellent chapter entitled “Therapies of Disenchantment,” Reno explains that postwar educators sought to keep the traditions of Western Civilization and liberal education but to reduce their authority by “shifting from truth to meaning, from conviction to critical questioning” (p. 38, italics in original). As Reno quotes from The Open Society, Popper states:

If in this book harsh words are spoken about some of the greatest among the intellectual leaders of mankind, my motive is not, I hope, the wish to belittle them. It springs rather from my conviction that if we wish our civilization to survive we must break from the habit of deference to great men. (p. 39)

Of course, if there is no authority, and education is no longer a pursuit of truth, but is rather a process of critique, what is the goal of all of this? As Reno explains, the goal is the production of “meaning,” that is, to deny truth and to demonstrate that institutions, ideas, works of art, and historical events are products of economic, racial, social, and cultural conditions and have no intrinsic merit. For example, Mozart’s 40th Symphony is not one of the greatest instrumental works in Western history; it is, instead, a product of a class-ridden, racist, and misogynistic society in which similarly great symphonies by female, non-cisgendered, and persons of color were not allowed to be composed. By this logic, anything that attracts our interest, our admiration, and our loyalty must be “problematized” so that the process of disenchantment can never be abated. The Cold War mitigated to a certain extent the ever-downward course of this process of disenchantment; however, as the author points out, once begun, the weakening forces of disenchantment “tended toward pure negation, leaving us a utopian dream of politics without transcendence, peace without unity, and justice without virtue” (p. 75).

The tragedy of liberalism as described by Reno is its “smallness,” its rejection of greatness and transcendence, its celebration of diversity without difference, its abhorrence of any form of discrimination including discriminating taste. As the author so eloquently phrases it:

A society lives on answers, not merely questions. The political and cultural crisis of the West today is the result of our refusal—perhaps incapacity—to honor the strong gods that stiffen the spine and inspire loyalty. (p. 95)

What then, is to be done? According to Reno, what will not work is “never-ending critique, the spontaneous order of the free market, technocratic management of utilities, and other therapies of weakening” (p. 140), because “the actual problems we face—atomization, dissolving communal bonds, disintegrating family ties, and a nihilistic culture of limitless self-definition—go unaddressed” (p. 144). Reno proposes:

• Greater economic solidarity between labor and capital
• Strong families
• An educational system based on truth instead of critique
• Return to a belief in the transcendent
• A respect for communities of identity

Reno is not completely red-pilled. He is still too much of a civic nationalist for my taste, but his intellectual evolution has been remarkable, especially for one who only four years ago was a never-Trumper. His book strengthens and gives greater insight into the standard Dissident Right narrative of how we got to the current year. He explains the intellectual history of the postwar era in a way that is accessible and appealing to intelligent normies and can help to move them ever so closer to our side. And for that he deserves our praise and gratitude.

Notes

[1] ^[4] For instance, a friend of mine — who is a DBB (Dreaded Baby Boomer), an evangelical Christian, and a high-ranking official in my state’s GOP, and who has no idea of my involvement in the Dissident Right — last year attempted to red pill me and gave me a list of websites I should peruse, one of which was Counter-Currents. My friend even goes to the trouble of using anonymous means of contributing to a number of Dissident Right entities, a wise idea given her position. She does express some trepidation about the Dissident Right’s hostility to Christianity, but takes it in stride as just one more cross to bear. Wouldn’t it be nice, though, if the Dissident Right actually created a welcoming environment for those who share our beliefs?

[2] ^[5] The Charlottesville incident has had the salutary effect of eliminating or marginalizing the influence on the Dissident Right of the SS-wannabes with mother-in-law fetishes, the vulgarians with daddy issues, and the upper-class twits with trust funds. As the eminent blogger The Z-Man so eloquently put it in a recent podcast: “No one is going to buy Richard Spencer 2.0.” All of this has allowed gifted communicators for the cause of Caucasians to come to the fore — including No White Guilt, The Great Order, and the Z-Man himself among others — who are not overtly hostile to white Baby Boomers (whose votes and $7 trillion in assets could prove to be very useful in the coming struggle) and white Christians (who engage in the type of family formation that is essential for the survival of the white race).

 

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: https://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: https://www.counter-currents.com/2020/01/r-r-renos-return-of-the-strong-gods/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/StrongGods.jpg

[2] [1]: #_edn1

[3] [2]: #_edn2

[4] [1]: #_ednref1

[5] [2]: #_ednref2

Guy Debord et la médiocrité postmoderne

Les Carnets de Nicolas Bonnal

Ex: http://www.dedefensa.org  

Le pouvoir socialiste-mondialiste a honteusement, répétitivement tenté de récupérer ou de diaboliser Guy Debord (méprisant, macho, nostalgique…), mais le message du maître des rebelles demeure puissant et dur. On ne saurait trop recommander la vision du film In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni (superbe titre palindrome), qui va plus loin que la Société du Spectacle, étant moins marxiste et plus guénonien en quelque sorte (le monde moderne comme hallucination industrielle et collective). Le virage élitiste et ésotérique de ce marxisme pointu défait par la médiocrité du progrès nous a toujours étonnés et enchantés. Georges Sorel en parlait dès 1890 dans ses Illusions du progrès :

« La grande erreur de Marx a été de ne pas se rendre compte du pouvoir énorme qui appartient à la médiocrité dans l'histoire ; il ne s'est pas douté que le sentiment socialiste (tel qu'il le concevait) est extrêmement artificiel ; aujourd'hui, nous assistons à une crise qui menace de ruiner tous les mouvements qui ont pu être rattachés idéologiquement au marxisme… »

Debord tape sur cette classe moyenne dont nous faisons partie et dont certains font mine de regretter la disparition alors qu’elle pullule partout, à Téhéran, Macao comme à Moscou !… Je le répète, Guy Debord n’est pas moins dur que René Guénon sur cette classe dite moyenne/médiocre et petite-bourgeoise dont le sadisme des représentants s’exprime aujourd’hui par la guerre (Venezuela, Syrie, Libye en attendant mieux) et la répression sociale la plus brute (les gilets jaunes) :

« …ce public si parfaitement privé de liberté, et qui a tout supporté, mérite moins que tout autre d’être ménagé. Les manipulateurs de la publicité, avec le cynisme traditionnel de ceux qui savent que les gens sont portés à justifier les affronts dont ils ne se vengent pas, lui annoncent aujourd’hui tranquillement que « quand on aime la vie, on va au cinéma ». 

Puis de dénoncer les cinéphiles alors omniprésents et les amateurs de cinéma, tous socialement « agents spécialisés des services » :

« Le public de cinéma, qui n’a jamais été très bourgeois et qui n’est presque plus populaire, est désormais presque entièrement recruté dans une seule couche sociale, du reste devenue large : celle des petits agents spécialisés dans les divers emplois de ces « services » dont le système productif actuel a si impérieusement besoin : gestion, contrôle, entretien, recherche, enseignement, propagande, amusement et pseudo-critique. C’est là suffisamment dire ce qu’ils sont. Il faut compter aussi, bien sûr, dans ce public qui va encore au cinéma, la même espèce quand, plus jeune, elle n’en est qu’au stade d’un apprentissage sommaire de ces diverses tâches d’encadrement. »

Et après notre antisystème radical se déchaîne sur ces bobos de la première génération (voyez l’Amour l’après-midi d’Eric Rohmer, qui en dressait un portrait acide) :

« Ce sont des salariés pauvres qui se croient des propriétaires, des ignorants mystifiés qui se croient instruits, et des morts qui croient voter.

Certains diront que Debord exagère (l’attaque universitaire se développe)... Ce n’est pas notre cas, et ce n’est pas une raison pour ne pas le relire :

« Comme le mode de production moderne les a durement traités ! De progrès en promotions, ils ont perdu le peu qu’ils avaient, et gagné ce dont personne ne voulait. Ils collectionnent les misères et les humiliations de tous les systèmes d’exploitation du passé ; ils n’en ignorent que la révolte. Ils ressemblent beaucoup aux esclaves, parce qu’ils sont parqués en masse, et à l’étroit, dans de mauvaises bâtisses malsaines et lugubres ; mal nourris d’une alimentation polluée et sans goût ; mal soignés dans leurs maladies toujours renouvelées ; continuellement et mesquinement surveillés ; entretenus dans l’analphabétisme modernisé et les superstitions spectaculaires qui correspondent aux intérêts de leurs maîtres. »

On parle de grand remplacement. Comme je l’ai montré avec Don Siegel et ses gentils profanateurs, il s’agit surtout d’un remplacement moral et spirituel. Mais il y a aussi le grand déplacement, qui ne date pas d’hier (voyez mon texte sur Baudelaire et la conspiration géographique). Dans n’importe quel bled la moitié des gens viennent d’ailleurs. Debord :

« Ils sont transplantés loin de leurs provinces ou de leurs quartiers, dans un paysage nouveau et hostile, suivant les convenances concentrationnaires de l’industrie présente. Ils ne sont que des chiffres dans des graphiques que dressent des imbéciles. »

Debord, qui évoque aussi le grand remplacement du vieux peuple rebelle parisien, écrit ensuite sur nos pandémies (on est dans les années 70, quand seize mille Français meurent par an sur les routes) :

« Ils meurent par séries sur les routes, à chaque épidémie de grippe, à chaque vague de chaleur, à chaque erreur de ceux qui falsifient leurs aliments, à chaque innovation technique profitable aux multiples entrepreneurs d’un décor dont ils essuient les plâtres. Leurs éprouvantes conditions d’existence entraînent leur dégénérescence physique, intellectuelle, mentale. »

Debord explique pourquoi Paris est la ville qui dort de Georges Pérec :

« On n’en avait pas encore chassé et dispersé les habitants. Il y restait un peuple, qui avait dix fois barricadé ses rues et mis en fuite ses rois. C’était un peuple qui ne se payait pas d’images. »

Debord qui se réclame des cinéastes Raoul Walsh et de Marcel Carné (il aime le général Custer, le Lacenaire des Enfants du Paradis, le Jules Berry des Visiteurs…) ajoute :

« Paris n’existe plus. La destruction de Paris n’est qu’une illustration exemplaire de la mortelle maladie qui emporte en ce moment toutes les grandes villes, et cette maladie n’est elle-même qu’un des nombreux symptômes de la décadence matérielle d’une société. Mais Paris avait plus à perdre qu’aucune autre. C’est une grande chance que d’avoir été jeune dans cette ville quand, pour la dernière fois, elle a brillé d’un feu si intense. » 

Le feu pourtant se porte bien, et les sponsors qui vont restructurer cette mégapole nécrosée aussi. Passons.

Conditionné par sa consommation et la propagande, le néo-citoyen adore sa servitude. Debord évoque ici les grandes pages de Céline (voyez mon livre) sur le conditionnement médiatique :

« On leur parle toujours comme à des enfants obéissants, à qui il suffit de dire : « il faut », et ils veulent bien le croire. Mais surtout on les traite comme des enfants stupides, devant qui bafouillent et délirent des dizaines de spécialisations paternalistes, improvisées de la veille, leur faisant admettre n’importe quoi en le leur disant n’importe comment ; et aussi bien le contraire le lendemain. »

Tocqueville annonçait que le monde du citoyen démocratique se limiterait à sa famille :

 « Chacun d’eux, retiré à l’écart, est comme étranger à la destinée de tous les autres : ses enfants et ses amis particuliers forment pour lui toute l’espèce humaine ; quant au demeurant de ses concitoyens, il est à côté d’eux, mais il ne les voit pas ; il les touche et ne les sent point ; il n’existe qu’en lui-même et pour lui seul, et, s’il lui reste encore une famille, on peut dire du moins qu’il n’a plus de patrie. »

 Cette page est tournée. La famille a été passée à la moulinette comme le reste, et Debord l’a parfaitement compris dès les années soixante-dix, quand le néocapitalisme devenu « société liquide » de Bauman liquide tout, c’est le cas de le dire :

« Séparés entre eux par la perte générale de tout langage adéquat aux faits, perte qui leur interdit le moindre dialogue ; séparés par leur incessante concurrence, toujours pressée par le fouet, dans la consommation ostentatoire du néant, et donc séparés par l’envie la moins fondée et la moins capable de trouver quelque satisfaction, ils sont même séparés de leur propres enfants, naguère encore la seule propriété de ceux qui n’ont rien. On leur enlève, en bas âge, le contrôle de ces enfants, déjà leurs rivaux, qui n’écoutent plus du tout les opinions informes de leurs parents, et sourient de leur échec flagrant ; méprisent non sans raison leur origine, et se sentent bien davantage les fils du spectacle régnant que de ceux de ses domestiques qui les ont par hasard engendrés : ils se rêvent les métis de ces nègres-là. »

La facticité/frugalité a gagné tous les domaines de la vie postmoderne et ce qui avait été accordé/promis par peur du communisme et durant l’existence de l’U.R.S.S a vite été confisqué. Comme disait Bourdieu, on restaure. Et on revient donc aux temps bénis de la première révolution industrielle quand une poignée de lords, de financiers et d’industriels détient tout le pactole. Le reste a intérêt à se terrer et à se taire.

J’évoque souvent le problème du logement qui m’a contraint à l’exil. Debord en parle souvent et il cite le jeune Marx. D’un ton magnifique et eschatologique, Marx écrit à la même époque que Tocqueville sur ce logement devenu impossible :

« Même le besoin de grand air cesse d'être un besoin pour l'ouvrier; l'homme retourne à sa tanière, mais elle est maintenant empestée par le souffle pestilentiel et méphitique de la civilisation et il ne l'habite plus que d'une façon précaire, comme une puissance étrangère qui peut chaque jour se dérober à lui, dont il peut chaque jour être expulsé s'il ne paie pas. Cette maison de mort, il faut qu'il la paie. »

Avis à ceux paient partout quarante euros du mètre pour « se loger ». Après, et sans évoquer nos épatantes statistiques modernes, Debord ajoute :

« Derrière la façade du ravissement simulé, dans ces couples comme entre eux et leur progéniture, on n’échange que des regards de haine. »

Une vie de serf en circuit attend nos yuppies :

« Cependant, ces travailleurs privilégiés de la société marchande accomplie ne ressemblent pas aux esclaves en ce sens qu’ils doivent pourvoir eux-mêmes à leur entretien. Leur statut peut être plutôt comparé au servage, parce qu’ils sont exclusivement attachés à une entreprise et à sa bonne marche, quoique sans réciprocité en leur faveur, et surtout parce qu’ils sont étroitement astreints à résider dans un espace unique, le même circuit des domiciles, bureaux, autoroutes, vacances et aéroports toujours identiques. »

On manque d’argent ? Rien de nouveau sous le sommeil :

« Mais où pourtant leur situation économique s’apparente plus précisément au système particulier du péonage, c’est en ceci que, cet argent autour duquel tourne toute leur activité, on ne leur en laisse même plus le maniement momentané. Ils ne peuvent évidemment que le dépenser, le recevant en trop petite quantité pour l’accumuler, mais ils se voient en fin de compte obligés de consommer à crédit, et l’on retient sur leur salaire le crédit qui leur est consenti, dont ils auront à se libérer en travaillant encore. »

Et après, on rationne :

« Comme toute l’organisation de la distribution des biens est liée à celle de la production et de l’État, on rogne sans gêne sur toute leur ration, de nourriture comme d’espace, en quantité et en qualité. Quoi que restant formellement des travailleurs et des consommateurs libres, ils ne peuvent s’adresser ailleurs, car c’est partout que l’on se moque d’eux. »

Puis Debord nuance à nouveau son propos (la litote est en général un trope ironique pour ce rare type d’esprit) :

« Je ne tomberai pas dans l’erreur simplificatrice d’identifier entièrement la condition de ces salariés du premier rang à des formes antérieures d’oppression socio-économique. Tout d’abord parce que, si l’on met de côté leur surplus de fausse conscience et leur participation double ou triple à l’achat des pacotilles désolantes qui recouvrent la presque totalité du marché, on voit bien qu’ils ne font que partager la triste vie de la grande masse des salariés d’aujourd’hui. »

Un clin d’œil aux petits enfants du tiers-monde dont la misère complexe depuis des lustres les micro-bourgeois humanitaires catho-modernisés :

« C’est d’ailleurs dans l’intention naïve de faire perdre de vue cette enrageante trivialité que beaucoup assurent qu’ils se sentent gênés de vivre parmi les délices alors que le dénuement accable des peuples lointains. » 

Uniquement lointains…

Et voici un passage stratégique : Guy Debord se demande où gît la nouveauté dans le sort de nos péons postmodernes ?

« Pour la première fois dans l’histoire, voilà des agents économiques hautement spécialisés qui, en dehors de leur travail, doivent faire tout eux-mêmes. Ils conduisent eux-mêmes leur voiture, et commencent à pomper eux-mêmes leur essence, ils font eux-mêmes leurs achats ou ce qu’ils appellent de la cuisine, ils se servent eux-mêmes dans les supermarchés comme dans ce qui a remplacé les wagons-restaurants. »

Une belle formule sur notre existence de zombi, renforcée depuis (fin médiatisée du sexe pour les jeunes, du travail, du logement, des voyages, de l’éducation ou des soins gratuits, etc.) :

« Notre époque n’en est pas encore venue à dépasser la famille, l’argent, la division du travail. Et pourtant, on peut dire que, pour ceux-là, déjà, la réalité effective s’en est presque entièrement dissoute dans la simple dépossession. Ceux qui n’avaient jamais eu de proie l’ont lâchée pour l’ombre. »

Debord reprend la thématique de l’illusion et de l’hallucination :

« Le caractère illusoire des richesses que prétend distribuer la société actuelle, s’il n’avait pas été reconnu en toutes les autres matières, serait suffisamment démontré par cette seule observation que c’est la première fois qu’un système de tyrannie entretient aussi mal ses familiers, ses experts, ses bouffons. Serviteurs surmenés du vide, le vide les gratifie en monnaie à son effigie. »

Une formule assassine :

« Autrement dit, c’est la première fois que des pauvres croient faire partie d’une élite économique malgré l’évidence contraire. »

Le pire est que nos générations d’hommes creux, pour reprendre le poème d’Eliot subrepticement cité dans Apocalypse now, ne laissent depuis longtemps rien derrière eux :

« Non seulement ils travaillent, ces malheureux spectateurs, mais personne ne travaille pour eux, et moins que personne les gens qu’ils paient, car leurs fournisseurs même se considèrent plutôt comme leurs contremaîtres, jugeant s’ils sont venus assez vaillamment au ramassage des ersatz qu’ils ont le devoir d’acheter. Rien ne saurait cacher l’usure véloce qui est intégrée dès la source, non seulement pour chaque objet matériel, mais jusque sur le plan juridique, dans leurs rares propriétés. De même qu’ils n’ont pas reçu d’héritage, ils n’en laisseront pas. »

On avait compris…

Sources

Guy Debord, In girum imus nocte et consumimur igni ; La Société du Spectacle…

René Guénon, Initiation et réalisation, spirituelle, XXVIII

Alexis de Tocqueville, De la Démocratie…, II, p.363

Georges Sorel, les Illusions du progrès, p.353

Marx, Manuscrits de 1844, p. 93