Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CONTENT S
What Is Philosophy ?
Sources Of Philosophy
The Comprehensive
The Idea ofGod
The Unconditional Imperative
Man
The World
Faith and Enlightenment
The History of Man
The Independent Philosopher
The Philosophical Life
The History of Philosophy
APPENDICES
Philosophy and Science
On Reading Philosophy
Bibliograp hy
Index
WAY T O WI S D O M
doubt,we are far more advanced than Hippocrat
the Greek physician . But we are scarcely entitledsay that we have progressedonly advanced beyond his materials
,beyond
scientific findings ofwhich he made use . In philosoitselfwe have scarcely regained his level .It lies in the very nature Of philosophy, as
tinguished from the sciences, that in any Of its formust dispense with the unanimous recognitionThe certainty to which it aspires is not Of the Objscientific sort
,which is the same for every mind ;
inner certainty in which a man ’ s whole beipates . Whereas science always pertains toObjects
,the knowledge Ofwhich is by no means
pensable to all men,philosophy deals with the
of being,which concerns man as man
,with a
which,wherever it is manifested
,moves us mor
deeply than any scientific knowledge .Systematic philosophy is indeed bound up with th '
sciences . It always reckons with the most advancecscientific findings Of its time . But essentially philosophSprings from a different source . It emerges before an“
science,wherever men achieve awareness .
The existence of such a philosophy without science i
revealed in several striking ways :First : In philosophical matters almost everyon
'
believes himself capable of judgment . Whereas it irecognized that in the sciences study
,training
,methoc
are indispensable to understanding,in philosophy me!
generally assume that they are competent to form a!Opinion without prelim inary study . Our OW!
8
WH A T I S P H I L O S O P H Y ?
manity,our own destiny, our own experience strike
as a sufficient basis for philosophical opinions .notion that philosophy must be accessible to all
ustified. The circuitous paths travelled by specialistsphi losophy have meaning only if they lead man toawareness of being and Of his place in it .Second : Philosophical thought must always spring
‘Om free creation . Every man must accomplish it forimself .
A marvellous indication of man ’ s innate disposition3 philosophy is to be found in the questions asked byhildren . It is not uncommon to hear from the mouthsf children words which penetrate to the very depthsf philosophy. A few examples :A child cries out in wonderment, I keep trying tohink that I am somebody else
,but I ’m
,always myself.”
T
his boy has touched on one of the universal sources Ofertainty , awareness of being through awareness ofelf. He is perplexed at the mystery of his I
,this
oystery that can be apprehended through nothinglse . ! uestioningly, he stands before this ultimateeality .
Another boy hears the story Of the Creation : In thebeginning God made heaven and earth andmmediately asks , What was before the beginning ? ”
(”
his child has sensed that there is no end to questionng, that there is no stopping place for the mind, that[0 conclusive answer is possible .
A little girl out walking in the woods with her fatheristens to his stories about the elves that dance in thelearings at night
“ But there are no elvesIer father shifts over to realities
,describes the motion
9
WAY T O WI S D O M
doubt,we are far more advanced than Hippocrat
the Greek physician . But we are scarcely entitledsay that we have progressed beyond Plato . We haonly advanced beyond his materials
,beyond t
scientific findings ofwhich he made use . In philosopitselfwe have scarcely regained his level .It lies in the very nature Of philosophy
,as di
tinguished from the sciences, that in any of its formsmust dispense with the unanimous recognition Of aThe certainty to which it aspires is not of the objectivscientific sort
,which is the same for every mind ; it is
inner certainty in which a man ’ s whole being partiepates . Whereas science always pertains to particulobjects
,the knowledge of which is by no means indi
pensable to all men,philosophy deals with the whol
Of being,which concerns man as man
,with a trut
which,wherever it is manifested
,moves us mor‘
deeply than any scientific knowledge .
Systematic philosophy is indeed bound up with th '
sciences . It always reckons with the most advance :scientific findings Ofits time . But essentially philosophsprings from a different source . It emerges before an‘
science,wherever men achieve awareness .
The existence of such a philosophy without science irevealed in several striking ways :First : In philosophical matters almost everyon.
believes himself capable Of judgment . Whereas it irecognized that in the sciences study, training, metho (are indispensable to understanding, in philosophy me!
generally assume that they are competent to form a!Opinion without prelim inary study . Our OW!
8
WHA T I S P H I L O S O P H Y ?
manity, our own destiny, our own experience strike
as a sufficient basis for philosophical Opinions .notion that philosophy must be accessible to all
ustified. The circuitous paths travelled by specialistsphi losophy have meaning only if they lead man toawareness of being and of his place in it .
d : Philosophical thought must always springfree creation . Every man must accomplish it for
mself.
A marvellous indication Of man ’ s innate dispositionphilosophy is to be found in the questions asked byildren . I t is not uncommon to hear from the mouthschildren words which penetrate to the very depthsphilosophy. A few examples :
out in wonderment, I keep trying tosomebody else
,but I ’m
,always myself.”
boy has touched on one of the universal sources ofinty , awareness Of being through awareness OfHe is perplexed at the mystery Of his I , thisery that can be apprehended through nothing
! uestioningly, he stands before this ultimate
Another boy hears the story Of the Creation : In thebeginning God made heaven and earth andimmediately asks
, Wh at was before the beginning ?This child has sensed that there is no end to questioning
,that there is no stopping place for the mind
,that
no conclusive answer is possible .
A little girl out walking in the woods with her fatherlistens to his stories about the elves that dance in theclearings at night “ But there are no elvesHer father shifts over to realities
,describes the motion
9
WA Y T O _WI S D O M
of the sun,discusses the question of whether it is
sun or the earth that revolves,and explains the reas
for supposing that the earth is roundaxis “ Oh
,that isn ’ t so
,
” says the little girlstamps her foot . The earth stands still . I only be!what I see .
” “ Then,
” says her father,“
you dbelieve in God, you can
’ t see Him either . The 1girl is puzzled for a moment
,but then says with g
assurance,If there weren ’ t any God
,we wouldn ’ t
here at all . This child was seized with the wonderexistence : things do not exist through themselves . Anshe understood that there is a difference betwee
questions bearing on particular Objects in the worland those bearing on our existence as a whole .
Another little girl is climbing the stairs on hervisit her aunt . She begins to reflect on howchanges
,flows
,passes , as though it had n
“ But there must be something thatsame I
’
m climbing these stairs on mymy aunt—that ’ s something I ’ ll never forget .ment and terror at the universal transience Of thinghere seek a forlorn evasion .
Anyone who chose to collect these stories mighcompile a rich store Of children ’ s philosophy. It isometimes said that the children must have heardthis from their parents or someone else
,but such
objection Obviously does not apply to the child ’ s reserious questions . To argue that these children docontinue to philosophize and that consequently sutterances must be accidental is to overlook thethat children Often possess gifts which they lose asgrow up . With the years we seem to
IO
W H A T rs E H I L O S O P H Y ?
conventions and opinions, concealments and un
estioned acceptance, and there we lose the candour ofThe child still reacts spontaneously to theOf life ; the child feels and sees and inquireswhich soon disappear from his vision . Het for a moment was revealed to him and iswhen grownups later tell him what he saidquestions he asked .
Spontaneous philosophy is found not only indren but also in the insane . Sometimes— rarelyveils of universal occlusion seem to part andetrating truths are manifested . The beginning of
rtain mental disorders is Often distinguished byattering metaphysical revelations , though they areually formulated in terms that cannot achieveficance : exceptions are such cases as HOlderlin andGogh . But anyone witnessing these revelationsot help feeling that the mists in which we ordinlive our lives have been torn asunder . And manypeople have
,in awaking from sleep
,experienced
gely revealing insights which vanish with fullwakefulness, leaving behind them only the im
pression that they can never be recaptured . There is
profound meaning in the saying that children and foolstell the truth . But the creative originality to which weowe great philosophical ideas is not to be sought herebut among those great m inds— and in all history therehave been only a few Of them—who preserve theircandour and independence .
‘
Fourth : Since man cannot‘
avoid philosophy,it is
always present : in the proverbs handed down bytradition, in popular philosophical phrases , in dominant
I I
WAY T O W I S D O M
convictions such as are embodied in the idiom Of“ emancipated
,in political Opinions
,but most of
since the very beginnings ofhistory,in myths . There
no escape from philosophy . The question is on
whether a philosophy is conscious or not, whether itgood or bad
,muddled or clear. Anyone who rejec
philosophy is him self unconsciously practisingphilosophy .
What then is this philosophy,which manifests itse
so universally and in such strange forms ?
The Greek word for philosopher (philosophas) connotes a distinction from sophos . I t signifies the lover Owisdom (knowledge) as distinguished from himconsiders himself wise in the possession of kThis meaning Of the word still endures : the essence
philosophy is not the possession of truth but the searfor truth
,regardless of how many philosophers m
belie it with their dogmatism,that is
,with a body
didactic principles purporting to be definitive acomp lete . Philosophy means to be on the way .
questions are more essential than its answers,and cv
answer becomes a new question .
But this on- the-wayness—man’ s destiny in
contains within it the possibility o f deep satisand indeed
,in exalted moments
,Of perfection . This
perfection never resides in formulable knowledge, indogmas and articles of faith
,but in a historical con
summation Of man ’ s essence in which being itself isrevealed . To apprehend this reality in man
’ s actualsituation is the aim Ofphilosophical endeavour .TO be searchingly on the way, or to find peace and
12
WAY T O W I S D O M
ofreason in the presence of failure and in the preseof that which seems alien to it .Philosophy is the principle Of concentration throng
which man becomes himself,by partaking of reality .
Although philosophy,in the form of simple, stirri
ideas , can move every man and even children,scious elaboration is never complete
,must for
undertaken anew and must at all times beas a living whole—it is manifestedgreat philosophers and echoed in thesophers . It is a task which man will face in one formanother as long as he remains man .
Today,and not for the first time
,philosophy i
radically attacked and totally rejected as superfiuouor harmful . What is the good of it ? It does not help uin affliction .
Authoritarian church thought has condemne
independent philosophy on the ground that it isworldly temptation which leads man away fromdestroys his soul with vain preoccupations . Poltotalitarianism has attacked it on the groundphilosophers have merely interpreted the worlvarious ways, when the important thing was to chit . Both these schools Of thought regardas dangerous, for it undermined order, promspirit of independence
,hence of revolt
,delude
and distracted him from his practical tasks . Thouphold another world illumined by a revealedthose who stand for the exclusive power of ahere and now would equally wish to extphilosophy .
14
W H A T I S P H I L O S O P H Y ?
d everyday common sense clamours for the simpletick of utility
,measured by which philosophy
Thales,who is regarded as the first ofGreek
osophers, was ridiculed by a slave girl who saw himinto a well while observing the sky. Why does hech the remote heavens when he is so awkward inngs with the things Of this world ?
philosophy then justify itself? That is imIt cannot justify itself on the basis of a somee for which it is useful . I t can only appeal to theevery man which drive him toward philohought . I t is a disinterested pursuit, to whichOf utility or injuriousness have no relevance
,
endeavour proper to man as man,and it will con
ue to fulfil this striving as long as there are men alive .
en those groups which are hostile to it cannot helptheir own peculiar ideas and bringing forth
pragmatic systems which are a substitute for philo;ophy , though subservient to a desired end— such as
Marxism or fascism . The existence of even theseiystems shows how indispensable philosophy is to man .
Philosophy is always with us .Philosophy cannot fight, it cannot prove its truth,
but it can communicate itself. I t offers no resistancewhere it is rejected, it does not triumph where it gainsa hearing . It Is a living exp ression of the basic universality of man, of the bond between all men .
Great systematic philosophies have existed for twoand one-half millennia in the West, in China, and inIndia . A great tradition beckons to us . Despite thewide variety of philosophical thought, despite all thecontradictions and mutually exclusive claims to truth
,
15
WAY T O W I S D O M
re is in all philosophy a One,which no m
ssesses but about which all serious efforts have ates gravitated : the one eternal phi losophy,losophiaperennis. We must seek this historical foun Of our thinking if we would think clearlyaningfully .
WAY T O W I S D O M
about the greater matters,e .g . ,
aboutof the moon
,and those Of the sun
,and of the stars,
about the genesis of the universe .”
Wonder impels man to seek knowledge . Inwonderment I become aware of my lack Of knowledI seek knowledge, but for its own sake and not
satisfy any common need .
”
In philosophical thought man awakens frombondage to practical needs . Without ulterior purphe contemplates things
,the heavens ,
asks,what is all this ? Where does it come
the answers to his questions he expects no profit butintrinsic satisfaction .
Second : Once I have satisfied my wonderment anadmiration by knowledge of what is
, doubt arises .have heaped up insights
,but upon critical examinatio
nothing is certain . Sensory perceptions are conditioneby our sense organs and hence deceptive ; in any eventthey do not coincide with what exists in itself outsideme
,independently of my perception . Our categories
are those of our human understanding . They becomeentangled in hopeless contradictions . Everywhereproposition stands against proposition . In my philoso
phical progress I Seize upon doubt and attempt toapply it radically to everything
,either taking pleasure
in the sceptical negation which recognizes nothing butby itselfcannot take a single step forward
,or inquiring
Where then is there a certainty that rises above alldoubt and withstands all critique ?
Descartes ’ famous proposition,
“ I think,therefore
I am,
” was for him a solid certainty,though he
doubted every thing else . For even a total fallacy in my18
S O U R C E S O F P H I L O S O P H Y
nking, a fallacy which may be beyond my undernding
,cannot blind me to the realization that inbe deluded in my thinking I must be.
al doubt gives rise to a critical examinaknowledge
,and without radical doubt
e no true philosophical thought . But thequestion is : How and where has a foundationtainty been gained through doubt itself?third : While I concentrate my energies uponowledge of things in the world, while I amd in doubt as a road to certainty
,I am im
sed in things ; I do not think ofmyself, ofmy aims,happiness
,my salvation . In forgetfulness of my
elf I am content with the attainment of this knowedge .
This changes when I become aware of myself in myituation .
The Stoic Epictetus said,Philosophy arises when
we become aware of our own weakness and helplessness.
”
How Shall I help myself in my weakness ? His answerwas : By looking upon everything that is not withinmy power as necessary and indifferent to me
,but by
raising what does depend on me,namely the mode
and content Of my ideas, to clarity and freedom bythought .
And now let us take a look at our human state . Weare always in situations . Situations change, opportunities arise . If they are m issed they never return . Imyself can work to change the Situation . But thereare situations which remain essentially the same evenif their momentary aspect changes and their shattering
19
WAY T O W I S D O M
force is obscured : I must die, I must suffer,s truggle
,I am subject to chance
,I involve
inexorably in guilt . We call these fundamentations of our existence ultimate situations . ! That issay , they are situations which we cannot evadechange . Along with wonder and doubt, awarenof these ultimate situations is the mostsource of philosophy. In our day-to-day liveevade them
,by closing our eyes and living
did not exist . We forget that we must die,guilt
,and forget that we are at the mercy of chance .
We face only concrete situations and master them toour profit, we react to them by planning and acting inthe world
,under the impulsion Of our practical
interests . But to ultimate situations we react either byObfuscation or
,if we really apprehend them
,by
despair and rebirth : we become ourselves by a changein our consciousness of being.
Or we may define our human situation by sayingthat no reliance can beplaced inworldly existence.
Ingenuously we mistake the world for being assuch . In happy situations we rejoice at our strength
,
we are thoughtlessly confident,we know nothing but
our actuality . In pain and weakness we despair. Butif we come out Of this situation alive we let ourselvesslip back into forgetfulness of self and a life Of hap
pmess.
The term here translated as ultimate situation is Grmzsituation. Thisis a concept of central importance for the understanding of j aspers ’ thought,as for the understanding of Existentialism . As the context above shows, theultimate situations are the inescapable realities in relation to which alonehuman life can be made genuinely meaningful . U ltimate situations cannot bechanged or surmounted ; they can only be acknowledged.
20
WAY T O W I S D O M
unreliability of the world : there are in the world thinworthy of faith
,things that arouse confidence ; the
is a foundation which sustains us : home and coparents and ancestors
,brothers and sisters an
friends,husbands and wives . There is a foundatio
of historical tradition,in native language
,in faith, i
the work of thinkers,poets
,and artists .
tradition also gives no security,it is
reliable . For we encounter it alwaysman ; God is nowhere in the world . Traditiimplies a question . Keeping sight of the traditionman must always derive what for him is certaintybeing
,the reliable
,from his own primal source
But the precariousness Of all worldly existence iswarning to us
,it forbids us to content ourselves wi
the world ; it points to something else .
The ultimate situations—death,chance
,guilt
,and
the uncertainty of the world—confront me with thereality of failure . What do I do in the face of thisabsolute failure, which if I am honest I cannotfail to recognize ?
The advice Of the Stoic,to withdraw to our own
freedom in the independence of the mind,is not
adequate . The Stoic ’ s perception of man’ s weaknesswas not radical enough . He failed to see that the mindin itself is empty, dependent on what is put into it.and he failed to consider the possibility of madness .The Stoic leaves us without consolation ; the independent mind is barren, lacking all content . He leaves uswithout hope, because his doctrine affords us nc
opportunity of inner transformation,no fulfilment
22
S O U R C E S O F P H I L O S O P H Y
self-conquest in love,no hopeful expectation
ossible .
And yet the Stoics ’ striving is toward true philophy . Their thought
,because its source is in
timate situations,expresses the basic drive
find a revelation of true being in human
al for man is his attitude toward failureit remains hidden from him and Overhim only objectively at the end or whether
erceives it unobscured as the constant limit of hisence ; whether he snatches at fantastic solutionsconsolations or faces it honestly
,in silence
unfathomable . The way in which manhes his failure determines what he will be
In ultimate situations man either perceives nothingness or senses true being in spite of and above all
phemeralworldly existence . Even despair,by the very
fact that it is possible in the world, points beyond theworld .
Or,differently formulated , man seeks redemption .
Redemption is Offered by the great, universal religionsof redemption . They are characterized by an objective
guarantee of the truth and reality of redemption .
Their road leads to an act Of individual conversion .
T'his philosophy cannot provide . And yet all philosophy is a transcending of the world, analogous toredemption .
To sum up : The source of philosophy is to be soughtin wonder, in doubt, in a sense of forsakenness . In
23
WAY T O W I S D O M
any case it begins with an inner upheaval, whidetermines Its goal .Plato and Aristotle were moved by wonder to sethe nature of being .
Amid infinite uncertainty Descartes sought copelling certainty .
Amid the sufferings of life the Stoics sought trepose of the mind .
Each of these experiences has its own truth, clothealways in historical conceptions and language . Imaking these philosophies our own we penetratehistorical husk to the primal sources that are awithin us .The inner drive is toward firm foundations , depth
being,eternity .
But for us perhaps none of these is the most fundmental, absolute source . The discovery thatcan be revealed to wonder is a source of inspirationbut beguiles us into withdrawing from the world and
succumbing to a pure , magical metaphysic . Compelling certainty is lim ited to the scientific knowledgeby which we orient ourselves in the world . Stoicimperturbability serves us only as a makeshift irdistress, as a refuge from total ruin
,but in itsel
remains without content and life .
These three motives -wonder leading to knowledge, doubt leading to certainty, forsakenness leadingto the self—cannot by themselves account for ouJ
present philosophical thought .In this crucial turning point in history
,in this agt
of unprecedented ruin and of potentialities that caronly be darkly surmised, the tlu ee motives we hava
24
W'
A Y T O W I S D O M
to existence,is only a medium for impersonal
ings and values . Defence and attack then bmeans not by which m en gain power but bythey approach one another . The contest is acontest in which each man surrenders his weato the other . The certainty of authentic being reonly in unreserved communication between menlive together and vie with one another in acommunity
,who regard their association with
another as but a preliminary stage,who take not
for granted and question everything . Onlymunication is all other truth fulfilled, onlymunication am I myself not merely living butlife . God manifests Him self only indirectly,through man ’ s love Of man ; compelling certaintyparticular and relative, subordinated to the WholThe Stoical attitude is in fact empty and rigid .
The basic philosophical attitude of which I an
speaking is rooted in distress at the absence of communication ,
in the drive to authentic communicationand in the possibility of the loving contest whiclprofoundly unites self and self.And this philosophical endeavour is at the sametime rooted in the three philosophical experiencewe have mentioned, which must all be considered itthe light of their meaning, whether favourable OJ
hostile,for communication from man to man .
And so we may say that wonder,doubt
,the ex .
perience Of ultimate situations,are indeed sources 0
philosophy, but the ultimate source is the will t <authentic communication, which embraces all thcrest . This becomes apparent at the very outset
,fO
26
S O U R C E S O F P H I L O S O P H Y
s not all philosophy strive for communication,Iress itself
,demand a hearing ? And is not its very
communicability,which is in turn inseparable
uth ?(Communication then is the aim of philosophy, andcommunication all its other aims are ultimatelyoted : awareness of being, illumination throughattainment of peace .
TH E COMPR EH EN S IVE
HE R E I S H O U L D like to speak of one of th
mostdifficult philosophical ideas . It is an indispidea, because it forms the foundation
philosophicalthinking . It must be intelligiblesimpleform
,though its elaboration is a comp
affair .I shall attempt to give an intimation of this idPhilosophy began with the question : What
Atfirst sight,there are many kinds ofbeing,
inthe world,the forms of the animate and
all the infinitely many things that come and go .
what is true being,that is
,the being which h
everything together,lies at the base of everything,
being from which everything that is issues ?
TO this there are curiously many answers . The firstvenerable answer of the first philosopher is : Everything is water and comes from water . Later thinkerssaid that everything is fundamentally fire or air or
the indeterminate or matter,or atoms ; or that life
is primal being,from which inanimate things have
merely degenerated ; or that the mind is true beingand that things are mere appearances
,its ideas
,which
it produces as though in a dream . Thus we find agreat number of metaphysical attitudes
,which have
been known as materialism (everything is matter andmechanical process) , spiritualism (everything isspirit) , hylozoism (the cosmos is a living sp iritual
28
T H E C O M P R E H E N S I V E
ce) , and so on . In every case being was
as something existing in the world,from
all other things sprang .
which then is the correct view ? Tluough
nds of years the warring schools have beento demonstrate the truth of any one of them .
each view some truth is manifested,namely an
tude and a method of inquiry which teach men tosomething in the world . But each one becomes
lse when it lays claim to exclusiveness and strivesexplain all existence .
Why is this so ? All these views have one thing inommon : they apprehend being as something whichonfronts me as an Object, which stands apart from
I think it . This bas ic phenomenon of our
usness - is to us so self-evident that we barelysuspect the riddle it presents, because we do notinquire into it . The thing that we think ,
of which wespeak
,is always something other than ourselves
,it is
the Object toward which we as subject are oriented .
If we make ourselves into the object of our thinking,
we ourselves become as it were the Other, and yet atthe same time we remain a thinking I
,which thinks
about itself but cannot aptly be thought as an Objectbecause it determines the objectness of all objects .We call this basic condition Ofour thinking the subjectobject dichotomy . As long as we are awake andconscious we are always involved in it . Twist and turnas we will we are always in this dichotomy
,always
oriented toward an object, whether the Object be thereality of our sense perception, whether it be the concept of ideal Objects, such as numbers or geometrical
29
WAY T O W I S D OM
figures, orwhether it be a fantasy or even an impossib
imagining . We are always confronted outwardlyinwardly by objects
,which are the content of
consciousness . As Schopenhauer said, there isobject without a subject and no subject without aobject .
What is the meaning of this ever-present subjecObject dichotomy ? I t can only mean that being as
whole is neither subject nor Object but mustComprehensive
, which is manifested in this dichClearly being as such cannot be an Object .
thing that becomes an Object for mefrom the Comprehensive in confronting me
,
break away from it as subject . For the I, this a determinate being . The Comprehensiveobscure to my consciousness . It becomes clear onlythrough Objects
,and takes on greater clarity as the
Objects become more conscious and more clear . TheComprehensive does not itself become an object but ismanifested in the dichotomy of I and Object . Itremains itself a background
,it boundlessly illumines
the phenomenon,but it is always the Compre
hensive .
But there is in all thinking a second dichotomy .
Every determinate Object is thought in reference toother objects . Determ inacy implies differentiation ofthe one from the other . And even when I think Of authenticallyis
'
being as such,I have in mind nothingness as its
antithesis .Thus every Object
,every thought content stands in
a twofold dichotomy,
first in reference to me, the
30
TH E C O M P R E H E N S IV E
ing subject,and secondly in reference to other
ts . As thought content it can never be everyr the whole of being, never being itself.
ught must break out Of the CompreIt is a particular
,juxtaposed both to the I
to other Objects .hus in our thinking we gain only an intimation OfComprehensive . It is not manifested to us, but
ry thing else is manifested in it .
What are the implications Of this idea ?
Measured by our customary understanding inelation to things
,it seems unnatural . Our under
g,attuned to the practical, resists it .
basic operation by which we raise ourselveseverything that is thought is perhaps notIt, but it seems strange because it does not
bring knowledge Of a new Object which we thenapprehend
,but aspires with the help of the idea to
transform our consciousness of being .
Because it shows us no new Object,the idea
,
measured by our customary worldly knowledge, isempty . But by its form it opens up to us infinitepossibilities in which being may manifes t itself to us
,
and at the same tim e lends transparency to everythingthat is . It transforms the meaning of the world ofObjects
,by awakening in us a faculty of sensing what
authentically is in the phenomenon .
Let us attempt a further step toward the elucidationof the Comprehensive .
To philosophize‘ concerning the Comprehensive
31
WAY T O W I S D OM
would mean to penetrate into being itself. Thisonly be done indirectly . For even as we speak weengaged in Object thinking . Through Object thwe must gain indices to the nonobject, that is toComprehensive .
An example is the thought operation we have jperformed . The moment we state the subject-Objdichotomy in which we always find ourselveswhich we cannot see from outside
,we make it
an Object . But this is basically incongruous .dichotomy is a relation between things in the wwhich confront me as Objects . This relation becoan image by which to express what is not visiblecan itself never become Object .Still thinking in images
,we ascertain through the
source that is present within us a polyvalence in thissubject-Object dichotomy. It
”
is fundamentally different
,depending on whether I as understanding am
oriented toward objects ; asDasein, being- there, towardmy environment ; or as existence toward God.
As understanding we confront tangible things,and
to a certain measure we succeed in Obtaining com
pelling and universally valid knowledge,but always
Of determ inate Objects.
As being- there, as men living in our environment,we experience in it what we perceive with our senses
,
what achieves reality for us as the presence whichcannot be reduced to universal knowledge .
As existence we are oriented toward God—transcendence—and this through the language of things
,
which existence uses as hieroglyphics or symbols .Neither our understanding nor our vital sensualism
32
WAY T O WI S D O M
consciousness of profound and inexhaustible meaning .
For him who has experienced it,this becoming one is
the true awakening,and the awakening to conscious
ness in the subject-Object dichotomy is more in thenature of sleep . Plotinus
,the greatest mystical phil
osopher of the West,writes
“ Often when I awaken to myself from the slumberof the body
,I behold a wondrous beauty : I then
believe firmly that I belong to a better and higherworld
,I call forth the most glorious life within me
,I
have become one with the godhead .
We cannot doubt the existence of mysticalexperience
,nor can we doubt that mystics have
always been unable to communicate what is
most essential in then experience . The mystic isimmersed in the Comprehensive . The communicablepartakes of the subject-Object dichotomy, and a clearconsciousness seeking to penetrate the infinite cannever attain the fullness Of that source . We can speakonly of that which takes on Object form . All else isincommunicable . But its presence in the backgroundof those philosophical ideas which we call speculativeconstitutes their content and meaning .
On the basis of our philosophical inquiry into theComprehensive, we Shall be better able to understandthe great metaphysical theories of history
,the theories
of fire, matter, the m ind, the world process, etc . For inreality they were not solely the Object knowledge aswhich they are Often interpreted
,and considered as
which they are completely false ; they were hieroglyphies of being, devised by the philosophers out of the
34
T H E C O M P R E H E N S I V E
presence of the Comprehensive, for the elucidation of
the self and Of being— and then at once m istaken for
positive objectivizations of authentic being .
When we move am id the phenomena of the world,we come to realize that we possess being itself neitherin the Object
,which becomes continuously more
restricted,nor in the horizon Of our always lim ited
world taken as the sum of phenomena, but only inthe Comprehensive which transcends all Objects andhorizons
,which transcends the subject-Object
dichotomy .
Once we have ascertained the Comprehensivethrough our basic philosophical operation, we realizethat all the metaphysics we have listed
,all those
supposed insights into being,are in error as soon
as they interpret anything that is in the world,however
important and significant, as being itself. But they arethe only language in which we can speak when wetranscend all objects
,ideas
,world horizons
,phe
nomena, to perceive being it self.For we do not attain this goal by leaving the world,
except in incommunicable mysticism . Only in articu
late object knowledge can our consciousness remainclear. Only in Object knowledge, experiencing itslimits through what it surmises at the limit
,can our
consciousness achieve content . Even in the thinkingwhich transcends Object knowledge we remain in it .Even when we see through the phenomenon it holdsus fast .Through metaphysics we Obtain an intimation of
the Comprehensive in transcendence . We understandthi s metaphysics as a symbol .
35
WAY T O WI S D O M
But we lose its meaning if we succumb to irresposible aesthetic enjoyment of its ideas . For its contentmanifested to us only if we perceive the realitysymbol . And we perceive it only out of the reaour existence and not out of merewhich in this sphere declines to see any meaning atBut above all we must not look on the symbol
reality as a physical reality like the things whichgrasp
,live with
,and consume . To regard the Obj
as being is the essence Of all dogmatism,and
mistake the materiality of symbols for realityspecifically the essence Of superstition . For supstition is chained to the Object, faith is rooted in thComprehensive .
And now the last methodological consequence 0
our experience of the Comprehensive : the consciousness of the discontinuity of our philosophical thinking .
When we think Of the Comprehensive in philosophical terms , we are making an Object of what isessentially not an Object . Hence we must always makea reservation : we must retract the object content ofwhat has been said, if we would arrive at thatexperience of the Comprehensive which is not acommunicable content resulting from inquiry but anattitude Of our consciousness . I t is not my knowledgebut my consciousness of being that changes .But this is a basic trait of all true philosophical
thought . Man soars to the Comprehensive in themedium Of determ inate object thinking
,and only in
that medium . He actualizes in consciousness thefoundation of our life in being, the guidance from that
36
T H E C O M P R E H E N S IV E
sphere,the basic mood and meaning of our life and
activity ;~ he frees us from the fetters of determinate
thinking, not by relinquishing it but by carrying it tothe extreme . In the general philosophical idea heleaves room for its realization in the present .Being can only be for us on condition that it become present to the mind in the dichotomy Of subjectand Object . Hence our drive toward clarity. Thatwhich is present only obscurely must be apprehendedin object form
,out of the essence of the I fulfilling
itself. Being itself, the foundation Of all things, theabsolute
,presses upon our consciousness in Object
form which,because as Object it is inadequate
,dis
integrates,leaving behind the pure clarity of the
presence of the Comprehensive .
Awareness Of the subject-Object dichotomy as thefundamental fact Of our thinking existence and of theComprehensive that becomes present in it gives us thefreedom needed for philosophy .
I t is an idea that frees us from every existent . Itcompels us to turn back from the impasse ofab solutization . It is as it were an idea that turns us about .For those who found support in the absoluteness of
things and in a theory of knowledge confined toObjects
,the loss of them is nihilism . Exclusive reality
and truth cannot be imputed to that which discourse and Object thinking have made determinateand hence finite .
Our philosophical thinking passes through thisnihilism
,which is in truth a liberation for authentic
being . By our rebirth in philosophy the meaning and
37
WAY T O W I S D OM
value of all finite things,though always limited,
enhanced ; we are made fully aware that our rO
must lead through them,but at the same time
achieve the only possible basis for freedom indealings with these things .The fall from absolutes which were after a
illusory becomes an ability to soar ; what seemed aabyss becomes space for freedom ; apparent Nothiness is transformed in to that which authenti
being speaks to us .
TH E IDEA O F G O D
U R W E S T E R N I D E A Of God springs from twotorical roots : the Bible and Greek philosophy .
WhenJeremiah saw the ruin Ofeverything for whichhe had worked all his life
,when his country and his
people were lost,when in Egypt the last remnants of
his people turned aside from their faith in Yahwehand Offered sacrifices to Isis
,and when his disciple
Baruch despaired,
“ I fainted in my sighing,and I
find no rest,
” Jeremiah answered,
“ Behold,that
which I have built will I break down,and that which
I have planted I will pluck up,even this whole land .
And seekest thou great things for thyself? seek themnot .”
In such a situation these words mean : I t is enoughthat God is . DO not ask whether there is immortality ;the question of whether God forgives is no longerimportant . Man no longer matters , his defiance aswell as his concern for his own beatitude and eternityis extinguished . It is also impossible that the worldshould have a purpose susceptible of fulfilment, thatit should endure in any form ; for everything has beencreated out of nothing by God and is in His hand .
When everything is lost,but one thing remains : God
is . If a life in this world,even with faith in God ’ s
guidance,has failed
,this overpowering reality still
remains : God is . If man fully renounces himself and
39
W AY T O W I S D O M
his aims,this reality can be manifested to him
only reality . But it does not manifest itself in adva
it does not manifest itself abstractly, but descendsthe existence Of the world, and only here maniitself at the limit . Jeremiah ’ s words are hard woThey are no longer bound up with any will to hisical efficacy in the world
,though such a will
preceded them throughout a lifetim e and ultimat
through total failure,made them possible . They
simple words,free from imaginative flight
,and they
contain unfathomable truth,precisely because they
are without finite content or any fixation in the world .
The Greek philosophers expressed a similar thoughtin different terms .At about 500 ! enophanes proclaimed : There
is only one God,resembling mortals neither in his
aspect nor in his thoughts . Plato conceived of the godhead—he called it the Good—as the source of allknowledge . Not only is the knowable known in thelight Of the godhead ; it also derives its being fromthe godhead which excels being both in rank andpower .The Greek philosophers understood that the many
gods were decreed merely by custom,whereas in
nature there was only one God ; that God is not seenwith our eyes, that he resembles no one and can berecognized in no image .God is conceived as cosmic reason or cosmic law
, or
as fate and providence,or as dem iurge .
But this God Of the Greek thinkers is a God originating in thought, not the living God Of Jerem iah . Inessence the two coincide . From this twofold root
40
WAY T O W I S D O M
But if the proofs for the existence of God aconstrued as scientifically compelling proofs suchwe find in mathematics or the empirical sciences,are false . In this light Kant rThen came the reverse proposition : Since
proofs of the existence of God can be refuted, theno God.
Thi s inference is false . For the nonexistence ofcan be proved no more than his existence . Tproofs and their confutations show us only that aproved God would be no God but merely a thing inthe world .
The truth,as against all supposed proofs and refuta
tions of the existence of God, seems to be this : The socalled proofs of the existence of God are fundamentally no proofs at all
,but methods of achieving
certainty through thought . All the proofs of the existence of God and their variants that have been devisedthrough the centuries differ essentially from scientificproofs . They are attempts to express the experience
'
of
man’ s ascent to God in terms Of thought . There areroads of thought by which we come to limits at whichthe consciousness of God suddenly becomes a naturalpresence .
Let us consider a few examplesThe oldest of proofs is the cosmological proof.
From the existence of the cosmos (the Greek name foruniverse) we infer that God exists ; from the worldprocess, in which everything is effect, we infer a lastcause ; from motion the source of all motion ; from theaccident of the particular the necessity of the whole .
42
T H E I D E A O F G O D
If by this syllogism we mean to infer the existencef one thing from the existence Of another thing
,as we
for example in inferring from the existence of theof the moon which faces us the existence of ther side which we never see
,it is inapplicable . In
manner we can only infer the existence of thingsworld from the existence of other things . Theas a whole is not an object, because we ares in it and we never confront the world as aHence we cannot
,from the existence Of the
as a whole,infer the existence Of something
than the world .
this notion takes on a new meaning when it is noproof. Then metaphorically
,in
it expresses awareness Of theinherent in the existence of the world and
selves in it . If we venture the thought that theremight be nothing
,and ask with Schelling : Why is
there something and not nothing ? we find that ourcertainty of existence is such that though we cannotdetermine the reason for it we are led by it to the Comprehensive
,which by this very essence is and cannot
not be,and through which everything else is .
True,men have looked on the world as eternal and
said that it existed out of itself and hence was identicalwith God . But this is not possible :Everything in the world which is beautiful, appro
priate, ordered, and embodies a certain perfectionthe vast abundance Of things that fill us with emotionin our immediate contemplation Of nature— all thiscannot be apprehended through any fully knowableworldly thing, through matter, for example . The design
43
WAY T O W I S D O M
Oforganic life,the beauty ofnature in all its forms
order of the universe in general become increasimysterious as our knowledge advances .But iffrom all this we infer that God, the benevcreator
,exists
,we must call to m ind all that is
disordered,base in the world . And this gives r
fundamental attitudes for which the world isfrightening
,terrible
,and it seems as plausible t
the existence of the devil as of God . The mysterytranscendence is not thereby solved but merely growsdeeper .But what clinches the matter is the imperfectibility
of the world . The world is not finished,but in con
tinuous change ; our knowledge of the world cannot becompleted
,the world cannot be apprehended through
itself.Far from proving the existence of God, these so
called proofs mislead us into placing God Within thereal world
,or second cosmos
,which is as it were
ascertained at the limits of the cosmos . Thus theyObscure the idea Of God .
But they move us deeply when,leading through the
concrete phenomena of the cosmos,they confront
Nothingness and imperfectibility. For then they seemto admonish us not to content ourselves with the worldas the sole meaning of our life in the world .
Again and again it is brought hom e to us that God isnot an object ofknowledge
,ofcompelling evidence . He
cannot be experienced by the senses . He is invisible,He cannot be seen but only believed in .
But whence comes this faith ? I ts source is not in thelimits ofworldly experience but in the freedom Ofman .
44
T H E I D E A O F G O D
e man who attains true awareness of his freedomns certainty Of God . Freedom and God are inparable . Why ?
This I know : in my freedom I am not through myself
,but am given to myself
,for I can fail myself and f
cannot force my freedom . Where I am authenticallymyself
,I am certain that I am not through myself. The
highest freedom is experienced in freedom from theworld
,and this freedom is a profound bond with
transcendence .
We also call man ’ s freedom his existence . Mycertainty of God has the force of my existence . I canhave certainty OfHim not as a content Of science but aspresence for existence .
If certainty of freedom encompasses certainty Of
God ’ s existence,there must be a connection between
the negation of freedom and the negation of God . If Ido no t experience the miracle of ,selfhood, I need norelation to God, I am content with the empiricalexistence of nature, many gods, demons .There is
,on the other hand
,a connection between
the belief that there can be freedom without God andthe deification Of man . This is an illusory
,arbitrary
freedom,in which man ’ s will is taken to be absolute
and independent. I rely in the force Ofmy will and in adefiant acceptance of death . But this delusion that Iam through myselfalone turns freedom into perplexityand emptiness . A savage drive for self-assertion turnsto a despair, in which Kierkegaard
’ s desperate will tobe oneself” and desperate will not to be oneself” become one .
God exists for me in the degree to which I in freedom
45
WAY T O W I S D O M
authentically become myself. He does not exist as ascientific content but only as openness to existence .
But the illumination of our existence as freedom doesnot prove the existence of God ; it merely points, onem ight say, to the area in which certainty Of his existence is possible .
The thought that strives for compelling certaintycannot realize its aim in any proof of God ’ s existence .
But the failure of thought does not result in nothingness . It points to that which resolves into an inexhaustible
,forever-questioning
,Comprehensive con
sciousness of God .
God never becomes a tangible object in the worldand this means that man must not abandon his freedom to the tangibilities
,authorities
,powers of
the world ; that he bears responsibility for himself,and must not evade this responsibility by renoun
cing freedom ostensibly for the sake of freedom . Hemust owe his decision and the road he chooses tohimself. Kant has said that God ’ s unfathomablewisdom is as admirable in what it gives us as in what itdenies us . For if God ’ s wisdom in its majesty werealways before our eyes , if it were an absolute authority,speaking unequivocally in the world
,we should be
puppets of itswill . But God in his wisdom wanted us tobe free .
Instead of the knowledge of God,which is unattain
able,we gain through philosophy a Comprehensive
consciousness of God .
“ God is .” The essential in this proposition is the
46
T H E I D E A O F G O D
reality to which it points . We do not encompass thisreality In thinking the proposition ; merely to think itleaves us empty . For it means nothing to the understanding and to sensory experience . We apprehend itsmeaning only as we transcend
,as we pass beyond the
world of Objects and through it discover authenticreality . Hence the climax and goal of our life is thepoint at which we ascertain authentic reality
,that is
,
God.
This reality is accessible to existence through theorientation toward God that lies at its source . Hencefaith in God,
springing as it does from the source,
resists any mediation . This faith is not laid down in anydefinite articles of faith applicable to all men or in anyhistorical reality which mediates between man andGod and is the same for all men . The individual
,
always in his own historicity, stands rather in animmediate, independent relation to God that re
quires no intermediary .
This historicity,which can be communicated and
described, is in this form not absolute truth for all,and
yet in its source it is absolutely true .
God is reality, absolute, and cannot be encompassedby any of the historical manifestations through whichHe speaks to men . IfHe is , man as an individual mustbe able to apprehend Him directly.
The reality of God and the immediacy of our historical relation to God exclude any universally com
pelling knowledge of God ; therefore what matters isnot our knowledge Of God but our attitude towardsGod . From time immemorial God has been concelvedin empirical forms , including a personification after
47
WAY T O WI S D O M
the image ofman. And yet every such conception isthe sam e time in the nature Of a veil . God is not whwe may see with our eyes .Our true attitude toward God has found its pro
foundest expression in a few biblical injunctionsThou shalt notmake unto thee any graven image or127:
This meant,to begin with
,that
invisible man must not worship Him in statues,i
effigies. Gaining in depth,this tangible prohib
developed into the idea that God is not only invisiblebut also inconceivable
,unthinkable . NO symbol or
metaphor can describe Him and none may take Hisplace . All metaphorical representations ofGodwithoutexception are myths
,meaningful as such when under
stood to be mere hints and parallels,but they become
superstitions when mistaken for the reality OfGod Himself.Since every image conceals as much as it discloses,
we com e closest to God in the negation Of images . Buteven in the Bible this Old Testament commandmentwas not fulfilled : the image Of God ’ s personalityremai’ned —His wrath and His love
,His justice and His
mercy . It is a commandment that cannot be fulfilled .
Parmenides and Plato,with their speculative doctrines
ofbeing,the Indian Brahman philosophers
,the Chinese
Taoists attempted to apprehend without images thesuprapersonal, pure, intangible reality Of God— but inthis they did not succeed . Human thought and humanvision cannot dispense with the image . And though inphilosophical thinking sensation and Object almostvanished
,perhaps ultimately some wisp of God ’ s
presence remains,with power to engender life .
48
WAY T O W I S D OM
enduring problem for man, as actual as it wthousands of years ago .
A third biblical saying : Thy will be done.
fundamental attitude toward God means : B owbefore that which defies understanding, confidenit is situated above and not below the understandaThy thoughts are not our thoughts, thy ways are no
our ways .”
Trust in thi s basic attitude makes possible an allencompassing sense of thankfulness, a wordles
impersonal love .Man stands before the godhead as the hid
and can accept what is most terrible as His decision,fully aware that in whatever finite form he expressesthis God it is spoken in human terms and hence false .
To sum up : Our attitude toward the godhead isdefined by the commandments “ No image and nolikeness
,
” “ No other god,
” and by the attitude O
acceptance expressed in the words Thy will be done .
”
Reflection on God clarifies our faith . But to believe isnot to see . God remains in the distance and remainsquestion . TO live by God does not mean to base oneself on calculable knowledge but to live as though westaked our existence on the assumption that God is .To believe in God means to live by something which
is not in the world, except in the polyvalent language ofphenomena, which we call the hieroglyphs or symbolsof transcendence .
The God Offaith is the distant God,the hidden God,
the indemonstrable God .
Hence I must recognize not only that I do not know
T H E I D E A O F G O D
t even that I do not know whether I believe .
no possession . It confers no secure knowledge,ives certainty in the practice Of life .
Thus the believer lives in the enduring ambiguity ofe Objective, in enduring willingness to hear . Hetens patiently and yet he is unswerving in his resolve .
fweakness he is strong,he is open
,though
he is resolute .
on God is typical Of all significantthought : it does not bring secure know
self-hood it gives a free area forthe whole emphasis is on love in the world,ading of the symbols Of transcendence, on thed breadth Of that which is illumined by reason .
why all philosophical discourse is so inIt calls for completion out of the being of
m who hears it .Philosophy does not give
,it can only awaken—it can
remind,and help to secure and preserve .
In it each of us understands what he actually knewbefore“
.
51
THE UNCOND I T IONAL IMPERAT IVE
IN L o v E, IN battle, in pursuing lofty tasks , mact without regard for consequences
,unconditiona
When a man acts unconditionally his life is notultimate
,he subordinates it to something else .
When we Obey the unconditional imperative,
empirical existence becomes in a sense the raw mateOfthe idea
,oflove
,of a loyalty . It is encompas
eternal aim,it is as it were consumed
,and it is
allowed drift at random in the stream of life . Onlythe limit
,in extreme situations
,can the call Of t
unconditional lead to loss of life,to acceptance
inevitable death,while in bondage to the conditional
we wish first,last
,and at any price to preserve our
physical existence .
Men have,for example
,risked their lives in a
common struggle for a common life in the world .
Solidarity was then the ultimate condition .
Originally such communities were built upon trustbut later they came to be based on the inspiring command of an authority in which men believed
,so that
faith in this authority became a source of the absolute .
This faith freed men from uncertainty,spared them the
need to inquire for themselves . However,the uncon
ditional in this form was subject to a tacit condition,
namely the success Of the authority . The believerdesired to live through his Obedience . If the authority
52
T H E U N C O N D I T I O N A L I M P E R A T I V E
d to be successful as a power,and men lost their
in it,a ruinous emptiness arose .
the only escape from this emptiness Is for manto win authentic being as the
!ATIVEfoundation of his decisions .
ives in
heworl
port
ingi,so
6UHCOII
This has happened in history when individualsstaked their lives through obedience to an absoluteimperative : they remained loyal where disloyaltywould have destroyed everything, where a life savedthrough disloyalty would have been poisoned
,where a
betrayal of absolute being would have made a savedlife wretched .
The purest example is perhaps Socrates . Living inthe lucidity of his reason
,out Of the Comprehensive Of
nonknowledge,he went his way unswervingly, nu
deterred by the passions Of anger,hatred
, selfright
eousness ; he made no concession, refused to avail himself of the Opportunity for flight
,and died happy,
staking everything on his faith .
Certain martyrs,like Thomas More
,have displayed
the purest moral energy in their faith . The martyrdomof some others is subject to question . To die for something in order to bear witness to it is to give an aim toone ’ s death
,hence to make it impure . Where martyrs
have actually been inspired by a longing to die,perhaps in imitation of Christ, by a death urge whichnot infrequently darkens the soul with symptoms ofhysteria
,the impurity is still greater .
Rare are the philosophers who,without firm alle
JndlflOfl, giance to a community of faith, standing alone beforebeliever God, have realized the maxim : To philosophize Is toLUtllOlli)
’ learn how to die . Seneca, for years awaiting his death
53
WAY T O W I S D O Mestio
becausethe(111
sentence,overcame the dean to escape dictated by
andWhat[or’
understanding ; in the end he did not betray himOrelsethe
impfunworthy actions
,and he preserved his co
when Nero demanded his death . Boethius ”hmse
“lt
’
nocently,sentenced by a barbarian : he died ifW“
nmophizing in full lucidity, turned toward
mm’m’u
hE’mera
‘
being . Bruno overcame his doubts and Allsuc P
nedependenton
what concessions h e had made, in the high resolvestand fast for no purpose, even if it meant death at thestake .
Seneca,Boethius
,Bruno were men with their
weaknesses,their failures
,men such as ourselves . They
had to conquer themselves . And this is why they canpoint the way for us . For saints after all are figures whofor us can live only in the twilight
,or in the unreal
light Of myth, but cannot stand up under realisticscrutiny. The unconditional acts Ofwhich men as men
were capable give us true encouragement,while the
Imaginary provides only empty edification .
commandofmyexistence.lbecomyselfam,becau
nessisobscurea
We have recalled historical examples of men who Omknow how to die . Let us now attempt to elucidate the Ofihc“Pilaf“unconditional imperative .
fimOfbungWhen I ask myself: What shall I do ? I arrive at an internewbegn
answer by adducing finite aims and means by which to Situatfofim
’
m
attain them . I must obtain food and for this work is Thlslmperafi‘
needed . I must live with m en in a community : here I dettrnnnesalla'
am helped by certain rules of conduct . In every case an ourW111hiltits9
aim determines the means appropriate to it . Theuncondn
But my basis for recognizing these aims lies either In hence110ian01
some unquestioned practical interest or in utility .
Empirical existence,however
,is no ultimate end, aCt“inflamin
54
T H E U N C O N D I T I O N A L IM P E R A T I V E
ecause the questions remain : What kind Ofexistence ?What for?
th e imperative is grounded in an authorityObey because someone else has willed itIt is written .
” But such authoritymains unquestioned and hence unex
‘
am ined .
All such imperatives are conditional . For they makee dependent on something outside me
,On practical
nconditional imperatives on thehave their source in myself. Conditional
“4
confront me as fixed but transient prinwhich I can outwardly sustain myself.
Unconditional imperatives come from wi thin me,
sustaining me inwardly by that which in myself is notonly myself.The unconditional imperative comes to me as the
command of my authentic self to my mere empiricalexistence . I become aware ofmyself as Of that which Imyselfam
,because it is what I ought to be . This aware
ness is obscure at the beginning and lucid at the endOfmy _unconditional action . When we become awareof the imperative our questioning ceases in the certainty of being—though in temporal life there is atonce a new beginning Of questioning, and in a changedsituation certainty must forever be gained anew .
This imperative precedes every aim,it is that which
determ ines all aims . Accordingly it is not an Object Ofour will but its source .
The unconditional is a foundation Of action andhence not an Object of knowledge but an element Offaith . In so far as I know the reasons and aims of myaction
,I am in the finite
,I am subject to conditions .
55
WAY T O W I S D O M
Only when I live by something that can no longeexplained by Object knowledge do I live by theconditional .
A few propositions may suggest the meaning of tun conditional imperative .
First : as opposed to passive acceptance Of thingsthey are
,the unconditional attitude implies a decisio
lucidly taken,out of an unfathomable depth, a deci
sion with which I myself am identical . What does thimean ?
It means to partake in the eternal,in being
Accordingly,it implies absolute reliability and loyalty
which derive not from nature but from our decision .
The decision is arrived at only through lucidity whichis the product Of reflection . Expressed in psychologicalterms
,the unconditional attitude does not lie in the
momentary state of any man . Even though he mayreveal overpowering energy in his momentary activity , Iit suddenly slackens
,he grows forgetful and unreliable
Nor does the unconditional decision reside in the innatecharacter
,for the character can be transformed in
rebirth . Nor does it reside in what we call in my tholo
gical term s a man’ s demon
,for this demon is without
loyalty. Overpowering as it may be,no mode Of
passion, of vital will, of self-assertion
,is uncon
ditional in the moment ; all are relative and henceperishable .
Thus the unconditional demands an existentialdecision that has passed through reflection . Thismeans that it does not arise from any natural state butout Of freedom,
which cannot help being what it is,
56
WAY T O W I S D OM
passion,habit
,and fidelity to a promise . The possibil
of authentic communication in loving contest candenied . That which is demonstrable is by that satoken not unconditional .Third : The unconditional is timeless in time .
The unconditional imperative is not given likempirical existence . It grows within man in time .
when man conquers himself and goesdecision unerringly leads him does the uncome into its own . Steadfastnes
Singlemindednes'
s,mere perseverance in man are
convincing signs that he lives by the unconditi
imperative .
In our temporal existence the unconditionalis manifested in the experience Of extreme Siand in situations when we are in danger Of becominguntrue to ourselves .But the unconditional itself is never entirely tem
poral . Whenever it may be,it also cuts across time .
Regardless Of when it is conquered,it is eternal ,
existing in every new moment through recurrentrebirth from the source . Hence : Where a developm entin time seems to have given us possession Of it
,all can
still be betrayed in amoment . Conversely,where aman ’ s
past seems to be mere factuality,weighing him down
under endless contingencies to the point Of annihilation, he can nevertheless at any moment begin as itwere from the beginning through sudden awareness ofthe unconditional .
These propositions,it is true
,suggest the meaning of
the unconditional imperative but do not elucidate its
58
E U N C O N D I T I O N A L IM P E R A T IV E
Which becomes clear only through thes Of good and evil .
heeding the command Of the unconditional wea choice . A decision becomes the substance of the
an . He has chosen what he understands as the goodthe decision between good and evilGood and evil are differentiated on three levels .I . We regard as evil the immediate and un
strained surrender to passions and sensual impulses,
the pleasure and happiness Of this world,to em
rical existence as such ; in short, evil is the life of theho remains in the sphere Of the contingent
,who
lives from day to day like an animal, well oradly
,in the unrest Of change— a life in which there is
O decision .
Good in contradistinction is the life Of the man whonot reject the happiness of this world but subates it to the morally admissible
,seen as the
rsal law Of just action . This morally admissibleOlute .
as distinguished from mere weakness,
rs to the natural bent,consists in what
perversion : I do good only if it does me noharm or does not costme too much ; or stated abstractly :although I will the unconditional embodied in themoral imperative
,I follow the law Ofthe good only in so
far as it is compatiblewith undisturbed sensual pleasureonly on this condition
,and in no unconditional sense
do I w ish to be good . This pseudo-virtue might becalled a luxury Of fortunate circum stances in which Ican afford to be good . In the case of conflic t betweenmoral imperative and my vital interest
,I may
,
59
W AY T O WI S D O M
according to the magnitude Of this interest, be seccapable of any v illainy . In order to avert mydeath
,I may Obey orders to commit murder . Or I
allow my favoured position which saves me from cofl ict to blind me to my evil .It is good
,in contradistinction
,to lift oneself out
this condition of contingency, wherein the untional is subordinated to the requirements Of vhappiness
,and return to an authentic life In
unconditional . This is a conversion from continuselfbetrayal and impurity Ofmotives to the seriousof the unconditional .
3 . On this level,evil is only the will to evil— the
to destruction as such,the urge to inflict tort
cruelty,annihilation
,the nihilistic will to ruin cv
thing that is and has value .
Good,in contradistinction
,is the unconditiona
which is love and hence the will to reality .
Let us compare these three levels .
On the first level,the relation between good and evi
is moral : the question is whether our natural incltions are governed by a will subservient to moral laws .In Kant ’ s words
,duty is opposed to inclination .
On the second level, the relation is ethical : the .
essential is the authenticity Of our motives . The purity!of the unconditional is Opposed to an impurity which ;consists in the reversal of the relation of contingency, .
in which the unconditional is made contingent onpractical conditions .On the third level
,the relation becomes meta
physical : here the essential lies in the motives themselves . Love is opposed to hate . Love impels to being,
60
T H E U N C O N D I T I O N A L I M P E R A T IV E
to nonbeing . Love grows in bond w ith transence ; hate, severed from transcendence, dwindlesabstract punctuality of the ego . Love works asbuilding in the world ; hate as a loud catassubmerging being in empirical existence andng empirical existence itself.each level an alternative is revealed
,a decision
ed for . A man can only want one thing or theifhe is authentic . He follows inclination or duty
,
ives in perversion or in purity of motive,he lives
Of hate or out of love . But he can fail to decide .
tead of deciding,we vacillate and stumble through
combine the one with the other and even accepth a state of things as a necessary contradiction .
indecision is in itself evil . Man awakens onlyhe distinguishes between good and evil . He
becomes himself when he decides which way he isgoing and acts accordingly . We must all continuouslyrecapture ourselves from indecision . We are so littlecapable Of fulfilling ourselves in goodness that the veryforce
_Of the passions that drive us headlong through
life is indispensable to the lucidity of duty ; when wereally love we cannot help hating whatever threatensour love ; and it is precisely when we feel certain thatour motives are pure that we succumb to the perversion of impurity .
The decision has its special character on each of thethree levels . Morally, man seeks to base his decision onthought . Ethically, he rehabilitates himself fromperversion through a rebirth of his good will . Metaphysically, he achieves awareness of being given tohimself in his ability to love . He chooses the right
,his
61
WA Y T O W I S D O M
motives become authentic,he lives out of love .
when the three levels become one is the unconditrealized .
To live out of love seems to include all the rest .love gives certainty regarding the ethical truthacts . St . Augustine says : Love and do what thouBut it is impossible for us men to live solely bythis force of the highest level
,for we fall const
into errors and m isunderstandings . Hence wenot rely blindly in our love at every moment butelucidate it . And for the same reason we finite bneed the discipline by which we conquer ourand because of the impurity of our motives wdistrust of ourselves . When we feel sure Of ourselvethat is precisely when we are going astray .
Only the unconditional character Of the good filmere duties with content
,purifies our ethical motive
dissolves the destructive will of hatred .
But the foundation Of love,in which the uncondl e t
tional is grounded,is identical with the will to ’
authentic reality . I want what I love to be . And I!cannot perceive what authentically is without lovingit .
MAN
I s M A N ? Physiology studies him as body,
gy as soul, sociology as a social being . Weman as nature, which we investigate as we do
of other living , creatures, and as history,critical sifting Of tradition
,by an
g Of the purpose pursued by man in hishts and actions
,and by the elucidation of events
e basis of motives , situations , natural realities .study of man has brought us many kindswledge but not the knowledge of man as a
question rises : Can man be fully apprehendedwhich is knowable concerning him ? Or is thereing above this
,namely, freedom,
which evadesow ledge but is always present in him as
The truth is that man is accessible to himself in twoways : as object of inquiry, and as existence endowedwith a freedom that is inaccessible to inquiry . In theone case man is conceived as Object, in the other as thenonobject which man is and of which he becomesaware when he achieves authentic awareness Ofhimself.We cannot exhaust man ’ s being in knowledge Of him
,
we can experience it only in the primal source o f ourthought and action . Man is fundamentally more thanhe can know about himself.
63
W AY T O W I S D O M
We are conscious Of our freedom when wecognize imperatives addressed to us . It is up towhether we carry them out or evade them . We canseriously deny that we m ake a decision
,by which
decide concerning ourselves,and that we are
sponsible .
N0 one who attempts to deny this can logicaconfront other men with an imperative . Onceaccused man in court said he was not to blame becahe was born that way and could not help doing asdid and could accordingly not be held responsib
and the good-humoured judge replied that it mightjust as reasonable to say that the judge whotenced him could do no differently since that washe was and he could not help acting in accordance witthe laws .
Once we have achieved awareness ofour freedom wmay take a second step toward the apprehensionourselves : Man is a being who exists in relation toGod . What does this mean ?We did not create ourselves . Each man can think
that he m ight possibly not have been . This we have incommon with the animals . But at the sam e time, wherein our freedom we decide through ourselves and arenot automatically subordinated to a natural law
,we
are not through ourselves but by v irtue Of being givento ourselves in our freedom . If we do not love, we donot know what we should do
,we cannot force our
freedom . When we decide freely and conceive of ourlives as meaningful, we know that we do not oweourselves to ourselves . At the summit Offreedom
,upon
64
WAY T O W I S D O M
never man as a whole . When these methods oflay claim to absolute knowledge Of the wholeand this they have all done—they lose sightman and go far toward extinguishing their proponentsconsciousness of man and even their own humanity ,the humanity which is freedom and relation to God .
The study of man is of supreme interest,and i
pursued in a spirit of scientific criticism , rewarding . Ithis is done
,we know methodically what
within what limi ts we know a thing andknow
,in terms of what is possible
,and how radically
inaccessible to this knowledge authentic humanityremains . And we avert the danger ofobscuring man bypseudo-knowledge of him .
Once we know the limits of knowledge,we Shall
entrust ourselves all the more clearly to the guidancewhich freedom itself Offers to our freedom
,if it is
oriented toward God .
This is the great question Of humanity : Whencedoes man obtain guidance ? For it is certain that hislife does not flow along like that Of the animals fromgeneration to generation
,constantly repeating itself
in accordance with natural law ; man’ s freedom Opens
up to him,along with the uncertainty of his being, an
opportunity to become that which he can authenticallybe . It is given to man to work in freedom upon hisempirical existence as upon a material . Hence manalone has a history
,that is
,he does not live only by
his biological heritage but also by tradition . Man ’ sli fe is not merely a natural process . And his freedomcalls for guidan ce .
MA N
We shall not discuss here the cases in which thepower of man over man becomes a substitute for thisguidance . What we have in mind is the ultimateguidance of man . The thesis Of philosophical faithis : Man can live by God ’ s guidance . What does thi smean ?
We believe that we have in the unconditionalimperative an intimation of God ’ s guidance . But howis this possible when God is not corporeal, when thereis no unmistakable form in which he exists as God ?
IfGod lends guidance,how does man know what God
wills ? Is there an encounter between man and God ?
And if so,how does it occur ?
We have autobiographical records telling us how,
in men faced by critical problems,long doubt has
suddenly given way to certainty . This certainty is thefreedom to act after perplexity and vacillation . Butthe freer man knows himself to be in this lucidcertainty, the more aware he becomes Of the transcendence through which he is .Kierkegaard reflected each day upon God ’ s guid
ance,and in such a way that he knew himself to be
always in God ’ s hand : through that which he did andthat which happened to him in the world he heardGod and yet in everything he heard he found manymeanings . The guidance he received was not tangible,it provided no clear command ; it was guidancethrough freedom itself
,which knows decision because
it knows itself rooted in the transcendent foundation .
Guidance through transcendence is different fromany guidance in the world
,for God ’ s guidance is of
only one kind . I t is given through freedom itself.
67
W AY T O W I S D O M
The voice of God lies in the self-awareness that dawnSizin the individual, when he is open to everything that icomes to him from his tradition and environment.The medium in which man is guided is his judg-w
ment regarding his own actions . This judgmentrestrains or impels
,corrects or confirms . The voice Of
God as judgment regarding man ’ s actions has not
other expression in time than in this judgment Of manhimself with regard to his emotions
,motives
,actions .
In the free and forthright self-awareness Of j udgmentin self-accusation
,in self affirmation man indirectly
finds God ’ s judgment,which Is never definitive and
always equivocal .Consequently
,human judgment is in error from the
outset when man expects to find in it God ’ s finalword
,upon which he can absolutely rely . We must
mercilessly unmask the self-will that lies in our moralself-satisfaction and self- righteousness .Actually no man can ever be fully and definitivelysatisfied with himself; he cannot be entirely selfcontained in his judgment Of himself. He requires thejudgment Of his fellow m en concerning his actions .He is particularly sensitive to the judgment Of those herespects . He is less moved by that of the average man
and the crowd, of inert individualized institutions, buteven here he is not indifferent . Yet the judgment thatis ultimately decisive for him is not even that Of themen he respects, although this is the only judgmentaccessible in the world ; only the judgment of God canbe decisive .
The individual is never entirely independent in hisjudgment of himself. He always attaches importance
68
MA N
judgment Of another . Even the primitive hero,
to his death in unswerving fortitude, has inthe judgment of other men : undying fame is then Of the dying heroes of the Eddas .re is also a truly soli tary heroism
,which is
based on the community and has no eye to fame .S authentic independence is sustained perhaps byinner harmony of a w ell-favoured nature
,it
erhaps unconsciously from the historicalOf a remembered community, yet itsness finds nothing in the present world tocan hold . But if this heroism does not sink
nothingness,it may be presumed to have deep
in authentic being,and this
,stated explicitly
,
d be the judgment of God rather than Ofmen .
gh the truth Of the judgment by which man isis manifested only through self-conviction
,
takes two forms : the universal imperative and theistorical injunction.
The universal ethical imperatives carry intuitiveonviction . Ever since the ten commandments theybeen a form OfGod ’ s presence . These imperativesindeed be recognized and followed without
th in God, by a drastic limi tation Of their meaningwhat man can do out Of himself. But wholearted Obedience to the ethical commandment
learly heard in freedom is usually boundthe perception of transcendence precisely in
However,action in concrete situations cannot
dequately be derived from universal commandments
69
WAY T O W I S D O M
and prohibitions . In every historically actual situatiguidance lies in an immediate necessity-of-doingwhich cannot be derived . But what the individualthis case perceives as his duty remains questionabhowever certain he may be of it in his own mind . Tvery nature Of this hearkening toimp lies the risk Of error, hence humilreliance on our certainty
,forbids us
own acts as an imperative for all,fanaticism . Even the purest clarity as to th
have seen under God ’ s guidance must not thergive rise to a certainty that this is the only true roadfor all .For it is always possible that everything will looki
entirely different later . In all lucidity we can choose aifalse road . Even the certainty Of decision
,in so far as
it is manifested in the world,must retain a certain
element Of suspension . For the most devastating threatqto truth in the world is the overweening claim to theabsolutely true . In the certainty of the moment thehumility Of the enduring question is indispensable .
Only in retrospect are we filled with the wonder o fan unfathomable guidance . But even here it carriesno certainty, God
’ s guidance cannot be made into apossession .
Psychologically speaking, the voice of God can beheard only in sublime moments . It is out Of suchmoments and toward such moments that we live .
Ifman experiences guidance through transcendence,
is transcendence real for him ? What is his relation toit ?
M A N
Even in the bareness of abstraction, our relation toanscendence can take on a crucial seriousness . But asen in our world we seek support for our certainty ine concrete . Man ’ s supreme achievement in thisorld is communication from personality to personlity . Accordingly, our relation to transcendence, ife may speak in paradox
,becomes sensibly present
our encounter with the personal God . The godheaddrawn to us in its aspect Of personality, while at theame time we rai se ourselves to the level of beingsapable of speaking with this God.
In the world,those powers which have flung us to
he ground strive to dominate us : fear of the future,nxious attachment to present possessions, care in theace Of dire possibilities . Opposing them man canerhaps in the face of death gain a confidence whichill enable him
,even in the most extreme
,inexplicable
,
meaningless situation, to die in peace .Trust in the foundation of being can manifest
itself as disinterested gratitude, as peace in the beliefin God ’ s being .
In life, freedom gives us a sense Of receiving helpfrom transcendence .
For polytheism, helpers and adversaries becomegods and demons . A god did it” expresses the polytheist ’ s consciousness Of events and his own actions,which are thereby hallowed and endowed withsignificance but at the same time dispersed intoinnumerable vital and spiritual powers
,conceived as
existents .As against this , God
’ s help,in the authentic self
hood that knows itself to be radically dependent,
71
W A Y T O W I S D O M
is the help of the One . If God is, there are ndemons .Often God ’ s help is narrowed to a finite content a
thus lost . As for examp le when prayer—as enconwith the invisible God— degenerates fromcontemplation tending towards silence, succum
the passion of seeking the hand of the personal Godand becomes an invocation Of this God for practicaends .To the man who sees through the opaqueness 0
life God sends all possibilities, including the situationsOf hopeless annihilation . Then every situation becomes a task for man ’ s freedom,
and in this task hestands
,grows
,and falls . The task
,however
,cannot be
adequately defined as pursuit Of earthly happinessbut can only be understood clearly through transcendence, this sole reality, and the unconditionalcommandment Of love that is manifested in it, which,infinitely Open by virtue Of its reason
,sees what is and
reads the symbols Of transcendence in the realities ofthe world .
Priests,it is true, accuse the individual who orients
himself to God through philosophy Of arrogance andself-will . They demand Obedience to the revealed God .
In reply to them this may be said : the individualengaged in philosophical thought, if he has drawn adecision from the primal source
,believes that he is
obeying God,not with any Objective guarantee that
he knows God ’ s will but rather as a continuousventure . God works through the free decisions of theindividual .
72
TH E WOR LD
WE CA L L R E A L I TY that which is present to
us in practice,that which in our dealings with things
,
with living creatures, and with men is resistance or
becomes matter . We learn to know reality through ourdaily association with people, through the handling Oftools
,through technical knowledge
,through contact
with organized bodies of men .
That which is encountered in practice is clarified byscientific knowledge
,and as knowledge of reality
made available for new practice .
But by its very nature the knowledge of realitytranscends the immediate interests of practical life .
Practice,which is always at the same time struggle
,
mastery of resistance,is only one of its sources . Man
wants to know what is real,regardless of any practical
interest . A profounder source Of the sciences is pure,
devoted contemplation, lucid passion, a listeningfor the world ’ s answers .Knowledge becomes scientific through method
,a
systematic uni ty is ascertained in what is known ; thescientist looks beyond the multiple and disparate tounifying principles .This knowledge of reality seem s to find completion
in the world system . The world system purports todisclose reality as a whole in one world
,a cosmos
,
74
T H E W O R L D
part of which is related to every other part .
gh it has always been recognized that such ast be imperfect and will require constantnevertheless the world system has been
ed as a product Of knowledge,and in principle
form in which being as total reality becomesble to us . The world system is expected topass the whole Of coherent knowledge . Worldare as Old as human knowledge ; andat all times have striven for world systemseans Of attaining a unified awareness Of the
it is significant that the search for an alling world system
,in which the universe
3 a self-contained whole, this so self-evidentg for a total world view
,is based on a funda
ental fallacy which has only been understood in'
ecent times .For scientific critique teaches us not only that every
world system up to now has collapsed under the weight>f its own contradictions but that the systematicIni ties of knowledge which are indeed the goal Of:cience have been diverse and sprung from essentiallylifferent roots . Thi s becomes increasingly evidentNlth the advance of science . Even as the uni tiesJ ecome more universal—particularly in physics—thenore marked become the cleavages between theJ hysical world, the world of life, the world of the soul,:he world of the mind . These worlds are indeed conl CCt . They are arranged in an order of developn ent ; the reality of the later stage presupposes that ofzhe ‘ earlier, while the reality of the earlier seems able
75
WAY T O W I S D O M
to stand without that of the later ; forcan be no life without matter but therwithout life . Vain attempts have beenthe later stage from the earlier, butbecomes more evident . The one totality in the world
,
to which all the unities susceptible of exploration byknowledge belong
,is itself no unity such as might be
subsumed in an all- embracing theory, or which as
idea might serve as a beacon for scientific inquiry.
There is no world system but only a systematization ofthe sciences .World systems are always a particular sphere of
knowledge,erroneously absolutized and universalized .
Different scientific ideas give rise to special perspectives. Every world system is a segment taken out
of the world . The world itself cannot become a system .
All “ scientific cosmologies ” have been mythicalcosmologies
,built on scientific methods and scant
remnants Of myth .
The world is no Object, we are always in the world,we confront Objects in it but never have the worlditself as an Object . Far as our horizons of methodicalinquiry extend
,particularly in our astronomical
conceptions Of the nebulae,of which our Galaxy,
with its billions of suns,is only one among millions
,and
in the mathematical conception of universal matter,
all that we see here is aspects of phenomena andnot the foundation of things
,not the universe as
a whole .
The universe is not self-contained . I t cannot beexplained out of itself
,but in it one thing can be
explained by another ad infinitum . N0 one knows to
76
T H E W O R L D
limits future research may yet attain,what
ses will still open before it .
A critical approach to science calls for the abandonent Of world systems
,which is also a prerequisite to
philosophical apperception Of being . True, thet Of being demands a familiarity
th every branch of scientific inquiry. But it seems tothe hidden aim Of science to attain through inquirya limit at which the area Of nonknowledge is openedthe most lucid knowledge . For only fulfilled
ow ledge can lead to authentic nonknowledge .
tic being is revealed not in any worlduilt on knowledge but in fulfilled non
ow ledge, which can be achieved only throughentific cognition
,not without it and not before it .
is the supreme striving Of knowledge to reach the
point where cognition fails . For our consciousness Ofbeing finds an indispensable source in nonknowledge
,
but only in fulfilled,conquered nonknowledge.
We approach the reality of the world from a different angle . Scientific knowledge can be included inthe general proposition : All knowledge is interpretation . The method we apply to the study of texts maybe taken as a parallel to our study Of being . And theanalogy is not accidental .For we possess being only in its interpretations . To
speak Of it is to interpret it,and only that which is
apprehended in speech falls under the head Of theknowable . But even in the prephilosophic stage thelanguage of men ’ s practical dealings with things
77
WAY T O W I S D O M
contains an interpretation of being ; being is alwaysdefined in reference to something else . Being is for usonly in an interpretive context . Being and the knowledge Of being
,the existent and what we say Of it
,are
accordingly a texture of diverse interpretations . Allbeing is for us an interpretation .
Interpretation differentiates between somethingthat is and something which it means
,for example,
between the Sign and what it stands for . If being istaken as that whi ch is to be interpreted, it wouldseem that we must differentiate in the same way :interpretation concerns something other than itself;what confronts us in interpretation is being itself.But our attempted differentiation is not successful . For nothing enduring remains, nothing purelyknowable
,which need only be interpreted and is not
itself interpretation . Whatever we know is only abeam Of light cast by our interpretation into being
,
or, we might say, the capture of an opportunity forinterpretation . The power to make possible all theseinterpretations must lie in the very nature Of being asa whole .But the interpretation is not arbitrary . If it is
sound,it has an objective character. Being compels
these interpretations . True, all modes Of being arefor us modes Of interpretation
,but they are also
modes of necessary interpretation . Consequently, thedoctrine Of the categories as structures Ofbeing sees themodes of being as modes Of interpretation
,thus for
example breaking down the “ Objective ” categoriesinto identity
,relation
,cause and effect
,freedom or
expression,etc .
78
WA Y T O W I S D O M
remain unfulfilled and hence fundamentally not
understood .
It is not only the absolute world systems that aregone . The world is not self-contained and for our
knowledge it breaks down into diverse perspectives,because it cannot be reduced to a single principle .The reali ty of the world as a whole is no object ofknowledge .
In the light of what we have said of God and existence
,we may sum up our experience Of the world in
the proposition : The reality of the world subsistsephemerally between God and existence .
Everyday life seems to teach us the contrary : that wemen take the world or something in the world as anabsolute . And Of the man who has made so manythings the ultimate content Of his existence we maysay with Luther : that which you hold to, upon whichyou stake your existence
,that is truly your God. Man
cannot help taking something as an absolute,whether
willingly and knowingly,whether accidentally and
fi tfully or resolutely and steadfastly . Man has a kind Ofhome in the absolute . He cannot evade it . In that homehe must live .
History down through the centuries reveals aweinspiring figures Of men who have transcended theworld . Indian ascetics, certain monk s in China and theWest
,left the world in order to partake Of the absolute
in worldless meditation . It was as though the world hadvanished ; being—from the viewpoint Of the world,nothingness—was everything .
Chinese mystics freed themselves from the toils Of
80
WAY T O W I S D OM
in the temporal course of his life . Thi s willingnimplies two fundamental experiences :First the experience OfGod ’ s absolute transcend
over the world : the hidden God recedes fartherfarther into the distance if I attempt to seizeapprehend Him universally and forever ; He iscalculably near through the absolutely hiform of His speech in a situation which isunique .
Second,the experi ence of God ’ s speech in
world : the world is not in itself, but in it God spealways with many meanings
,and this speech can
become clear historically in the existential moment ancannot be generalized .
Freedom for being does not see the ultimate in theworld as such . In the world eternal being and temporalmanifestation meet .Yet we do not experience eternal being outside 0
that which is empirically manifested to us in time .Since that which is for us must be manifested in thetemporality of the world
,there can be no direct
knowledge Of God and existence . There can onlybe faith .
The principles Of faith—God is ; there is an unconditional imperative ; man is finite and imperfectible ;man can live in God ’ s guidance—enable us to sensethe truth only in SO far as they embody their fulfilmentin the world as speech of God . If
,as though passing the
world by,God should directly approach existence
,the
event would be incommunicable . The truth of alluniversal principles speaks in the form of a tradition
82
T H E WO R L D
of a p articularity acquired in life ; these are thes in which the individual consciousness hasened to the truth : our parents told us so . There is
vast hi storical depth in such formulas as for ThyOly name
’ s sake,
” “ immortality,” “ love .
”
As principles of faith become more universal theytheir historicity . They rise to the level of pureraction . But with such abstractions alone no manlive ; where concrete fulfilment is lacking theyonly a minimal value as guides to memory andThey have at the same time a cleansing power :free us from the fetters Of pure materiality andsuperstitious narrowness
,helping us to adapt the
reat tradition to present realization .
Unlimited devotion to God is the authentic mode ofistence . That to which I devote myself in the world,
to the point ofstaking my life,must be constantly tested
in relation to God,under the condition of God ’ s will in
which we believe . For in blind devotion man heedlesslyserves the power which is over him only factually andwhich
—
he does not elucidate, and he may even servethe devil ” through his failure to see
,question
,think.
In devotion to reality in the world—the indispensable medium of devotion to God—grows selfhood
,
which at the same time asserts itself in that to which it is:levoted. But if all empirical existence has been reduced:0 reality
,family
,people
,profession
,state
,world
,and
f this reality fails,then we can conquer the despair of
10thingness only through the self-assertion which:ranscends the reality of the world, which stands aloneJ efore God and exists out of God . Only in devotion to
83
WAY T O W I S D O M
0d and not to the world is thi s selfhood granted aeceived as the freedom to assert it in the world .
The ephemeral subsistence of the world between Gnd existence is the burden of a mythiblical categories—conceives the world as the mestation of a transcendent history : from the creahrough the fall of man and the redemption to thef the world and the resurrection of all things .
!
In
y th the world does not exist out Of itself butassing stage in a transcendent process .ransient
, but the reality in this transiencexistence . The eternal is manifested in theorld. It is thus that man as an individuaedge of himself. And in this manifestation of tternal there lies a paradox : for in it that whichternal as such is once again decided .
FA I T H AND EN L I GHTEN MEN T
H A V E S T A T E D the principles of philosophicalGod is ; there is an unconditional imperative ;is fini te and imperfectible ; man can live in God
’ sreality of the world subsists ephemerally
11God and existence . These five propositions renforce and lend impetus to one another . But each hasts own source in a fundamental experience Of existence .
None Of these five principles is demonstrable in theense of a limited insight into Objects in the world .
only be pointed out,
” “ elucidated ”
reasoning, recalled to mind .
” They donstitute a creed, for despite the force of the fai thplaced in them they remain in the suspension ofowledge . I follow them not because I accept a
dience to an authority but because by mycannot elude their truth .
b statements Of principles fill us with misgiving .
are too readily treated like a body of knowledge,
his vitiates their purpose . They are too readilyinto a dogma which is substituted for reality.
should be communicated, in order that men mayrstand one another through them
,in order that
may be confirmed by communication,in order
they may awaken men when conditions aree . But by the definiteness of their statementrise to pseudo-knowledge .
85
WAY T O W I S D O M
Statement demands discussion . For when we thinkthere are always two possibilities : we may arrive at thtruth or we may miss it . Thus every positive statemen
demands safeguards against error,and side by sid
with the ordered building up Of thought we find perversion . Consequently, all positive exposition must bpermeated by negative judgments
,limitation
,an
critique . But in philosophical thought this battle 0discussion is not a struggle for power ; it is a struggle fOlucidity through questioning
,a struggle for clarity an
truth,in which we allow our adversary all thos
weapons of the intellect with which we defend our owfaith .
In philosophizing I have recourse to direct statement where a direct question is asked . Is there a GodIs there an unconditional imperative in our life ? Iman imperfectible ? Is there guidance by God ? Is threality of the world suspended and ephemeral ? I ancompelled to answer
,when I am confronted by tht
principles characterizing lack of faith,which are mor<
or less as follows :First : There is no God, for there is only the worlc
and the laws governing its process ; the world is God .
Second : There is no unconditional imperative, ID!
the imperatives which I Obey originated in time antare in process of change . They are determ ined bxcustom
,habit
,tradition
,Obedience ; everything
contingent upon something else ad infinitum .
Third : Man is perfectible, for man can be just aperfect in his way as the animal ; it wilf 'be possible t<breed a perfect man . There is no inherent
,funda
mental imperfection or frailty in man . Man is n(86
FA I T H A N D E N L I G H T E N M E N T
rmediate being but complete and whole . True,everything else in the world he is transient
,but he
ed in himself,independent
,adequate to
his world .
There is no guidance by God . This guide is an illusion and a self-deception . Man has thength to follow himself and can rely on his own
ngth .
The world is everything,its reality is the sole
entie reality . Since there is no transcendence,
in the world is indeed transient,but the
elf is absolute,it is eternal and not ephemeral
,
transition and suspension .
dealing with such statements Of lack Of faithosophy has a twofold task : to apprehend theirigin and to elucidate the truth of faith .
Lack of faith is generally regarded as a product Ofe Enlightenment . But what is enlightenment ? !
The teachings Of enlightenment are directed againste blindness which accepts ideas as true withoutstiohing them ; against actions—cg ,
magicalons—which cannot accomplish what they are
to accomplish, since belief in their efficacyon assumptions which can be proved false ;
gainst restrictions on questioning and inquiry ;gainst traditional prejudices . Enlightenment demandsn unlimited striving for insight and a critical aware
not primarilyEnlightenm ent . As a
significant philosophical attitude, enlightenment is opposed torstition, prejudice, and anything else that obstructs the deepest apprehen
n of and response to reality .
WAY T O W I S D O M
Man strives to understand what he beldesires
,and does . He wants to think for hims
wishes to grasp with his understanding, andpossible to have proof of what is true . He wantsknowledge to be based on experience which is funmentally accessible to everyone . He seeks paths tosource of insight instead of permitting it to be s
before him as a finished product which he need onaccept . He wishes to understand to what degreeproof is valid and at what limits the understandingfrustrated . And he would like also to have a rebasis for the indemonstrable premise
,which h
ultimately take as the foundation Of his life,authority he follows
,of the veneration he
respect in ‘
which he holds the thoughts angreat men
,of the trust which he
which,whether only at this partic
particular situation or inunfathomable .why he obeys .true and everytright to this condition ; heit inwardly . And such participation must beself-conviction . In short : enlightenment iwords OfKant man ’ s departure from the conditioOf immaturity for which he himself is responsible .
” Itruth it is the path by which man comes to himself.
But the demands Of enlightenment are so easmisunderstood that the very term is ambivalent . Tcan be true and there can be false enlightenment . An Trueenlightening,accordingly the fight against enlightenment is itsel notfromoutside
,by88
WAY T O W I S D OM
limit upon questioning,is aware Of the factual limi
For it not only elucidates prejudices andbeliefs which were hitherto unquestionedelucidates itself. It does not confound the mthe understanding with the contents of hIn its view these contents can be elucidated brational understanding but they cannot be baseupon the understanding .
Let us now discuss some ofthe attacks that have bemade on enlightenment . I t has been called theerogation of man, who wishes to owe onlywhat has been bestowed upon him by grace .
Those who make thi s accusation fail to recogthat God does not speak through the commandsrevelations of other men but in man ’ s selfhoodthrough his freedom,
not from withoutwithin . Any restriction on man ’ s freedom
,
God and oriented toward God, is a restrictio versalhumanWill
very thing through which God theyrejectour(on
enemies Of enlightenment rebel against God POW toattainlm
favour Of supposedly divine but actually philosephicalsuicié
contents of faith, injunctions, prohibitions, i lnoppositiontot
and rules Of conduct,wherein
,as in all thin therecanbelt
folly and wisdom are inextricably Wiflwutatrucsdc
cease questioning these things is to renounce the hum situationmakethis;
mission . The rejection Of enlightenment is a kind 0 manfallsintothemtreason against man .
OffanaticaldecisimOne Of the main elements of enlightenment i Barriersareerette
science, a science free from preconceived notio
whose searching and questioning are not limited Whytheseamaims and truths set forth in advance (apart from such Not infrequent!
FA I T H A N D E N L I G H T E NM E N T
cal,humanitarian restrictions as those forbidding
use Of’
men as objects Of experiment) .We have heard the outcry : Science destroys faith .
reek science could be built into faith and was usefulr its elucidation
,but modern science is utterly
s . I t is a purely historical phenomenon resultingcatastrophic world crisis . We may expect its end
d should do our utmost to hasten it . These criticsub t the eternal truth which shines forth in modernence . They deny the dignity Of man which is todaylonger
‘
p ossible without a scientific attitude . Theyphilosophical enlightenment
,which they as
ate only with the flatness of the understanding andwith the breadth of reason . They turn againstralism ,
seeing only the congealed liberalism Ofand superficial faith in progress
,not the
force of liberality . They attack tolerance asindifference
,and fail to recognize the uni
man readiness for communication . In shortr foundation in human dignity
,in the
power to attain knowledge, in freedom,and advocate
philosOphical suicide .In opposition to these beliefs we are certain that today
there can be no integrity,reason
,or human dignity
without a true scientific attitude,where tradition and
situationmake this attitude possible .Wherescience is lostman falls into the twilight of vaguely edifying sentiments ,Offanatical decisions arrived at in self-willed blindness .Barriers are erected
,man is led into new prisons .
Why these attacks on enlightenment ?
Not infrequently they grow out of an urge to
91
WAY T O W I S D O M
absurdity,a drive to set men up as mouthpie
and Obey them . They arise out ofpassion forwhich no longer follows the laws Of the daythe experience Of the bottom less builds a ssaving pseudo-order without foundation . Andgrow out of the unfaith of those who, in their desirfaith
,persuade themselves that they have a faith .
out of a will to power which fosters the belief thatare more compliant when they are blindly suto an authority which is an instrument Of thi s powerOften the enemies of enlightenment have invokeChrist and the New Testament—rightly SO if they hain mind certain churches and theologies down throngthe centuries
,but unjustifiab ly if they were thinki
of the source and truth of the biblical religion as such,
for these are alive in true enlightenment,they are
elucidated by philosophy, which helps perhaps to preserve them for humanity in the new technologicalworld .
If the attacks on enlightenm ent Often seem meaningful
,it is because Of the perversions Of enlightenment
,
which are indeed Open to attack . What makes the
p erversions possible is the difficulty Of the task. It istrue that the enthusiasm with which every newlyawakening man attains freedom and through it agreater sense of Openness to the godhead goes hand inhand with enlightenment . But soon enlightenment maybecome an unwarranted aspiration . For God is notheard unequivocally out Of freedom but only in thecourse Of lifelong effort through moments when man isgranted what he could never attain by thought . Mencannot always bear the burden Of critical nonknowledge in mere readiness to listen at the proper
F A I T H A N D E N L I G H T E N M E N T
ment . He desires defini te knowledge Of the ulti
he has rejected faith, he abandons himself tolect as such
,and from it falsely expects cer
e decisive questions of life . But sincet provide such certainty
,his expecta
y by deceptions : the finite andte
,som etimes this
,sometimes that
,and 80 on
variations,is absolutized into the whole . A
category is taken for cognition as such . TheOf persevering self-examination gives way
overweening trust in a definitive pseudo-certainty.
en claim absolute truth for opinions based on accint and situation, and in their pseudo- luciditymb to a new blindness . In its assertion that mannow and think everything on the basis ofhis
. own
such enlightenment is indeed arbitrary . I trts this impossible claim by undisciplined half
cannot combat all these perversions of enlightenby abolishing thought but only by a realizationught with its full potentialities, with its criticalness Of limits and its valid accomplishmentssustain the test Of knowledge . Only a developOf thought achi eved through the self-educationwhole man can prevent any body Of thought
whatsoever from becoming a poison ; can preventenlightenment from becoming an agent of death .
The purest enlightenment recognizes that it cannotdispense with faith . The five propositions of philoso
phical faith cannot be demonstrated like scientific
93
W A Y T O W I S D O M
theses . It is not possible to impose faith by rationmeans
,by any science or philosophy .
It is a fallacy of false enlightenment to supposethe understanding by itself alone can know truthbeing. The understanding is dependent on sometelse . As scientific cognition, it is dependent onexperience . As philosophy, it is dependent on cof faith .
The understanding can indeed clarify,develop thought
,but that which lends its Opinion
Objective significance, its thought fulfilment, itaction purpose
,its philosophy authentic content mus
be given to it .The source Of these premises upon which thoughtt
must depend is ultimately unknowable . They are;
rooted in the Comprehensive out of which we live . Iff
the force of the Comprehensive fails us , we incline to ;the five negative propositions Of unfaith .
The prem ises Of sensory experience come from the :world
,the premises Offaith have their source in histori
cal tradition . In this outward form the premises aremerely guides by which we find our way to theauthentic premises . For the outward premises aresubject to constant testing
,not only by the under
standing as a judge who Of himself knows what is truebut by the understanding as an instrument : theunderstanding tests experience by other experience ;it also tests traditional faith by traditional faith
,and in
so doing tests all tradition by the original awakening Ofits contents out Of the primal source Of our own selfhood . The sciences provide those necessary insightsinto experience which no one following the prescribed
94
F A I T H A N D E N L I G H T E N M E N T
1bl’ rati ethods can elude ; while philosophy, through itsasoned ‘
approach to tradition, makes possible our
cannot combat unfaith directly but we cant the demonstrably false claims of rationalistic
seudO-knowledge and the claims of faith that assumefalsely rational form .
The principles of phi losophical faith become falsewhen they are taken as communication of a content.For none of these principles implies an absolute Object ;they are to be taken as the symbol of an infinity becoming concrete . Where this infinity is present in faith, theendless reality Of the world takes on meaning as itsmanifestation . But thi s meaning must still be inter
preted.
When the philosopher utters these principles Offaith
,they assume an analogy to a creed . The phi lo
sopher should not exploit his nonknowledge in order toevade all answers . He must be circumspect in hisphilosophizing and repeat : I do not know ; I do noteven know whether I believe ; however, such faith,expressed in such propositions
,strikes me as meaning
ful ; I will venture to believe in this way, and I hope Ishall have the strength to live by my faith . In philoSophy there will always be a tension between theseeming indecision Of the suspended utterance and thereality of resolute conduct .
95
TH E H I S TORY O F MAN !
NO R E A L I T Y I s more essential to our self-awarenethan history . It shows us the broadekind
,brings us the contents Of tr
our life is built, shows us standards by whichmeasure the present
,frees us from unconsciou
bondage to our own age, teaches us to see man in hihighest potentialities and his imperishable creations .We can make no better use of leisure tha
familiarize ourselves and keep ourselves familiarthe glories of the past and the catastrophes ineverything has been shattered . We gain aunderstanding Of our present experience ifwe see it inthe mirror of history . And hi story becomes alive for uswhen we regard it in the light of our own age . Our lifebecomes richer when past and present illumine one ianother .It is only the concrete
,particular history which is ;
close to us that truly concerns us . Yet in our philoso
phical approach to history we inevitably deal incertain abstractionSu
History sometimes appears to be a chaos of accidental happenings
,an eddying flood . It passes on,
from one turmoil,from one catastrophe to the next
,with
brief intervals of happiness,little islands which it
In this chapter certain passages from my book Vom Ursprung and Ziel defGeschichte have been reproduced verbatim .
96
WAY T O W I S D O M
as is shown by paintings and remains of tools . Buonly for the last five to six thousand years that we hhad a documented
,coherent hi story.
History breaks down into four basic segments :First : We can only infer the first great steps towar
the use of language,the invention of tools
,the kin
and use of fire . This is the Prometheantion Of all history
,through which man became
distinction to a purely biologically definedspecies
,of which we can scarcely conceive .
this was,over what vast periods of time the pro
tended, we do not know . But this agein the very remote past and it must have been manytimes longer than the comparatively insignificantspan of time covered by our documented historicalera .
Second : The ancient high civilizations grew upbetween 5000 and 3000 in Egypt
,Mesopotamia,
and on the Indus,somewhat later on the Hwang
River in China . These are little islands of light amidthe broad mass of mankind which already populatedthe whole planet .Third : In the years centring around 500 B .C .
from 800 to 200—the spiritual foundations of humanitywere laid
,Simultaneously and independently in China
,
India, Persia, Palestine, and Greece . And these arethe foundations upon which humanity still subsiststoday .
Fourth : Since then there has been only one entirelynew, spiritually and materi ally incisive event, equal tothe others in historical significance : the age of scienceand technology . I t was foreshadowed in Europe at the
98
T H E H I S T O R Y O F M A N
of the Middle Ages ; its theoretical groundworklaid in the seventeenth century ; at the end of theteenth century it entered on a period Of broad
rowth, and in the last few decades it has advanced atheadlong pace .
Let us cast a glance at the third segment,that of the
ears around 500 Hegel has said,
“ All history5 toward Christ and from Christ . The appearof the Son of God is the axis of history . Our
reminds us every day of this Christianof history . The flaw in this view Of history is
can have meaning only for believing Christians .even Western Christians have not built their emcal view Of history on their faith but have drawnessential distinction between sacred and profanestory .
If there is an axis in history,we must find it em
pirically in profane history, as a set of circumstancessignificant for all men
,including Christians . I t must
carry conviction for Westerners,Asiatics
,and all men
,
without the support of any particular content offaith
, and thus provide all men with a common historical fram e of reference .
The spiritual process which took place between 800and 200 seems to constitute such an axis . I t wasthen that the man with whom we live today came intobeing . Let us designate this period as the “ axial age .
”
Extraordinary events are crowded into this period . InChina lived Confucius and Lao Tse
,all the trends in
Chinese philosophy arose,it was the era of MO Tse,
Chuang Tse and countless others . In India it was the
W A Y T O W I S D O M
age of the Upanishads and of Buddha ; as iphilosophical trends
,including skepticism
alism ,sophistry and nihilism
,were developed . In Ira
Zarathustra put forward his challenging concep tio
of the cosmic process as a struggle between good anevil ; in Palestine prophets arose : Elijah,Jeremiah
,Deutero- Isaiah ; Greece produced
the philosophers Parmenides,Heraclitus
,Pl
tragic poets,Thucydides
,and Archimedes . All
development of which these names are a mere intition took place in these few centuries
,independe
and almost simultaneously in China,India
,and th
West .The new element in thi s age is that man everywhered
became aware of being as a whole,of himself and his!
limits . He experienced the horror Of the world and hisown helplessness . He raised radical questions , ap
proached the abyss in his drive for liberation andredemption . And in consciously apprehending hislimi ts he set himself the highest aims . He experiencedthe absolute in the depth of selfhood and in the clarityOf transcendence .Conflicting possibilities were explored . Discussion,
partisanship,intellectual schi sms ( though within a
common frame of reference) gave rise to movementand unrest bordering on spiritual chaos .This era produced the basic categories in which we
still think and created the world religions out ofwhichmen still live .The opinions
,customs
,conditions which had
hi therto enjoyed unconscious acceptance came to bequestioned . The world was thrown into turmoil .
IOO
WAY T O W I S D O M
And the sociological conditions of all three regireveal analogies : innumerable petty states and citiesstruggle ofall against all
,and yet at first an astonishi
prosperity .
But these centuries in which so much hwere not characterized by a simple ascendingment . There was destruction and creation at 0there was no fulfilment . The supremerealized in individuals did not becomeheritage . What started out as freedom 0
became anarchy in the end . Once thecreative impetus
,ideas congealed into
levelling occurred in all three spheres . As the disogrew intolerable
,men sought new bonds and
stability .
The end was first characterized by political devments . Vast despotic empires arose almost siously in China (Tsin, Shi, Huangti) , in India (thMaurya dynasty) , in the West (the Hellenisti
empires and the Imperium Romanum) . Everywhersystematic order and technical organization emergefrom the collapse .
The spiritual life of men is still oriented toward the‘
axial age . China,India
,and the West have all wit
nessed conscious attempts to restore it,renaissances .
True, there have been great new spiritual creationsbut they have been inspired by ideas acquired in theaxial age .
Thus the main line of history runs from the birth Ofhumanity through the civilizations of high anti
quity to the axial age and its offshoots, which
102
T H E H I S T O R Y O F M A N
ayed a creative role up to the dawn of our own
Since then a new line would seem to have begun .
age Of science and technology is a kind of secondable to the first invention of tools
If we may venture a presumption by analogy,we
hall pass through vast planned organizations analogous0 those of Egypt and the other ancient high civiliza
from which the ancient Jews emigrated and on
when they laid a new foundation,they looked
hatred as a place Of forced labour. Perhapskind will pass through these giant organizationsnew axial age
,still remote
,invisible
,and in
eivab le,an axial age Of authentic human upsurge .
ay we are living in an era of the mostatastrophes. It seems as though everything
ad been transmitted to us were being meltedand yet there is no convincing sign that a newis in the making .
is new is that in our day history is for thebecoming world-wide in Scope . Measured bywhich modern communications have givenbe
,all previous history is a mere aggregate of
cal histories .What we formerly called history is ended—an
termediary moment of five thousand years betweenprehistoric centuries in which the globe was popud and the world history which is now beginning .
millennia,measured by the preceding era of
an ’ s existence and by future possibilities, are ainute interval . In this interval men may be said to
103
W AY T O W I S D O M
have gathered together,to have mustered t
forces for the action of world history,to have acquire
the intellectual and technical equipment they needefor the journey which is just beginning .
We must look to horizons such as these whenincline to take a dark view of the realities of ourand to regard all human history as lost . Wejustified in believing in the future potehumanity . In the short view al l is gloom,
in the 1view it is not . But this becomes evident only inlight of history as a whole .
The more fully we realize ourselves in the presseeking the truth and ascertaining the criteriahumanity
,the more confidently we may look to th
future .
And now,as to the meaning of history . Those who1
believe that the historical process has an aim Often ,
strive to realize it by planning .
But we become aware of our helplessness when we‘
seek to p lan and organize history as a whole . The:overweening plans of rulers
,based upon a supposed
total knowledge of history,have always ended in
catastrophe . The plans devised by individuals in theirrestricted circles fail or else contribute to unleashingquite different
,unplanned complexes of events . The
historical process can be seen either as an irresistiblemechanism or as an infinitely interpretable meaningwhich manifests itself by unexpected new events,which remains always equivocal
,a meaning which,
even when we entrust ourselves to it,is never known
to us .
104
WAY T O W I S D O M
everything if,partaking of the primal source
,
entrust myself to transcendence .
We cannot define the ultimate aim of history butcan posit an aim which is itself a prem ise forrealization of the highest human potentialities . Anthat is the unity of mankind.
Unity cannot be achieved through any rationa
scientific universal . This would produce a unityunderstanding but not of mankind . Nor doesreside in a universal religion
,such as might be arrive
at through discussion at religious congresses . Nor cait be realized through a conventional language baseon reason and common sense . Unity can be gained 0from the depth of historicity
,not as a comm
knowable content but in boundless communicat
of the historically different in never-ending dialogrising to heights of noble emulation .
A dialogue Of this sort,which will be worthy
man, requires an area of freedom from violence .
practical unity of men striving for such an areanonviolence seems conceivable
,and many
already taken it as their goal . This goal of unimankind at least on the basic levels of life
,which does
not imply a common and universal faith,does noti
seem entirely utopian'
. Its realization will require a
stubborn political struggle against the powers thatbe —and our very situation may well drive us into sucha struggle .Prerequisite for such a uni ty is a political form upon
which all can agree,since it provides the best possible
basis of freedom for all . This form,which only in the
106
T H E H I S T O R Y O F M A N
st has been developed in theory and in parted, is the constitutional state built on electionslaws which are subject to modification solelymeans . In such a state men battle to gainon for the just cause
,to win public opinion
widespread and enlightened education andserved dissemination of news .would be no wars in a constitutional world
r where no state would possess absolute sovereigntymankind itself
,acting through its constitutional
ns,would be sovereign .
desires communication and aspiresthrough a constitutional orderust
,is moving toward justice, we
not be helped by an optimism born of enthu
for such ideas,which sees the future as all
t . For we have every reason to take the opposite
We see,each of us in ourself, the self-will, the
sistance to self- elucidation, the sophistry, with whichis used as an instrument of obfusca
we see rejection of the unfamiliar in the place ofmunication . We see the pleasure men take iner and violence ; we see how the masses are sweptwar ; s tricken with blind lust for gain and ad
ure,willing to sacrifice everything
,even their
On the other hand we see the unwillingness ofmasses to deprive themselves
,to save
,to work
and quietly toward the building of stableand we see the passions which force their
ost unobstructed into the background of the
107
W AY T O W I S D O M
And quite apart from the character of men,we
the irremediable injustice of all institutions, wesituations which cannot be solved by justice
,
situations arising for example from the increaseredistributlon of the population or from th
possession by one group of somethingdesire and which cannot be divided .
Hence there seems almost to be anlimit at which violence in some form must athrough . Once again we are faced with the quesis it God or the devil who governs the world ? Anthough we may believe that ultimately the devil is ithe service of God, there is no proof of it .
When in our isolation we see our lives seepingas a mere succession of moments
,tossed
about by accidents and overwhelming events ;we contemplate a history that seems to be at anleaving only chaos behind it
,then we are impelle
raise ourselves above history.
Yet we must remain aware Of our epoch andsituation . A modern phi losophy cannot devwithout elucidating its roots in time and in a p
tions of our epoch,it is not from thes
we draw our phi losophy,but now as at all
the Comprehensive . We must not adjusttialities to the low level of our age
,not 5
Ourselves to our epoch,but attempt
,by eluci
the age, to arrive at the point where we can live ouour primal source .Nor must we deify history . We need not accept
108
TH EI NDE P ENDE NT P H I L O S O PH E R
TH E I N D E P E N D E N C E O F man is rejected by al
totali tarianism,by the totalitarian religion whicl
claims exclusive truth as well as by the totalitariarstate which
,melting down all humanity into materia
for its edifice of power,leaves no room for individuality
and even controls leisure activities in accordancr
with an ideological line . Today independence seemto be silently disappearing beneath the inundation 0
all life by the typical,the habitual
,the unquestionec
commonplace .
But to philosophize is to fight for our inner
pendence, under all conditions . What is inneindependence ?
Since late antiquity the philosopher has beerepresented as an independent man . The pohas certain salient features : This philosophindependent
,first because he is without needs
,
from the world of possessions and the rule Of passhe is an ascetic ; second , because he is withoutfor he has seen through the illusory terrorsreligions ; third, because he takes no part inment and politics and lives without ties
,in peac
retirement,a citizen of the world . In any case
I IO
T H E I N D E P E N D E N T P H I L O S O P H E R
philosopher believes that he has attained to a position of absolute independence
,a vantage point out
side of things , in which he cannot be moved or
shaken .
This philosopher has become an object Of admiration but also of distrust . True
,numerous philosophers
of this type have disclosed rare independence throughpoverty, celibacy, aloofness from business and politics ;they have manifested a happiness which did notspring from anything eternal but from awarenessthat life is a journey and from indifference to theblows of fate . B ut some of these figures also revealegoism and ambition
,pride and vanity
,a coldness in
human dealings and an ugly hostility to other philosophers. And dogmatism is common to all of them .
Theirs is an impure independence which seems verymuch akin to an ununderstood and sometimesridiculous dependence .
Nevertheless,side by side with biblical religion
these philosophers do Offer a historical source of
possible independence . Acquaintance with themencourages our own striving for independence , perhapsprecisely by showing us that man cannot sustain himself ih isolation and detachment . This ostensibleabsolute freedom turns automatically into a newdependence
,outwardly on the world
,whose recogni
tion is courted,inwardly on unclarified passions . The
road of the philosophers of lat e antiquity offers us nopromise . Although some were magnificent personalities
,they created
,in their fight for freedom, rigid
figures and masks without background .
We see that independence turns into its Opposite
I I I
WAY T O W I S D O M
if it is held to be absolute . And it is not easy to say iwhat sense we can strive for independence .
The concept of independence is almost hopelessambivalent . For exampleThe philosopher
,and the metaphysician
particular, sets up thought structures like gameswhich he remains superior because of his unlimitpower over them . But this gives rise to the questioIs man master of his thoughts because heand can carry on his creative game withoutto a foundation, arbitrarily, according to ru
he himself has devised, enchanted by its form,
conversely,because he is oriented toward God a
thus remains superior to the discourse in whichmust inevitably clothe absolute being
,which
never fit the absolute,and hence needs to be
adjusted ad infinitum ?
Here the independence of the philosopher cousiin his not succumbing to his ideas as dogmas butmaking himself master over them . But masteryone ’ s ideas remains ambivalent—does it meanarbitrary freedom from ties or does it imply ties intranscendence ?
Another example : In order to gain our independ
ence we seek an Archimedean point outside of theworld . This is an authentic quest, but the question isIs this Archimedean point an outsideness which makesman a kind of God in his total independence or is it theoutside point where he truly meets God and exper
iences his only complete independence, which alonecan make him independent in the world ?
112
WAY T O W I S D O M
eloquent turns of phrase and striking images,in dis
regard of communication—all this dictatorial languageof wisdom and prophecy is not enough .
Thus those who are deluded into supposing thatthey possess being as such often endeavour tomake manforget himself. Man is dissolved in fictions of beingand yet these fictions themselves always conceal apossible road back to man ; hidden dissatisfaction maylead to the recovery of the authentic seriousness whichbecomes real only in existential presence and casts offthe ruinous attitude of those who take life as it is anddo what they please .
This irresponsible type of independence is alsomanifested in intellectual opportunism . An irresponsible playing with contradictions permits such a manto take any position he finds convenient . He is versedin all methods but adheres strictly to none . He espousesan unscientific attitude but makes scientific gestures .He is a Proteus
,wriggling and changing
,you cannot
grasp hold of him,he actually says nothing but seems
to be promising something extraordinary . He exertsan attraction by vague hints and whi sperings whichgive men a sense of the mysterious . No authenticdiscussion with him is possible but only a talkingback and forth about a wide variety of “ interesting ”
things . Conversation with him can be no more than anaimless pouring forth of false emotion .
Irresponsible independence can take the form of
indifference to a world that has grown intolerable .What does death matter ? It will come . What is
there to be perturbed about ?
We live in the joy of our vitality and the pain of its
T H E I N D E P E N D E N T P H I L O S O P H E R
bbing away . A natural Yes permits us at all times toeel and to think according to circumstance . We aretnpolemical. What is the good of taking sides ? Lovend tenderness are possible but they are at the mercyif time, of the ephemeral
,of the transient as such .
lothing is unconditional .We drift along, without desire to do or to be anyhing in particular . We do what is asked of us or whateems appropriate . Genuine emotion is absurd . We arelClp l in our everyday dealings with men .
No horizon,no distance
,neither past nor future
ustain this life which expects nothing and lives only[ere and now.
The many forms of illusory independence to whichve can succumb cast suspicion upon independencetself. This much is certain : in order to gain truendependence we must not only elucidate these variousorms of independence but achieve awareness of theimits of all independence .
Absolute independence is impossible . In thinking wewe dependent on experience which must be given us,11 living we are dependent on others with whom wetand ‘ in a relation of mutual aid . As selfhood we atelep endent on other selfhood, and it is only in comnunication that we and the others come truly tomrselves. There is no isolated freedom . Where there is‘
reedom it struggles with unfreedom,and if unfreedom
NCI‘
C fully overcome through the elimination of alle sistances freedom itself would cease .Accordingly
,we are independent only when we are
i t the same time enmeshed in the world . I cannot
115
WAY T O W I S D O M
achi eve independence by abandoning the worlIndeed
,independence in the world implies a par
attitude toward the world : to be in it and yet not into be both inside it and outside it . This thoughtshared by“ great thinkers of the most varying trends :With regard to all experiences
,pleasures
,states
happiness and unhappiness,Aristippus says
but I am not had ; St . Paul tells his followers how to tpart in earthly life : have as though you had not ;B hagavad
-Gita admonishes us to perform the task bnot to strive after its fruits ; Lao Tse counsels manact through inaction .
These immortal sayings might be interpretedinfinitum . Here we need only say that they all exprinner independence . Our independence of theis inseparable from a mode of dependence on
world .
A second limit to independence is that by itselfalonit negates itselfIndependence has been negatively formulated as
freedom from fear,as indifference to fortune
,good or
bad, as the imperturbability of the thinker as merespectator, as immuni ty to emotions and impulses . Butthe self who achi eves such independence is reduced tothe abstract punctuality of the ego .
Independence does not derive its content from itself.It is not any innate gift
,it is not vitality
,race
, the willto power
,it is not self- creation .
Philosophical thought grows out of an independencein the world
,an independence signifying an absolute
attachment to the world through transcending of theworld . A supposed independence without attachment
116
WA Y T O W I S D O M
we do good only under the tacit condition that 0good action will not be too harmful to our happineand that this makes our good deed impure . This isradical evil that we cannot overcome .
Our independence itself requires help . We can on!do our best and hope that something withininvisible to the world—will in some unfathomablecome to our aid and lift us out of our limitations .only independence possible for us is dependence o
transcendence .
I should like to give some intimation of how ameasure of independence can be achieved in philoso
phical thought todayLet us not pledge ourselves to any philosophical
school or take formulable truth as such for the one andexclusive truth ; let us be master of our thoughts ;let us not heap up philosophical possessions , but
apprehend philosophical thought as movement andseek to deepen it ;let us battle for truth and humanity in uncon
ditional communication ;let us acquire the power to learn from all the past
by making it our own ; let us listen to our contemporaries and remain open to all possibilities ;let each of us as an individual immerse himself in
his own historicity,in his origin, in what he has done ;
let him possess himself of what he was,of what he
has become,and ofwhat has been given to him ;
let us not cease to grow through our own historicityinto the historicity of man as a whole and thus makeourselves into citizens of the world .
118
sndcauSCSuS
isConsequfl
hindusroom
sometoours!
andthendo1
independenting,despair
butnotover
growsupin
Philosoph
T H E I N D E P E N D E N T P H I L O S O P H E R
We lend little credence to a philosopher who isrp erturbable, we do not believe in the calm of theoic, wedo not even desire to be unmoved, for it is our[manity itself which drives us into passion and fearrd causes us in tears and rejoicing to experience whatConsequently only by rising from the chains thatad us to our emotions
,not by destroying them, do we
me to ourselves . Hence we must venture to be men
rd then do what we can to move forward to our truedependence . Then we shall suffer without complain
g, despair without succumbing ; we shall be shakenit not overturned
,for the inner independence that
ows up in us will sustain us .Philosophy is the school of thi s independence, it isDI. the possession of independence .
119
TH E PH I L O S O PH I CA L L I F E
IF O UR L IV E S are not to be diffuse and meaninglessthey must find their place in an order . In our
affairs we must be sustained by a coprinciple
,we must find meaning in an edifice of w
fulfilment,and sublime moments
,and by repeti
we must gain in depth . Then our lives, even in tperformance of monotonous tasks, will be permeat
by a mood arising from our conscious participationa meaning . Then we shall be sustained by an awarenessof the world and of ourselves
,by the history of which
we are a part,and
,in our own lives
,by memory and
loyalty .
An order of this sort may come to the individual from r
the world in which he was born,from the church
which shapes and animates the great steps from birth todeath and the little steps of everyday life . He will thenspontaneously fit his daily experience into that orderNot so in a crumbling world
,which puts less and less
faith in tradition,in a world which subsists only as
outward order,without symbolism and transcendence
,
which leaves the soul empty and is not adequate toman, which, when it leaves him free, thrusts him backupon his own resources
,in lust and boredom
,fear and
indifference . Here the individual can rely only in himself. By living phi losophically he seeks to build up by
120
WAY T O W I S D O M
mere work in whose aims we immerse ourselves asitself a road to self-forgetfulness
,omission
,and gui
And to lead a philosophical life means also toseriously our experience ofmen, ofhappiness andof success and failure
,of the obscure and the
It means not to forget but to possess ourselvesof our experience
,not to let ourselves be distracted
to think problems through,not to take things
granted but to elucidate them .
There are two paths of philosophical life : the pof solitary meditation in all its ramifications andpath of communication with men
,of mutual under
standing through acting,speaking, and keeping
silence together .
We men cannot do without our daily moments ofprofound reflection . In them we recapture our selfawareness
,lest the presence of the primal source be
lost entirely amid the inevitable distractions of dailylife .
What the religions accomplish in prayer and worship has its philosophical analogy in explicit immersion
,in inner communion with being itself. This
can take place only in times and moments (regardlesswhether at the beginning or end of the day or inbetween) when we are not occupied in the world withworldly aims and yet are not left empty but are incontact with what is most essential .Unlike religious contemp lation, philosophical con
templation has no holy object, no sacred place, nofixed form . The order which we give to it does notbecome a rule
,it remains potentiality in free motion .
122
T H E P H I L O S O P H I C A L L I F E
contemplation, unlike religious worship , deands solitude .
What is the possible content of such meditation ?
First,self-refl ection. I call to mind what I have done
,
ought, felt during the day . I ask myself wherein Ierred
,wherein I have been dishonest with my
wherein I have evaded my responsibilities,
ein I have been insincere ; I also try to discerngood qualities I have displayed and seek ways into enhance them . I reflect on the degree of
nscious control over my actions that I have exertedthe course of the day . I judge myself—with regardmy particular conduct
,not with regard to the whole
an that I am,for that is inaccessible to me —I find
les in accordance with which I resolve to judgeperhaps I fix in my m ind words that I plan toto myself in anger, in despair, in boredom, andstates in which the self is lost
,magic words as it
reminders (such as : observe moderation, think ofther
,be patient
,God is) . I learn from the tradition
runs from the Pythagoreans through the Stoicstians to Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, with itsto self- reflection ' I realize that suchcan never be conclusive and that it is
infinitely susceptible to error .Second
,transcending refl ection. Guided by philos
ophical methods, I gain awareness of authentic being,of the godhead . I read the symbols of being with thehelp of literature and art . I gain understanding ofthem by phi losophical scrutiny . I seek to ascertainthat which is independent of time or that which iseternal in time
,seek to touch upon the source of my
W AY T O W I S D O M
freedom and through it upon being itself; I seek as itwere to partake of creation .
Third, I reflect on what should be done in the present.Remembrance of my own life with men is the background against which I clarify my present task downto the details of this particular day
,when in the
inevitable intensity of practical thinking I lose myawareness of theComprehensive meaning .
What I gain for myself alone in reflection would —iit were all—b e as nothing gained .
What is not realised in communication is not yet,
what is not ultimately grounded in it is withoutadequate foundation . The truth begins with two .
Consequently phi losophy demands : seek constancommunication
,risk it without reserve
,renounce the
defiant self-assertion which forces itself upon you inever new disguises
,live in the hope that in your very
renunciation you will in some incalculable way begiven back to yourself.Hence I must constantly draw myself into doubt
,I
must not grow secure,I must not fasten on to any
ostensible light within myself,in the belief that it w ill
illumine me reliably and judge me truly . Such anattitude toward the self is the most seductive formof inauthentic self-assertion .
If I meditate in these three forms—self-refl ection ,
transcending meditation,contemplation of my task
and open myself to unlimited communication,an
imponderable presence which can never be forcedmay come to me : the clarity ofmy love, the hidden and
124
WAY T O W I S D O M
world into transcendence, without hearing any diand unequivocal word of God
,but reading
symbols of the polyvalent language of things and yliving with the certainty of transcendence .
Only transcendence can make this questionablife good
,the world beautiful
,and existence itself a
fulfilment .Ifto philosophize is to learn how to die
,then we must
learn how to die in order to lead a good life . To learn tolive and to learn how to die are one and the same thing .
Meditation teaches us the power of thought.Thought is the beginning of human existence . In
accurate knowledge of objects I experience the powerof the rational, as in the operations of mathematics, inthe natural sciences, in technical planning . As mymethod grows purer
,the logic ofmy syllogi sms becomes
more compelling,I gain greater insight into chains of
causality,my experience becomes more reliable .
But philosophical thought begins at the limits ofthis rational knowledge . Rationality cannot help us inthe essentials : it cannot help us to posit aims andultimate ends
,to know the highest good
,to know God
and human freedom ; thi s inadequacy of the ra tionalgives rise to a kind of thinking which
,whi le working
with the tools of the understanding,is more than
understanding . Philosophy presses to the limits of
rational knowledge and there takes fire .
He who believes that he understands everything is nolonger engaged in philosophical thought . He whotakes scientific insight for knowledge of being itself andas a whole has succumbed to scientific superstition .
126
T H E P H I L O S O P H I C A L L I F E
who has ceased to be astonished has ceased tostion . He who acknowledges no mystery is no
seeker . Because he humbly acknowledges thef possible knowledge the philosopher remainsthe unknowable that is revealed at those limits .cognition ceases
,but not thought . By tech
applying my knowledge I can act outwardly,
nknowledge makes possible an inner action byI transform myself. This is another and deeperf thought ; it is not detached from being andtoward an object but is a process of my
rmost self,in which thought and being become
tical . Measured by outward, technical power,thought of inner action is as nothing, it is no
owledge that can be possessed, it cannot beaccording to plan and purpose ; it is an
tic illumination and growth into being .
understanding (ratio) broadens our horizons ;es objects
,reveals the tensions of the existent,
permits what it cannot apprehend to standfull force and clarity . The clarity of the
understanding makes possible clarity at its limits , andarouses the authentic impulses which are thought andaction
,inward and outward act in one .
The philosopher is expected to live according to hisdoctrine . This maxim expresses poorly the thoughtthat lies behind it . For the philosopher has no doctrineif by doctrine is meant a set of rules under which theparticular cases of empirical existence might besubsumed
,as things are subsumed under empirical
species or men ’ s acts under juridical norms . Philosophical ideas cannot be applied ; they are a reality in
127
WA Y T O W I S D O M
themselves,so that we may say : in the fulfilment 0
these thoughts the man himself lives ; or life is permeated with thought . That is why the philosoand the man are inseparable (while man can besidered apart from his scientific knowledge) ; andis why we cannot explore philosophical ideas inselves but must at the same time gain awareness of thphilosophical humanity which conceived them .
Philosophical life is in constant peril of straying intperversions in justification of which phipropositions are invoked . The formulaedate existence are distorted by the vital willPeace ofmind is confused with passivity, con
with an illusory faith in the harmony of allknowing how to die is mistaken for flight fromworld
,reason for total indifl erence . The best
perverted to the worst .The will to communication is perverted into self
contradictory attitudes : we wish to be undisturbed,yet demand absolute self-certainty in self- illumination .
We wish to be excused because of our nerves and yetask to be recognized as free . We are cautious and taciturn, and secretly on our guard even while professingunreserved readiness for communication . We think ofourselves whi le we are supposedly speaking of theidea .
The phi losopher who strives to understand and overcome these perversions in himself knows his um
certainty ; he is always ou the lookout for criticism, heseeks opposition and wishes to be called to question ;he desires to listen
,not in order to submit but in order
128
6
WA Y T O W I S D O M
attained,perfect . Our states ofbeing are only manifesta overtheW
W
tions of existential striving or failure . It lies in ou thetogo0“ fl
nature to be on- the-way . We strive to cut onethingwlUC
time . That is possible only in polarities sxistencc.H61Only when we exist entirely in this time of
philosOphlcal t
historicity can we experience something of the ete shipwhichhes
present. hestrugglestoh
Only as determinate men, each in his specificity, ca andreeling.
we experience humanity as such . Wearetreat:Only when we experience our own age as our relinquishou
r
Comprehensive reali ty can we apprehend this age as arenotegnieupart of the unity of history
,and this unity of history as flutteringsare
part of eterni ty. nthoscwhosit
In our ascending journey the primal source grows arcintelhgihlecclearer for us behind our empirical states , but ther hesame“megconstant danger that it will return to obscurity. departure forThe ascent of philosophical life is the ascent of depends,which
individual man . He must accomplish it as thoughincomin communication and cannot shift responsibility neverbeeomet}others .We achieve this ascent in the historically concre
elective acts of our life,not by electing any so
weltanschauung laid down in propositions .And now
,in conclusion
,let us venture a metaphor
that may characterize the situation of philosophy inthe temporal worldHaving oriented himself on secure dry land
through realistic observation,through the special
sciences,through logic and methodology—the
philosopher,at the limits of this land
,explores the
world of ideas over tranquil paths . And now like abutterfly he flutters over the ocean shore, darting o
130
T H E P H I L O S O P H I C A L L I F E
ver the water ; he spies a ship in which he wouldke to go on a voyage of discovery
,to seek out the
ne thing which as transcendence is present in hisxistence. He peers after the ship— the method of
hilosophical thought and philosophical life—the1ip which he sees and yet can never fully reach ; ande struggles to reach it
,sometimes strangely staggering
nd reeling .
We are creatures of this sort,and we are lost if we
linquish our orientation to the dry land . But were not content to remain there . That is why our
utterings are so uncertain and perhaps so absurdthose who sit secure and content on dry land, and
re intelligible only to those who have been seized by1e same unrest . For them the world is a point ofeparture for that flight upon which every thingepends, which each man must venture on his ownrough in common with other men
,and which can
ever become the object of any doctrine.
131
TH E H I S TO RY O F PH I LO S O PHY
PH I L O S O P H Y I S A S old as religion and old
than the churches . In the stature and puritychampions and in the integrity of its spirit iusually
,though not always
,been on a level with t
world of the church,whose rights it recognizes in
specific sphere . But without sociological form of
own it has been helpless in its confrontation with tchurch. It has enjoyed the accidental protectionpowers in the world
,including the
favourable sociological situations in order to ritself in objective works . Its authentic reality isto every man at all times
,and it is in some
omnipresent wherever there are men .
The churches are for all,philosophy for individu
The churches are visible organizations,wield
power over masses ofmen in the world . Philosophy isan expression of a realm of minds linked with one
another through all peoples and ages ; it is representedby no institution which excludes or welcomes .As long as the churches have ties with the Eternal,
their outward power exploits the innermost energies .As they draw the Eternal into the service of their powerin the world
,this power
,like every other power in the
world, grows sinister and evil .As long as phi losophy remains in contact with eternaltruth it inspires without violence
,it brings order to
132
WAY T O W I S D O M
aristocrat who felt that he could not engage in tpolitical activity befitting his rank because of
moral degeneration : Bruno, Descartes,Spin
were solitary thinkers, without any institutiothem
,seeking the truth for its own sake ; Anselm
the founder of an ecclesiastical aristocracy ; Thomservant of the church ; Nicholas of Gusa a cardwhose ecclesiastical and philosophical lifeMachiavelli an unsuccessful statesman ; KanSchelling
,professors who developed their philos
in connection with their teaching.
We must rid ourselves of the idea that philosoactivity as such is the affair of professors . Itseem to be the affair ofman, under all conditionscircumstances
,of the slave as of the ruler . We um
stand the historical manifestation of the truth only iexamine it in conjunction with the worldarose and the destinies of the men who cIf these manifestations are remote and alien to usin itselfis illuminating . We must seek the philosophicalidea and the thinker in their physical reality. Thetruth does not hover all alone in the air of abstraction .
The history of phi losophy comes alive for us when,
by thorough study of a work and of the world in whichit was produced
,we participate as it were in that work .
After that we seek perspectives which will accordus a view of the hi story of philosophy as a whole
,i111
schemas which,though questionable
,serve as guides
by which to orient ourselves in so vast a region .
The whole of the history of philosophy throughout :two and a half millennia is like a single vast moment .
134
T H E H I S T O R Y O F P H I L O S O P H Y
the growing self-awareness of man . This momentay be looked upon as a never-ending discussion,sclosing clashes of forces
,questions that seem in
luble, sublime works and regressions, profoundand a turmoil of error .our study of the history of philosophy we seek a
which to situate philosophical ideas .through the history of philosophy as a whole canarn how philosophy developed in relation to thediverse social and political conditions and
rsonal situations .Philosophy developed independently in China
,
dia,and the West . Despite occasional intercom
these three worlds were so sharplyown to the tim e of Christ ’ s birth that eachin the main be studied in its own terms .date the strongest influence was that of
Indian Buddhi sm on China, comparable to that ofChristianity on the Western world .
In the three worlds the development follows asim ilar curve . After a preliminary history whichit is difl icult to clarify, the fundamental ideas roseeverywhere in the axial age (8oo—2oo After thisthere
'
was a period of dissolution in the course of
which the great religions of redemption were consolidated ; there were recurrent periods of renewal ;there were all-embracing systems (Scholasticism) andlogical speculations of sublime metaphysical import
,
carried to the utmost extreme .
What was the specific Western character of thissynchronistic development ? First it consisted in agreater dynami sm
,bringing with it constant crises and
135
WAY T O W I S D O M
developments ; second , in the greater diversitylanguages and peoples manifesting the ideas ; athird
,in the unique development of Western sci
Western philosophy falls historically into fourperiods :First : Greek philosophy travelled the path from myth
to logos,created the basic Western concepts
,the
categories and fundamental conceptions of beingwhole
,of the world and man . For us it remains the
archetype of simplicity ; in making it our own wepreserve our clarity .
Second : Christian-medieval philosophy travelled thepath from biblical religion to its conceptual understanding
,from revelation to theology . It was more than
a conservative pedagogic Scholasticism . Creativethinkers
,chief among them St . Paul, St . Augustine,
Martin Luther,disclosed a world which in its source
was religious and philosophical in one . For us itremains to preserve alive in our m inds the secre t ofChristianity as manifested in this wide realm of
thoughtThird : Modern European philosophy arose hand in
hand with modern natural science and man ’ s newpersonal rejection of all authority . Kepler andGalileo on the one hand
,Bruno and Sp inoza on the
other represent the new roads . For us it remains topreserve the true meaning of science as they appre
hended it—although it was also perverted from thevery outset—and of spiritual freedom .
Fourth : The philosophy of German idealism. FromLessing and Kant to Hegel and Schelling we have aseries of thinkers who p erhaps excel all previous
136
WAY T O W I S D O M
endured for a thousand years was drawing to a clThe representatw e philosophers of the epoch
Kierkegaard and Nietzsche,thinkers of a typ
had formerly not existed, clearly related to thethi s age ; and Marx who, intellectually a worldfrom them
,excelled all modern philosophers in
influence.An extreme thinking became possible
, whi
questioned everything in order to penetrate to tprofoundest source
,which shook Off all encum
in order to free the vision for an insight into existethe unconditional
,and actuality
,in a world that
been radically transformed by the technological
We draw up schemas of thi s sort in envisagi
history of philosophy as a whole . They are 5
ficial. In our search for deeper meanings we maytouch on such questions as these :First : Is there a unity in the history of philosophy ? This
unity is not fact but idea . We seek it but attain only toparticular unities .Certain problems (such as the relation between
body and soul) com e into focus at various times , butthe historical factors coincide only partially with alogical construction of the ideas . Progressions of
systems can be shown ; it can be shown, for example,how
,as Hegel saw it, German philosophy and
ultimately all philosophy culminated in his ownsystem . But constructions of this sort do violence to thefacts
,they fail to take into account those elements in
earlier philosophical thought which are fatal toHegelian thinking and are hence ignored by Hegel ;
138
T H E H I S T O R Y O F P H I L O S O P H Y
phers who erect them tend to neglect thessence of other men ’ s thinking . N0 constructionhistory of philosophy as a logically coherentof positions coincides with historical fact .
construction we can give to the history(1by the genius of the individual
hilosopher. Despite all demonstrable ties and inuences, greatness remains an incomparable miracle,uite apart from the development that is accessibleour understanding .
The idea of a unity in the history of philosophy may
pply to that perennial philosophy which is internallyme, which creates its historical organs and structures ,garments and tools, but is not identical with them .
(1: The beginning and its significance. The beis the first appearance of an idea
,at some
in time . The source is the fundamental truthlways present .misunderstandings and perversions of thoughtat all times return to the source . Instead ofthis source by following the guidance of
meaningful, transmitted texts, some thinkers fallinto the error of seeking it in temporal beginnings :e .g.
,in the first pre-Socratic philosophers
,in early
Christianity,in early Buddhism . The journey to the
source which is always necessary assumes the falseform of a search for the beginnings .I t is true that those beginnings which are still
attainable exert a powerful spell . But an absolutebeginning cannot be found . What passes in ourtradition for a beginning is a relative beginning andwas itself the product of earlier development .
139
W A Y T O W I S D OM
Hence it is a fundamental principle of historicstudy that in examining transmitted texts we restriourselves to their real content . Only through a hisical attitude can we deepen our insight into whatbeen preserved . There is nothing to be gainedreconstituting what has been lost
,by reconstructi
earlier phases,by filling in gaps .
Third : Can we speak of development and progressphilosophy ? We can observe certain lines of development
,for example : from Socrates to Plato and
Aristotle,from Kant to Hegel
,from Locke to Hume .
But even such sequences are false if we take them to
mean that the later thinker preserved and transcendedthe truth of his predecessor. Even where generationsare thus visibly linked, the new is not encompassed inwhat went before . The successor often relinquishes theessence of the earlier thought
,sometimes he no longer
even understands it .Th ere are worlds of intellectual exchange which
endure for a time,to whi ch the individual thinker
contributes his word,as for example
,Greek philos
ophy , Scholastic philosophy, the German phi los0phical movem ent
”from 1760 to 1840. These are
epochs of living communion in original thought .There are other epochs in which philosophy enduresas pedagogy
,others in which it almost seems to have
vanished .
The total view of the history of philosophy as aprogressive development i s mi sleading . The historyof phi losophy resembles the history of art in that itssup reme works are irreplaceable and unique . Itresembles the history of science in that its tools
140
WAY T O W I S D O M
Certain thinkers and epochs make it plain thathistory of phi losophy has its gradations . It is no levelfield in which all works and thinkers stand on anequal footing . There are heights of vision to whichonly a few have attained . And there are great men
,
suns amid the hosts of stars . But this does not meanthat we can set up a definitive hierarchy which wouldcarry conviction for everyone .
It is a far remove from the Opinions held generallyin a given epoch to the content of the philosophicalworks created in that epoch . That which the understanding of all men looks upon as self-evident, hencerequiring no interpretation
,can be expressed in the
form of philosophy just as well as the great philosophicideas that are susceptible of endless interpretation . Atranquil, limited vision and contentment with theworld thus seen ; the yearning for the unknown ; andquestioning at the lim its- all these are philosophy.
We have spoken of an analogy between the historyof philosophy and the authority of religious tradition .
True,philosophy has no canoni cal books such as
those possessed by the religions,no authority which
need simply be followed , no definitive truth whichsimply exists . But the historical tradition of philosophyas a whole, thi s deposit of inexhaustible truth, showsus the roads to our present phi losophical endeavour .
The tradition is the profound truth of past thought,
toward which we look with never- ending expectancy ;it is something unfathomable in the few great works ;it is the reality of the great thinkers, received withreverence .
142
T H E H I S T O R Y O F P H I L O S O P H Y
The tradition is an authority that cannot be obeyedvith certainty . It is incumbent upon us to come tonurselves through it by our own experience
,to find
sur own s ource in l ts source .
Only in the seriousness of present philosophicalhinking can we gain contact with eternal philosophy11 its historical manifestation . It is through the hisorical manifestation that we gain the profound tieshat can unite us in a common present .Thus historical research is conducted on various
evels. In his approach to the texts the conscientioustudent of philosophy knows on which plane he isnoving. He must gain intelligent mastery of the‘facts. But the end and summit of hi storical studyies in the moments of communion in the source . It ishen that the light dawns which gives meaning andinity to all factual research . Without this centre, thi s>hilosophical source, the history of philosophy would) 6 a mere record of fallacies and curiosities .Once it has awakened me
,history becomes the
nirror of what is my own : in its image I see what Inyself think .
The history of philosophy—a space in which I:hink and breathe—reveals in inimitable perfectionprototypes for my own searching . By its attempts, itssuccesses and failures, philosophy raises the question .
It encourages me through the example of those menwho have unswervingly followed its arduous path .
To take a past philosophy as our own is no more
possible than to produce an old work of art for asecond time . At best we can produce a deceptive copy.
We have no text,like pious Bible readers, in which we
143
W AY T O W I S D O M
may hope to find absolute truth . We love the Old textsas we love old works of art, our hearts go out to them,
we immerse ourselves in their truth,but there re
mains in them something remote and unattainable,
unfathomable,though it is something with which we
always live,something which starts us on the way to
our present phi losophizing .
For philosophy is essentially concerned with the
present .We have only one reality, and that is here andnow . What we miss by our evasions will never return,but if we squander ourselves, then too we lose being .
Each day is precious : a moment can be everything.
We are remiss in our task if we lose ourselves in thepast or future . Only through present reality can wegain access to the timeless ; only in apprehendingtime can we attain to that sphere where all timeextinguished .
APPENDIX 1
PH I L O S O PHY AND S C I E N C E !
1L o s o P H Y H A s FR o M its very beginnings lookedelf as science, indeed as science par excellence .
animated its devotees .How its scientific character came to be questionedn be understood only in the light of the developmentthe specifically modern sciences . These sciences made
des in the nineteenth century,largely
losophy , often in opposition to philosophy,in an atmosphere of indifference to it . Ifwas still expected to be a science
,it was in a
nse than before ; it was now expected to be ahe same sense as those modern sciences that
their accomplishments . If it wereit was argued
,it had become pointless
8 well die out .ago the opinion was widespread that
ophy had had its place up to the moment whenthe sciences had become independent of it
,the
ginal universal science . Now that all possible fieldsresearch have been marked off
,the days of philo
Now that we know how science obtainsvalidity
,it has become evident that philo
cannot stand up against judgment by theseriteria. It deals in empty ideas because it sets up
Reprinted by permission of the Partisan Review.
147
WAY T O W I S D O M
undemonstrable hypotheses, it disregards experi ence,seduces by illusions
,it takes possession of energi
needed for genuine investigation and squanders thein empty talk about the whole .
This was the picture of phi losophy as seenscience conceived as methodical, cogent, universvalid insight . Under such circumstances couldphilosophy legi timately claim to be scientific ? To thissituation phi losophy reacted in two ways
1)The attack was regarded as justified . Philosopherswithdrew to limited tasks . If philosophy is at an endbecause the sciences have taken over all its subjectmatter
,there remains nevertheless the knowledge of its
history,first as a factor in the hi story of the sciences
themselves,then as a phenomenon in the history of
thought, the history of the errors,the anticipated in
sights,the process of liberation by which philosophy
has made itself superfluous . Finally, the history ofphilosophy must preserve the knowledge of thephilosophical texts
,if only for their aesthetic interest .
Although these texts do not make any serious contribution to scientific truth ,
they are nevertheless worthreading for the sake of their style and the intellectualattitude they reflect.Others paid tribute to the modern scientific trend by
rejecting all previous philosophy and striving to givephilosophy an exact scientific foundation . They seizedupon questions which , they claimed, were reserved forphi losophy because they concern all the sciences ;namely
,logic
,epistemology, phenomenology .
’
Ineffort to refurbish its reputation , philosophy became aservile imitator
,a handmaiden to the sciences . It
148
WAY T O W I S D O M
of philosophy . Whether it is the slave of science ulTOmodms
‘ifwhether it denies all science
,it has in either c ulll la
a’ walla
ceased to be philosophy . dsiantafldmml
wThe seeming triumph ofthe sciences over philos lullcVFW
Wm
has for some decades created a situation in pulpunruemlbchi
philosophers go back to various sources in sea Nothingmust
true philosophy . If such a thing is found, the [wihirrgmuSllfmam
tion of the relation between philosophy and s fill/idem
will be answered,both in a theoretical and in because ll PM
concrete sense . It is a practical question of the utmo ruerentscrence100
urgency. asfinlsllCd;115am
shortlived,anduus
We shall appreciate the full weight of this proble uonscrousgoalzl‘lOd
if we consider its historical origin . It developed fro mauembraerns“1
three complexly intertwined factors . These are a duo thatesrsls[rou
spirit of modern science ; b) the ancient and siblehworld-sysut
recurrent attempt to achieve universal philosophiknowledge ; c) the philosophical concept of truth, awas first and for all time elucidated in Plato .
Ad a) The modern sciences, developed onlylast few centuries
,have brought into the world a
andparticulars an
unprecedentedsass
modernphysics c
Throughthemrte
scientific attitude which existed neither in Asia nor in splitupanddep.
antiquity nor in the Middle Ages . heloreseemedtot'
Even the Greeks,to be sure
,conceived of science as pletenessofthen
methodical,cogently certain
,and universally valid Greek
—
cosmos.
knowledge . But the modern sciences not only have 3)Theancienrsbrought out these basic attributes of science with tooneanother l
greater purity (a task which has not yet been‘ com all-embracingbod
pleted) , they have also given new form and new modernseiencesstfoundation to the purpose
,scope
,and unity of their hamooireference
fields of inquiry . I shall indicate certain of their longerpossiblelorfundamental characteristics conceivable. Our
150
P H I L O S O P H Y A N D S C I E N C E
1) To modern science nothing is indifi rent. In its eyesery fact, even the smallest and ugliest, the mostant and most alien, is a legitimate Object of inquirythe very reason that it exists . Science has becomely universal . There is nothing that can evade it.thing must be hidden or passed over in silence ;
emaln a mystery .
science is by definition unfinished,
progresses toward the infinite,whereas
ent science in every one of its forms presented itselffinished ; its actual development was in every caseort lived
,and it never set its own development as its
nscious goal . Modern scientists have understood thatall-embracing world- system, which deduces everyng that exists from one or a few principles
,is impos
le . A world-system has other sources and can onlyun1versal validity if scientific critique is relaxed
s are mistaken for absolutes . Suchented systematizations as those achieved byphysics cover only one aspect of reality.
ugh them reality as a whole has become moreup and deprived of foundations than it evere seemed to the human mind . Hence the incomness of the modern world as compared to thek—
cosmos .
3) The ancient sciences remained scattered, unrelatedto one another . They did no t aim at constituting anall-embracing body of specific knowledge, whereas themodern sciences strive to be integrated into a universalframe of reference . Though a true world- system is nolonger possible for them,
a cosmos of the sciences is stillconceivable . Our sense of the inadequacy Of each
151
WA Y T O W I S D O M
special branch of knowledge demands that each scienbe connected with knowledge as a whole .
4) The modern sciences attach little value topossibilities of thought ; they recognize the ideadefinite and concrete knowledge, after itworth as an instrument of discovery andto infinite modifications in the process of investTrue
,there is a certain similarity between anci
modern atomic theory,in so far as the general
is concerned . But the ancient theory was merelyintrinsically finished interpretation of possibilit
based on plausible explanations of available
perience, while the modern thetion with experience, undergoes perpetualconfirmation and disproofand is itself an implementinvestigation .
5) Today a scientific attitude has become possiban attitude of inquiry toward all phenomena ; todthe scientist can know certain thingsdefinitely
,he can distinguish between wh
and what he does not know ; and he hasunprecedented abundance of knowledgelittle the Greek physician or the Greek techby The moral imperativescience is to search for reliable know ledgof unprejudiced inquiry and critique,preconceived ideas . When we enter intohave the sensation of breathing clean air
, of leavi
behind us all vague talk, all plausible opinions,stubborn prejudice and blind faith .
Adb) Modern science shares the age-old strivingtotal philosophical knowledge . Philosophy had from
152
WAY T O W I S D O M
the cave and touches on in his dialectic, this truth thatapplies to being and to that which is above all beinghow fundam entally different it is from the truth o f thesciences
,which move only amid the manifest
being without ever attaining to b eing itself, andifferent from the truth of the dogmatic systemholds itself to be in possession of the whole ofWhat a distance between the truth which canbe set down in writing but which, accord
'
seventh epistle,though it can only be
thought,is kindled in a favourable moment
munication among men of understanding,
truth which is written, universally cogenttelligible, distinct and available to all thinkin
creatures !
Three so different conceptions of scientific knoledge—the first patterned on the method of
science,the second derived from the idea
philosophical system,and the third related t
truth which is directly apprehended by the in
(Plato’ s truth being an example)—all contribute t
present confusion . An example :Its inquiries and investigations in the econom ic field
have made Marxism an important force in scientificdevelopm ent . But this it shares with many other trends
,
and its scientific contribution does not account for itsinfluence . Marxism also represents a philosophicalthesis regarding the dialectical course of history as atotal process which it purports to understand . Thus itconstitutes a philosophical doctrine but one with aclaim to universal scientific validity . It has the same
154
P H I L O S O P H Y A N D S C I E N C E
pistemological basis as Hegel’ s philosophy
,whose
ectical method remains its implement . The differonly that for Hegel the core of the historicals lies in what he calls the “ idea
,
” while forit lies in the mode of production of man who
,
the animals, obtains his sustenance throughBoth Hegel and Marx derive allhat they regard as the core . Marxclaim s to have stood Hegel on his
ead ; that however is only in content, for he did notepart from Hegel
’ s method of constructing realityy the dialectic of the concept .Now this identification of economic knowledge
,
5 gained by scientific method,hence inductively
,
is subject to constantwith the dialectical knowledge of thewhich passes for essentially definitive
is the source of the fallacy committed byHegel and in a different form by the type of modernphilosophy that began withDescartes and was repeatedby Marx . Marx ’ s absolute, exclusive claim thereforeoriginates in a conception of philosophy as total
,
systematic knowledge ; but at the sam e time, hisdoctrine is presented as a result of modern science,from which it does not at all follow .
In addition to the conceptions patterned on modernscience and total philosophy
,there op erates inMarxism
also a third conception, reflecting the lofty idea of anabsolute truth that fulfils man ’ s will and aspirations,analogous to the Platonic idea of truth, althoughentirely different in character . Marxism conceives ofitself as the true consciousness of the classless man .
IS5
WAY T O W I S D O M
This quasi-religious postulate is the source of akind of fanaticism which invokes not faith but moscience
,which charges its opponents with stupi
malice,or inability to overcome class prejudice
contrasts these with its own universal human truthis free from class bondage and hence absolute .
Similar intellectual tendencies, which uncriti
hypostatize a field of investigation that iswithin its limits into a total science and infusereligious attitude
,have been manifested in the
of racial theory and psychoanalysis and in manyfields .The false confusion of heterogeneous eleme
produces here,on a large scale, results that are
familiar on a small scale in everydof never being at a loss for anm
‘
ere plausibility,stubbornly uncritical statements a
affirmations,inability to explore in a genuine sense
,t
listen,analyse
,test
,and reflect on principles .
The infuriating part of it is that science is invoked tdefend something that runs directly counter to tscientific spirit . For science leads us to the understaing of the principles
,limitations
,and meaning of
knowledge . It teaches us to know, in fullof the m ethods by which each stage of knowledgeachi eved . It produces a certainty whose relativity
, i.e .
dependence on presuppositions and methods 0
investigation,is its crucial characteristic .
Thus we are today confronted with an ambivaleconcept of science . Genuine science can, as has alwbeen the case
,appear to be occult ; it is in the nature
a public secret . It is public because it is accessible
156
W AY T O W I S D O M
to test the truth-meaning of scientific knowledge,
auscultate it,so to speak, must participate in the
work of these scientists .Third
,a pure philosophy must be worked out
new conditions that have been created by thesciences . This is indispensable for the sake of the sciethemselves . For philosophy is always alive insciences and so inseparable from them that the puriboth can be achieved only joi
of a bad philosophy . The concrete work ofis guided by his conscious or unconsciousand this philosophy cannot be the object ofmethod .
For example : It is impossible to prove scientifithat there should be such a thing as science . Or :choice of an object of science that is made from amoan infinite number of existing objects on the basisthis object itself is a choice that cannot be justifiscientifically . Or : The ideas that guide us are testedthe systematic process ofselves do not become anScience left to itself as
less . The intellect is a whore,it can prostitute itself to anything . Science is a whore
,
’
said Lenin,for it sells itself to any class interest . For
Nicholas of Cusa it is Reason,and ultimately the
knowledge of God,that gives meaning
,certainty
,
“ andtruth to intellectual knowledge ; for Lenin, it is theclassless society that promotes pure science . Be that asit may
,awareness of all this is the business of philoso
phical reflection . Philosophy is inherent in the actual
158
P H I L O S O P H Y A N D S C I E N C E
themselves ; it is their inner meaning thatthe scientist with sustenance and guides hiscal work . He who consolidates this guidancereflection and becomes conscious of it hasthe stage of explicit philosophizing . If thise fails, science falls into gratuitous convention,
rrectness, aimless busy-ness, and spine
ss servitude .
A pure science requires a pure phi losophy .
But how can phi losophy be pure ? Has it not alwayscience ? Our answer is : It is “ science ”
such a sort that in the sense of modernry it is both less and more than science .
can be called science in so far as itoses the sciences . There is no tenable philoutside the sciences . Although conscious of itscharacter, phi losophy is inseparable fromIt refuses to transgress against universallyinsight . Anyone who philosophizes must bewith scientific method .
is not trained in a scientificto keep his scientific interests
alive will inevitably bungle and stumbleke uncritical rough drafts for definitiveUnless an idea is subm itted to the coldlyate test of scientific inquiry
,it is rapidly
in the fire -.of emotions and passions
,or else
withers into a dry and narrow fanaticism .
Moreover,anyone who philosophizes strives for
ientific knowledge, for it is the only way to genuinenknowledge, it is as though the most magnificent
159
W AY T O W I S D OM
insights could be achieved only through man ’ s qfor the limit at which cognition ru-ns aground
,
seem ingly and temporarily but genuinely andfinitively , not with a sense of loss and despair buta sense of genuine iknowledge can make definitive nonknow leit alone can achieve the authentic failure which ope
up a vista,not merely upon the discoverable existe
but upon being itself.In accomplishing the great task of dispelling
magical conceptions,modern science enters upon
path that leads to the intuition of the true depth,
authentic mystery,which becomes present 0
through the most resolute knowledge in the consution of nonknowledge .Consequently philosophy turns against those wh
despise the sciences,against the sham prophets wh
deprecate scientific inquiry,who mistake the erro
science for science itself, and who would even holdscience
,modern science
,responsible for the evils and
the inhumanity of our era .
Rejecting superstitious belief in science as Well ascontempt of science
,philosophy grants its uncondi
tional recognition to modern science . In its eyesscience is a marvellous thing which can be relied uponmore than anything else
,the most significant achieve
ment ofman in his history,an achievement that is the
source ofgreat dangers but ofeven greater opportunitiesand that from now on must be regarded as a prerequisite of all human dignity . Without science, thephilosopher knows
,his own pursuits eventuate in
nothing .
160
WAY T O W I S D O M
Yet in this intellectual transcendence,which
proper to phi losophy and which is analogousscientific forms
,philosophy is less than science . For
does not gain any tangible results or any intellectualbinding insight . There is no overlooking the simpfact that while scientific cognition is identical throughout the world
,philosophy
,despite its claim to univer
sality , is not actually universal in any shape or form .
This fact is the outward characteristic of the peculiarnature of philosophical t ruth . Although scientific truthis universally valid, it remains relative to method andassumptions ; philosophical truth is absolute for himwho conquers it in historical actuality
,but its
“
statements are not universally valid . Scientific truth is oneand the same for all—philosophical truth wearsmultiple historical cloaks each of these is the manifestation of a unique reality
,each has its justification
,but
they are not identically transmissible .
The one philosophy is the philosophiaperennis aroundwhich all philosophies revolve
,which no one possesses
,
in which every genuine philosopher shares , and whichnevertheless can never achieve the form of an intellectual edifice valid for all and exclusively true .Thus philosophy is not only less but also more than
science,namely, as the source of a truth that is in
accessible to scientifically binding knowledge . It is thisphilosophy that is meant in such definitions as : Tophi losophize is to learn how to die or to rise to godhead—or to know being qua being. The meaning of
such definitions is : Philosophical thought is inwardaction ; it appeals to freedom ; it is a summons totranscendence . Or the same thing can be formulated
162
P H I L O S O P H Y A N D S C I E N C E
ly z Philosophy is the act of becoming congenuine being—or is the thinking of a faith in
be infinitely elucidated—or is the waysertion through thinking .
But none of these propositions is properly speaking aefinition . There is no definition ofphi losophy
,because
hilosophy cannot be determined by something outThere is no genus above philosophy
,under
it can be subsumed as a species . Philosophyitself, relates itself directly to godhead, and
futility . It grows outprimal source in which man is given to himself
.
To sum up : The sciences do not encompass all of theruth but only the exact knowledge that is binding tohe intellect and universally valid . Truth has a greatercope
,and part of it can reveal itself only to philoso
al reason . Throughout the centuries since the earlydle Ages
,philosophical works have been written
under the title “ On the Truth ” ; today the same taskstill remains urgent, i .e . , to gain insight into the essenceof truth in its full scope under the present conditionsof scientific knowledge and historical experience .The foregoing considerations also apply to the
relation between science and philosophy . Only if thetwo are strictly distinguished can the inseparableconnection between them remain pure and truthful .
Through research and study the university strives toachieve the great practical uni ty of the sciences andphilosophy . At the university a philosophical View ofthe world has always been made manifest throughscientific method .
163
W AY T O W I S D O M
The university is the meeting place of all sciences .so far as these remain an aggregate, the universiresembles an intellectual warehouse ; but in so farthey strive toward unity of knowledge, it resemblesnever-finished temple .
A century and a half ago this was still self-evidthe philosophical ideas that were assumed byscientists in the various disciplines were brought tohighest light of consciousness by the philosophers .the situation has changed . The sciencefragmented by specialization . It has cliev ed that scientific cognition, m arked by the neof universally valid particular knowledge, couldaway from philosophy .
Is the present dispersion of the sciences the ultiand necessary stage ? One might wish for a philosophythat would encompass and assim ilate the wholetradition
,that would be equal to the intellectual
situation of our tim e,that would express the contents
common to all of us , and this both in sublime intellectual constructions and in simple propositions capable '
of finding resonance in every man . Today we have nO '
such philosophy .
Old university seals dating from the fifteenth centuryreveal figures wrought in gold which represent Christ ‘
distributing their tasks to the faculties . Even wheresuch seals are still in use they no longer express themodern reality ; yet they still bear witness to the task ofunifying the whole .
Today neither theology nor philosophy creates awhole . Does the university still have a common spirit ?
As regards its organization,it still seems to constitute
164
WAY T O W I S D O M
embodied in the totality of a specific science . Tphilosophy thus becomes in a sense the spokesmanknowledge in general
,provided that constant care
taken to see this particular domain in relation to all tknowable and thereby to anchor it in depth .
The teacher of philosophy in the service of suc
efforts is not a leader who lays down the law but aattentive and patient listener
,eager to find meaning i
the broadest interrelations .The teacher of philosophy reveres the ind
great philosophers, who are not specimens of a type but
creators (such do not exist today) , but he rejects theidolization of men
,which began even in the academy
of Plato,for even the greatest are men and err
,and no
one is an authority who must be obeyed by right .And the teacher of philosophy has respect for each r
science whose insights are binding—but he condemns r.the scientific pride which imagines that everything can
)
be known in its ultimate foundation or even goes so far ‘
as to suppose that it is known .
His ideal is that of a rational being coexisting withother rational beings . He wants to doubt, he thirsts forobjections and attacks
,he strives to become capable of
playing his part in the dialogue of ever-deepeningcommunication
,which is the prerequisite of all truths
and without which there is no truth .
His hope is that in the same measure as he becom esa rational being he may acquire the profound contentswhich can sustain man
,that his will
,in so far as his
striving is honest,may become good through the
direct help of the transcendent,without any human
mediation .
P H I L O S O P H Y A N D S C I E N C E
a teacher of phi losophy,however
,he feels that it
duty not to let his students forget the great mindse past, to preserve the various philosophical
as an object of instruction,and to see to it
sciences influence philosophical thinking ; tocidate the present age and at the same time to joinS students in conquering a view of the eternal .
167
APPENDIX 11
ON R EAD IN G PH I L O S O PHY
IF I T I S true that philosophy concerns man as man,1t
must lie within our power to make it generally ln
telligible . I t must be possible to communicate brieflycertain fundamental ideas
,though not of course the
complex operations of systematic phi losophy . It hasbeen my intention to give an intimation of thoseelements in philosophy which are the concern of everyman . But in so doing I have endeavoured not todisregard the essential, even where it seemed in
trinsically diffi cult .The present lectures are little more than sketches
,
covering but a small segment of the possibilities ofphilosophical thought . Many great ideas are not eventouched upon . My aim has been to encourage mylisteners to reflect on these matters for themselves .For those who may seek guidance in their philoso
phical reflections I append what follows .
1. ON THE STUDY OF PHILOSOPHY
Philosophical thought is concerned with the ultimate
,the authentic which becomes present in real life .
Every man as man philosophizes .But the developm ents of this thought cannot be
understood at a glance . Systematic phi losophy calls forstudy . Such study may be divided into three parts :First : Participation in scientific inquiry . From its two
168
WAY T O W I S D O M
I venture these maxims : proceed resolutely but donot run aground ; test and correct, not haphazardlyor arbitrarily but in a constructive spirit, retainingevery experience as an effective force in your thinking.
2 . ON PHILOSOPHICAL READING
When I read I wish first of all to understand whatthe author meant to say . But in order to understand what he meant I must understand not onlyhis language but his subject matter as well . Myunderstanding will depend on my knowledge of thesubject .I t is through the understanding of texts that we set
out to acquire our knowledge of the subject . Hence wemust think of the subject itself and at the same time ofwhat the author meant . One without the other makesthe reading fruitless .Since when I study a text I have the subject in mind,
my understanding of the text undergoes an involuntarytransformation . For a sound understanding both arenecessary : immersion in the subject matter and returnto a clear understanding of the author ’ s meaning . Inthe first process I acquire philosophy
,in the second
historical insight .Reading should be undertaken in an attitude com
pounded of confidence in the author and love for thesubject he has taken up . At first I must read as thougheverything stated in the text were true . Only after Ihave allowed myself to be completely carried away
,
after I have been in the subject matter and then re
em erged as it were from its centre, can meaningfulcriticism begin .
O N R E A D I N G P H I L O S O P H Y
How, in studying the history of philosophy, we makepast philosophy our own may be elucidated on thebasis of the three Kantian imperatives : think for yourself; in your thinking put yourself in the place of everyother man ; think in unanimity with yourself. Theseimperatives are endless tasks . Any anticipated solutionmaking it appear that we have already fulfilled them isa delusion ; we are always on our way to a solution .
And in this history helps us .Independent thinking does not spring from the void .
What we think must have roots in reality . Theauthority of tradition awakens in us the sourcesanticipated in faith
,by contact with them in the
beginnings and in the historical fulfilments of phi loso
phical thought. Any further study presupposes thisconfidence . Without it we should not take upon ourselves the trouble of studying Plato or Kant .Our own philosophical thinking twines upward as it
were round the historical figures . Through the understanding of their texts we ourselves becomephi losophers .But thi s confident learning is not Obedience . In thi sfollowing we test our own essence . This “ obedience ”
is a trusting to guidance ; we begin by acceptingsomething as true ; we do not break in immediately andconstantly with critical reflections which paralysewhat is our own true
,though guided, movem ent . And
this Obedience is the respect which does not allow ofeasy criticism but only ofa criticism which through ourown conscientious effort comes closer and closer to thecore of the matter until it is able to cope with it.The limit of obedience is that we recognize as trueonly what through our independent thinking has
171
W AY T O W I S D O M
become our own conviction . No philosopher, not eventhe greatest, is in possession of the truth . Amicus Plato
,
magis amica veritas .
We arrive at the truth in independent thinking onlyif in our thinking we strive constantly toput ourselves intheplace of every otherman. We must learn to know whatis possible for man . By seriously attempting to thinkwhat another has thought we broaden the potentialities of our own truth
,even where we bar ourselves to
the other ’ s thinking . We learn to know it only if weventure to put ourselves entirely into it . The remoteand alien
,the extreme and the exception
,even the
anomalous all enjoin us to neglect no original thought,to miss no truth by blindness or indifierence . Accordingly , the student of philosophy turns not only to thephi losopher of his choice whom he studies withoutstint as his own ; he turns also to the hi story of philosophy, in order to learn what was and what men havethoughtThe study of history involves the danger of disper
sion and noncomrnitment . The imperative to think inunanimity with ourselves is direct against the temptationto indulge too long in curiosity and the pleasure of
contemplating diversity . What we learn from historyshould become a stimulus ; it should either make usattentive or call us to question . The elements of historyshould not lie indifferently side by side in our minds .We ourselves must create friction between theseelements which hi storical fact itself has not broughtinto exchange and contact . We must create a relationeven among the most disparate elements .All elements come together by being received into
172
WA Y T O W I S D O M
becomes apparent that Hegelian thinking cuts thheart out of them and buries their remains in th
vast graveyard of history. Hegel was finished with thpast because he believed he had encompassed th
whole of it . His rational penetration is not candidexploration but destructive surgery
,it is not endurmg
questioning but conquest and subjection,it is not a
living-with but domination .
It is always advisable to read several accounts ofhistory side by side in order to safeguard ourselvesagainst accepting any one View as self-evident . If weread only one account its classifications force themselves upon us involuntarily.
It is also advisable to read no account without atleast sampling the related original texts .Finally
,histories of philosophy may be used as
reference works for literary orientation,and various
philosophical lexicons are also useful .
4 . TE! TS
For individual study it is worthwhi le to acquire alimited library containing the really important texts .Any list upon which such a library might be based willbe subject to personal modification . But there is a corewhich is almost universal
,though even here the
accent will vary ; there is no universal accent that willbe accepted by all .It is a good idea to begin by specializing in one
philosopher. It is of course desirable that this should beone of the great philosophers
,but it is possible to find
the way to philosophy through a philosopher of secondor third rank . Any phi losopher, thoroughly studied,
174
O N R E A D I N G P H I L O S O P H Y
leads step by step to phi losophy and the history ofphilosophy as a whole .
For antiquity any bibliography is limited by thesmall number of extant texts
,particularly of complete
works, that have been preserved . For more recentcenturies the texts are so abundant that
,quite on the
contrary, the diffi culty lies in selecting one .
LIST OF NAMES . IWESTERN PHILO SOPHY
ANCIENT PHILOSOPHYFragments of the Pre-Socratics (600Plato (428Aristotle (384Fragments of the O ld Stoics (300 Seneca (d. A .D .
Ep ictetus (ca. A .D. 50 Marcus Aurelius (ruled A .D .
161
Fragments of Epicurus (342 Lucretius (96The Sceptics. Sextus Empiricus (ca. A .D. Cicero( 106-
43 Plutarch (ca. A .D . 45—I 25) .
Plotinus (A .D . 203B oethius (A .D . 480
CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHYChurch Fathers : St . Augustine (354Middle Ages : J ohn Scotus Erigena (9th century) . Anselm
( 1033—1 Abelard ( 1079—1142 ) St .Thomas ( 12 25J ohn Duns Scotus (d. Master Eckhart ( 1260William of Ockham (ca. 13oo
~
5o) . Nicho las of Gusa
( 1401 Luther ( 1483 Calvin ( 1509M ODERN PHILOSOPHY
l 6th century : lVIachiavelli, Thomas More, Paracelsus,
Montaigne, B runo , J acob B ohme, B acon .
17th century : Descartes, Hobbes,Spinoza, Leibnitz , Pascal .
18th centuryI 75
WA Y T O WI S D O M
ENGLISH RATIONALISTS : Locke, Hume .
FRENCH AND ENGLISH MORALISTSi 7th century : La Rochefoucauld, La B ruyere .
18th century : Shaftesbury , Vauvenargues, Chamfort .
GERMAN PHILOSOPHY : Kant , Fichte , Hegel, Schelling.
I9th century :GERMAN ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHY
, e .g.,The Younger Fichte,
Lotze .
THE ORIGINAL PHILOSOPHERs : Kierkegaard, Nietzsche.
Modern sciences as an area of philosophy :POe ICAL AND ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY : Tocqueville , Lore
von Stein,M arx .
PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY : Ranke, B urckhardt, M ax Weber.
NATURA L PHILOSOPHY ; K . E . von B aer, Darwin .
PSYCHOLOGICAL PHILOSOPHY : Fechner, Freud.
In roughly characterizing these men I shall venturea number of inadequate remarks . In no case do Iexpect to classify or dispose of any philosopher,although my statements will inevitably sound as if Idid . I should like my remarks to be taken as questions .They are intended merely to call attention to certainthings and perhaps to help some readers to find out
where their own inclinations lead .
ON ANCIENT PHILOSOPHY
The Pre-Socratics have the unique magic that liesin the beginnings .” They are uncommonly diflicultto understand correctly . We must attempt to disregard all the “ philosophical education” which veilstheir immediacy in current habits of thought andspeech . In the Pre-Socratics thought is working its wayout of the original intuitive experience of being . Inreading them we participate in man ’ s first intellectualilluminations . The work of each of these great thinkers
176
WAY T O W I S D O M
whether Aristotelian or anti-Aristotelian or concei
as transcending this entire plane of thinking .
Plotinus used the whole tradition of ancientsophy as a means ofexpressing a wonderfuloriginal in mood
,which has come down
ages as the true metaphysic . Mysticalcommunicated in the music of a speculation wremains unequalled and which re-echoes wherever 111have thought metaphysically .
The Stoics,Epicureans
,and Sceptics
,the Platoni
and Aristotelians ( the later Academics andtetics) created the universal philosophy of the educateclasses of late antiquity for whom Cicero and Plutarcalso wrote . Despite all the conflicting positions anconstant polemics among them
,they represent
world in common . Participation in all its aspe intellectualanamounted to eclecticism
,but it also characterizes
specifically limi ted fundamental attitude of
ancient centuries,the personal dignity, the contin
of a world in which the essentials were merely repeaa world which was strangely finished and barren,in which men understood one another. This ishome of the cosmopolitan philosophy that stillcurrency today . Its last captivating figure is Boethiuswhose Consolatio philosophiae, by virtue of its moodbeauty
,and authenticity
,is among the basic works 0
philosophy .
Since then,philosophical communi ties of educatio
concepts,style
,and attitude have been realized by
clergy of the Middle Ages,the Humanists Since the
Renaissance,and in a weaker sense by the speculative,
idealistic German philosophers between 1770 and
178
WA Y T O W I S D OM
Scotus Erigena conceived an edifice of being,
prising God, nature and man, in Neoplatonic
gories with dialectic freedom of development .contributed a new mood of self-awareness and opeto the world . A man of learning
,he knew Greek
translated Dionysius Areopagita . Working with trtional concepts , he erected a magnificentoriginal in its attitude . He sought to definenature
,and founded a new speculative
which has enjoyed influence down to the presentwork is a product of ancient tradition
,blended hnorr
deep Christian and philosophical fai th . methodofadapdn
The methodical thinking of the Middle Ages birnonluinhisc
becomes originalwithAnselm . Immediateme minim ofhis
revelations are expressed in the dry language lbiseomplctcsuhil
and jurisprudence . While his logical argume onhefoundinl
and particularly his dogmatic propositions are alien to DunsScotusan.
us,his ideas are still alive, in so far as we disregard thestructureofrs
their historical cloak of Christian dogmatism and take momentwhenitsthem in their universal human import as we do those lbatpassedasonof Parmenides . bytheprofoundAbelard teaches the energy of reflection, the roads of questionolwilla
the logically possible,themethod of dialectic contradic HereandNow.
tion as a means of exploring problems . By this extreme ~epistemologyandquestioning through the confrontation of opposites he theoryofknowlebecame the founder of the Scholastic method which senseolhumanlachieved its summit in Thomas Aquinas ; at
'
thest forLO
same time he sowed the seeds of disintegration in theofthech
naive Christianity which had sustained men beforeworksha
believerinChrbThomas Aquinas erected the grandiose system which areknownto
has been overwhelmingly accepted in the Catholic (mutations)To180
WA Y T O W I S D OM
Ockham’ s works . They have not been translated iGerman . This is perhaps the only great gap still tofilled in the history of philosophy .
Nicholas ofCusa is the first philosopher of theMidAges whomwe encounter in an atmospherewhicto us our own . True, he remains entirelyhis faith
,for in him the
still unbroken,the trust th
Church will one day embr
philosophy he no longer projects one system ;Thomas
,he does not make use of the Scholastic met
which logically apprehends all tradition in itstradictions, but turns directly to the matter in hwhether it be metaphysical (transcendant) or empi
(immanent) . Thus he employs special methods bason his own intuitions, and finds a wonderful divibeing
,which in these Speculations is revealed
a new way . In this being of the godhead he sees trealities of the world
,and in such a way
tion opens the path to einsights which become the instruments of theof God . His is an all-embracing thought,close to reality and yet transcending it . Thenot circumvented but itself Shines in the lighttranscendence . This is a metaphysic which is s
indispensable . The time spent in ep OIing it maycounted among the happy hours of the philosopher.With Luther it is different . To study him
pensable . He is a theological thinker whophilosophy
,speaks of the whore reason, yet he hims
thought out the basic existential ideas without whichpresent phi losophy would scarcely be possible . The
182
O N R E A D I N G P H I L O S O P HY
of passionate seriousness of faith and of
shrewdness, of depth and hatred, of
tration and coarse bluster makes it a duty,
rment to study him . This man gives forth aoundly antiphi losophical atmosphere .
alvin ’ s greatness lies in disciplined,methodic form
,
logic, unswerving and dauntless adherence toiples. But his loveless intolerance makes him
,in his
as in his practical activities,the repellent
hesiS of philosophy . I t is good to have looked hime face in order to recogni ze this spirit wherever
,in
d or fragmentary form,it is manifested in the
He is the supreme incarnation of that Christianntolerance against which there is no weapon butntolerance .
ON MODERN PHILOSOPHY
In contrast to ancient and medieval philosophy,
Odern philosophy forms no comprehensive whole butan agglomeration of the most disparate
,unrelated
rts,full of fine systematic structures
,none ofwhich
is actually dominant . It is extraordinarily rich,full of
the concrete and of bold,free abstractions
,in constant
relation to new science . Its works are differentiatedalong national lines
,written in Italian
,German
,
French,and English
,in addition to those carry-overs
from theMiddle Ages thatwere still composed in Latin .
We Shall attempt a characterization of modernphi losophy in chronological order .The sixteenth century is rich in heterogeneous
,
extraordinary personal creations,which move us by
their immediacy . They remain rich sources .
183
W A Y T O W I S D O M
In the political sphere Machiavelli and Minitiated the modern approach to history as a chcauses and effects . Despite their outmoded trtheir works are still graphic and interesting .
Paracelsus and Bohme Show us that world,equa
rich in profundity and superstition, with clarity anduncritical confusion, which today is knowntheosophy
,anthroposophy, cosmosophy. Rich in
tuitions and images,they lead into a maze .
discern the rational structure that lies hidden incabbalistic quaintness and, particularly with B obin dialectical subtleties .Montaigne is the type of man grown independ
without desire for realization in the world .
morality and opinions,integrity and shrewd
sceptical openness and sense of the practicalexpressed in modern form . The reading of Montaiis immediately captivating, philosophically it iperfect expression for this form of life
,but at the 8
time it is in a sense paralysing . His earthboundsufficiency is a delusion .
Bruno in contrast is the infinitely struggl
phi losopher, consuming himself in inadequacy.
has knowledge of the limits and believes insupreme . His dialogue on the eroici f urori is a bwork of the philosophy of enthusiasm .
Bacon is known as the founder ofmodern empir
and of the modern sciences . Both erroneously.
did not understand true modern science, thematical science of nature, then at its beginninthis science would never have come into being bymethods . But in an enthusiasm for the new, charac
184
WA Y T O W I S D OM
without the greatness that comes of a basic attitu
which is profoundly human .
The eighteenth century Shows for the first timebroader stream of philosophical literature addresseda general public . It is the century ofthe EnlightenThe English Enlightenment has its first repr
ative figure in Locke . He provided the Esociety growing out of the revolution of 1688 withintellectual and political groundwork . Hume is tbrilliant analyst ; an intelligent writer, even wh
tedious,he does not strike us as commonplace .
scepticism is the bold, unflinching integrity ofwho dares to stand at the limits and face thefathomable
,without speaking of it .
Both in France and in England there was a literaof aphorisms and essays by Observers of mensociety
,whom we call moralists .” Theystrove to b
a phi losophical attitude into psychology . Inseventeenth century the work of La RochefoucauldLa Bruyere
,in the eighteenth century that
Vauvenargues and Chamfort, grew out of the worlof the court . Shaftesbury was the philosopher of aaesthetic discipline of life .
Along with a systematic energy and an opennesswhat is deepest and what is most remote
,the gre
German philosophers have an intellectual vigourwealth of ideas that make them an indispensabfoundation for all serious philosophical thoughKant
,Fichte, Hegel, Schelling .
Kant : for us the decisive step toward awarenessbeing ; precision in the intellectual operation of transcending ; an ethos growing out of our inadequacy ;
186
O N R E A D I N G P H I L O S O P H Y
of conception and humanitarian feeling ; likea personification of radiant reason . A noble
hte : speculation carried to the point of fanaticfrantic attempts at the impossible
,brilliant
on, moral eloquence . He initiated ae trend of extremism and intolerance
.
mastery and many- sided elaboration of thecategories ; explored the full range of intel
l attitudes , effected the most comprehensiveation of Western history .
elling : indefatigable ponderings on the ultibroached disquieting mysteries ; failed as creator
opened up new paths .teenth century represents transition
,dis
tion and consciousness of dissolution,expansion of
material world,scientific scope . The philosophical
etus dw indled in philosophers turned professor,
ing pale,arbitrary
,unconvincing systems and
ies on the history of philosophy which for thetime made the whole historical material accessible .
authentic philosophical drive survived in excepely recognized by their contemporaries
,and
academic philosophy is instructive,full of
usness and zeal ; however, it no longeressence of man but derives from the
world with its cultural ideals,its well
riousness,and its limi tations . Even its more
figures,such as the younger Fichte and
will be studied for their edification, not forubstance .
187
W AY T O W I S D O M
The original philosophers of this era are Kierkegaand Nietzsche . Both without system
,both
and victims . They are aware of the catastrastounding truths
,and Show no way out . In the
age is documented by the most merciless self-criin human history.
Kierkegaard : forms of spiritual action, pro
intellectual commitment . In him everything,
ticularly congealed Hegelian thought, is madeagain . Violently Christian .
Nietzsche : endless reflection, auscultation aquestioning of all things ; digs deeply but discoversfoundations
,except for new paradoxes . Violen
anti-Christian .
The modern sciences become vehicles of a philophical attitude, not in their general concerns but inumerous though separate personalities . Here arefew names only as examples .Political and social philosophy : Tocqueville a
prehended the course of the modern world tow
democracy,through sociological knowledge of
ancien re’
gime, of the French Revolution,and of
United States of America . His preoccupatio
freedom,his sense of human dignity and of autho
led him to inquire realistically into the inevitablethe possible . He was a man and scientist of theorder . On the basis of the political actions and idethe French since 1789, Lorenz von Stein interpretedthe events of the first half of the nineteenth century interms of the polarity between state and society . Heconsidered the question of Europe ’ s destiny . Marxutilized these insights
,developed them in economic
188
WA Y T O W I S D O M
Psychological philosophy : Fechner establishedmethodical
,experimental study of the relation betwe
the psychological and physical factors inperception (psychophysics) ; this he conceived aof a logical but actually fantastic theory of the ation Of all life and all things . In his debpsychology Freud naturalized and trivializedsublime insights of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche .
barren,hateful weltanschauung masked by hum
itarian forms was indeed appropriate to an age whhypocrisy it pitilessly dissected
,but Freud failed to s
that this world was not the whole world .
LIST OF NAMES . IICHINA AND INDIA
CHINESE PHILOSOPHYLao Tse (6th century B .C . ) Confucius (6th century B .C . )Tse (second half of the 5th century Chuang T
(4th century
INDIAN PHILOSOPHYUpanishads (roughly 1000—400 Pali Canon of B u
dhism ; texts from the Mahabharata (1st centuryB hagavad
-Gita, etc . ; Kautilya’
s Arthashastra ; Shanka(9th century
As thus far accessible to us in translations aninterpretations
,Chinese and Indian phi losophy s
far inferior to Western philosophy in scope,in dev
ment,and in inspiring formulations . For us
philosophy remains the main object of study. Itindeed an exaggeration to say that all we understanof Asiatic philosophy is what we would understan
190
O N R E AD I N G P H I L O S O P HY
out it through our own philosophy . But it is truemost interpretations lean so heavily on theWestern
that even for those who do not understandntal languages the error is perceptible .
e, though the parallel between the threements—China
,India
,the West—is historically
it gives us a distorted picture in that it seems toe equal emphasis on all three . For us this is not theDespite those indispensable insights which weto Asiatic thinkmg, the main ideas which animatere those of Western philosophy . Only in Westernphy do we find the clear distinctions
,the
formulations ofproblems,the scientific orienta
the thorough discussions,the sustained thought,
ch to uS are indispensable .
LIST OF NAMES . III
PHILOSOPHY IN RELIGION, LITERATURE, AND ARTligion : The B ible ; the texts collected in source books of
ory .
ature : Homer ; Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides ; Dante ;akespeare, Goethe, Dostoyevsky.
Leonardo , Michelangelo, Rembrandt.
ord er to possess ourselves of the contents of
Sophy down through its history we must read andd the philosophers in the restricted sense ; weobtain a clear view of the development of theand we must allow ourselves to be moved byt works of religion
,literature, and art . We
not keep turning to new and varied works butse ourselves in those which are truly great .
191
W AY T O W I S D O M
Th e Great Works
Some few works of philosophy are in their ownas infinite as great works of art . They contain mthought than the author himself knew . True
,cv
profound idea implies consequences of whichthinker is not immediately aware . But in thephilosophies it is the totality itself which concealsinfinite . An astonishing harmony pervades the vcontradictions, so that even they become an expressof truth . The complexity of thought
,
clarity in the foreground,reveals
depths . The more patiently we studymore wonderful they seem to us . SuchPlato
,of Kant
,Hegel ’ s Phenomenology
each for reasons of its own . In Plato weform
,supreme lucidity
,the keenest
method,artistic expression of philosophical
without sacrifice of clarity and force . In Kant wthe greatest integrity
,scupulous weighing of
word,the most sublime clarity . Hegel is I
occasionally carried away by histhese defects are counterbalanced bcreative genius, which reveals deepdoes not integrate them in his ownis full of violence and deception
,
toward dogmatic scholasticism and aestheticism .
Philosophies vary exceedingly in rank and in kinIt is a question ofphilosophical destiny whether or nin my youth I entrust myself to the study of a grephilosopher and to which of the great philosophersentrust myself.
WAY T O W I S D O M
contrary,when you study one great philosopher
,
should also consider another who is very diffefrom him . Ifyou restrict yourself to one, even theunprejudiced philosopher
,the result will be
Philosophy is incompatible wi th any deification of
in which one man is regarded as an exclusiveAnd the very essence of philosophical thoughtopenness to the truth as a whole
,not to barren
,abstr
truth but to truth in the diversity of its suprerealizations .
194
APPENDIX III
B I B L I O GRA PHY
H O S E R E A D E R S W H O wish to look more closelyto my philosophical writings may consult the followg brief bibliography .
My two principal phi losophical works are
I . Philosophie. 2 cd., Heidelberg-B erlin
,
Springer-Verlag, 1948 .
2 . Von der Wahrheit. Munich, R . Piper,1948.
Short works treating the subject matter of theseadio talks in greater detail :
1. Der philosophische Glaube. Munich, R . Piper,
1948 ; Zii rich , Artemis-Verlag, 1948 .
English ed. : The Perennial Scope of Philosophy ,
trans . by Ralph Manheim . NewYork
,Philosophical Library
,1949 ;
London, Routledge and Kegan Paul,
1950.
Vernunf t und Existenz. 2 cd. , Bremen,Storm-Verlag, 1947 .
3 . Philosophie und Wissenschaf t. Zurich, ArtemisVerlag, 1948 .
On contemporary philosophy
I . Die geistige Situation der Zeit. 7 cd.,
Berlin,W . de Gruyter, 1949. English ed. :
195
B I B L I O G R A P H Y
Man in the Modern Age. London, Roledge and Kegan Paul
,1934 .
2 . Vom Ursprung und Ziel der Geschichte. ZuriArtemis-Verlag, 1949 ; Munich
,
Piper,1949. English ed. : The Origin
Goal of History ,London, Routledge a
Kegan Paul (in preparation) .
3. Vom Europaischen Geist. Munich, R. Pip1947 . English ed. : The European SpLondon
, S .O.M . Press, 1948 .
Works devoted to individual philosophersI . Descartes und die Philosophie. 2 cd. , Berli
W . de Gruyter, 1947 .
2 . Nietzsche. 3 cd. ,Berlin
,W . de Gruy t
1949Nietzsche und das Christentum. HamelB iicherstube Seifert, 1946.
3. Max Weber. 2 ed. ,Bremen, Stor
Verlag, 1947 .
On philosophy as manifested in the concretsciences :
I . Allgemeine Psychopathologie. 5 cd. , Heidberg-Berlin
,Springer-Verlag, 1947 .
2 . Strindberg und van Gogh. 3 cd. , BremeStorm-Verlag
,1949.
Articles in English“ Rededication of German Scholarship, trans .by M . Zuckerlandl, American Scholar, 15 (April,
No . 2 , 180- 188 .
196
This book originated in twelve radio lecturescommissioned by Basel radio station .
199
I N D E X
Communication : of truth, 13, 25—7 ;
mysticism not communicable, 35 ;universal human readiness for, 91 ;and uni ty of mankind, 106—8 ; inthe philosophical life, 122 et seq.
Communications before Christianera, 135Com munity, security in, 2 1Comprehensive, the, 13, 28—38 ;reached through certaintyex istence, 43 ; and philosophicalfaith, 94 ; awareness Of, 125Comprehensive consciousnessGod, 46
—7Conditional imperatives, 55Conduct, aims and, 54—5Confumus (551- 478 B—c 99, 133,
190
Consciousness, 33, 36Contemplation : pure, of mystics,80—1 religious and philosophic,122 et seq.
Cosmological proof of existence ofGod, 42—3Cosmologies, scientific 76
Creation, free, source of philosophicalthought, 9Creative originality, I ICultures, growth of, 97Dante, Alighieri ( 1265 181,
191
Dar8
win,Charles ( 1809
1 9Dasein ( ! being-there) , oriented toward environment, 32Death, 20 ; and witness, 53Death urge, 53Decision
,existential, demanded by
unconditional imperative, 56Deification ofman, 45Descartes, René ( 1596 18- 19,
Despair, 20Despotic Empires, rise of, 102Determinacy, implications of, 30Deutero-Isaiah, 100Development and progress in philo
sophy, 140—1Devil, serving the, 83Devotion, unlim ited, to God, the
authentic mode of existence, 83-
4
176,
Dialectical method of Marx
Hegel, 154—6Dichotomy : subject-object, 29 et
meaning
31—3 ; result of awareness
Differentiation, levels of,good and evil, 59- 62Dignity ofman, 91
Discussion, demanded by st
86—7Disintegration, visible Signs
Dogmatism of independence, 11
Doubt, a source of philosophy,18—19, 24
DuIéS Scotus, John ( 1265 175
1 1—2
Eckhart, Master ( 1260 175
gyp t, civilization of, 98Elijah the prophet, Ioonlightenment : fai th and, 85
—95 ;
lack of faith and the , 87 ; demandsof
, 87 ; defini tion of, 88 ; ambivalence of, 88—90; attacks on, 89—90;nature of, 89nthusiasm, 184Environment, Dasein (being-there)oriented toward, 3Epictetus (A .D. 50
source of philosophy, I9Epicureans, 178Epicurus (342—2 7 1 175Erasmus, Desiderius ( 1466 179Eternal, to partake in the, 56Ethical level of differentiation b e
tween good and evil, 59—60, 61—2Euripides (484—407 191
uropean philosophy, modern, 136vil : definition of, 59 ; true, 59—60;antithesis of good and, 59—62Ex istence : wonder of, Io ; orientedtoward God, 32-
3 ; and freedom ,
45 ; empirical, and the uncondi
tional imperative, 52Existentialism , 2on.
175 ; on
Failure, reality of, 22- 3Faith, 22 ; rooted in the Comprehensive, 36 ; nature of, 51 ; and
202
IN D EX
History of philosophy, 132—44 ; fourperiods of, 136—8 ; idea of unity in,
138—9 ; the beginning. 139
-
40 ;development and progress, 140
—1 ;classification of philosophers, 14 1—2Hobbes, Thomas ( 1588 175,
185Holderlin,
Johann Christian ( 17701!
Homer,100, 191
Huangti, Empire of, 102Hum an ists, 178—9Hume, David ( 1711 140, 176,
186
Hum ili ty in receiving God ’ s guidance,70Hwang River, civilization on, 98
Hylozoism, 28—9Ideas, speculative, 34Images, negation of, in closestapproach to God, 48Imperative, unconditional, 52
- 62 .
And see Unconditional imperativeImperative, universal . See UniversalimperativeImperatives, conditional, 55Imperfectibility of the world, 44Independence : rejected by totalitarianism, 110 ; apparent disappearance of, 1IO ; ambivalence ofconcept of, I 12—15 ; absolute independence impossible, I 15 limitations of, 115- 18 ; how to achieve a
measure of, 118—19Independent philosopher, the, 110
9India, spiritual foundations laid in,98 development of independentPhilosoPhy , I35Indian phi losophy, texts on, 190- 1Individual, relation of, to God, 47Indus, River, civilization on, 98
Inference that God exists, 43Injunction, historical. See HistoricalinjunctionInsane, spontaneous philosophy of
the, 11
Institutions, irremediable injusticeof, 108
Intellect and faith, 93Intellectual opportunism, 114
Intellectual passivity ofcentury, 137Interpretation, all knowledge is, 7Irresponsibility , independence
113- 14
Isaiah the Prophet, 100Jaspers discussion : of th
Situation, 2on. ; of thement, 87n.
Jerem iah the Prophet, the livingof. 39—40, 100
Judgment, ofman and of God, 6Kant, Immanuel ( 1724
79 ; on enlightenment, 88 ; ongood, 117
—18 ; on studyingsophy, 17 1- 3
Kautilya, 133, 190
Kepler, JohannKierkegaard, S0r
138 ; 176, 188,will to be onesguidance, 67 ;man, i 17
Knowledge :sense of the mysalways conditional,
Knowledge, fulfilled,nonknowledge, 77
Knowledge, scientific : comparedphilosophy, 7. 157pensable, 8 ; through method, 74
La
gruyere, Jean de ( 1645 176,
1 6
Laissez-faire, 91Language, use of, 98Lao Tse (pm-Confucius) , 99, 116, 190La Rochefoucauld, Frangois de
( 1613 176, 186
Leibnitz, Gottfried Wilhelm ( 1646t 75, 185
-6 ELenin, Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov( 1870 on science, 158
Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim ( 1729136, 187
Liberalism, 91
I N D E X
Paracelsus, Theophrastus ( 14901r75, 184
Parmemdes of Elea (czrca 539—474no ) , 100, 180; speculative doctrinof being, 48Pascal, Blaise ( 1623 175, 185Pau l, S t . , 116, 117, 136Peace in the belief in God ’ s being, 7 1Peacefulness of the philosopher, 110Perfection, 12
Peripatetics, 178
Persia, spiritual foundations laid in,
98
Perversion : or true evil, 59—60 ; of
en lightenm ent, 92—3 ; dangers of inthe philosophical life, 128—9Phenomenality of empirical existence,79
Phenonienology of Mind (Hegel) , 192
Phi losopher : the independent, 110
19 ; training in scientific disciplineessential, 159
Philosophers, the first, 101Philosophia peyerzm
'
s, 16, 162Phi losophical faith, thesis of, 67Philosophical life
,the, 120—31 ; paths
of, 122 et seq. ; goal of, 129- 31
Phi losophical thought and rationalknowledge
,126
Philosophize,to, is to learn how to
die, 53—4
Phi losophy : not characteri zed byprogressive development, 7—8 ; concerned with the ‘whole of being ”,8 ; takes account of scientificknowledge, 8 ; withou t science( ! spontaneous phi losophy) , exis
tence of, 8—12 : accessible to all, 9 ;
ever-present, 11—12 ; meaning and
nature of,12—16 ; aim of, 12 , 13
- 14 ;sources of, 17
—2 7 ; ultima te sourceof, 26—7 ; the first question of, 28 ;
speculative ideas, 34 ; and statements of lack of faith, 87 ; history of,132—44 (and see History of philo
sophy) ; three forms of study of,133 ; must b e studied with the
world in which it was produced,134 ; endures at all times, 14 1;and science, 147
—67 ; the sciencepar excellence, 147 ; eff ects ofmodern scientific trends on, 148
50 ; how it becomes159 et seq. objects and m161 ; both less and in
science, 16
Physician,function of, 129
Pico dellaMirandola, Giovanni ( 1179
Plato (428—348 100, 133,166, 171, l 75, 177, I92
-
3 ;progress beyond, 8 ; movedwonder, 24 ; teaching on God
! uestioning : essential to philosophy,12 ; the first question, 28
Racial theory, 156Radiance, thought and, 49Ranke, Leopold von ( 1795
176, 189Rationalistic pseudo-knowledge, 95Reality, to find and apprehend, 13 ;
of failure, 22—3 ; symbol of, 36physical
, 36 of God, 46—7 (and see
God) ; unconditional imperativeand, 56
—7 ; defini tion of, 74 ;
being, 48 ; philosophical conction of science, 153- 4
Plo ti
gus (A .D. 204 34, 17
I 7Plutarch (A .D. 45 175, 178Polytheism , 7 1
Polyvalence, 32Practice a source of reality , 74Pragmatic substitute for philos
15Prayer
,degeneration of, 72
Premises of faith and of sens
experience, 94—5Pre-Socratics, 175, 176—7Propositions to suggest meaning ofthe unconditional imperative, 56—8Pseudo -knowledge, 85Psychoanalysis, 156Psychotherapy, grounded in philo
sophy, 129Purity essential in science and
philosophy, 157- 63
D E X
Self-will, dangers of, 68Seneca (d. A .O . 175, 177 ;martyrdom of
, 54Sex tus Empiricus, 175Shaftesbury, AnthonyAshley Cooper,third Earl of ( 1671 176, 186Shankara, 190
Shi, Empire of, 102Situations, ultimate
, 19- 20, 2071.
Sociological conditions of the axialage, 102
Socrates (470- 399 140 ; andobedience to absolute imperative
, 53Solitude, truth in, 25—6Sophocles (495—406 191
Speech, God ’ s, in the world, 82Spengler, O swald ( 1880 97Spinoza, Benedictus (10 ( 1632
Spiri tual foundations laid (800- 20098, 99
—102Spiritualism , 28
S tatement and discussion,86—7
S tein ,Lorenz von, 176, 188
Stillness of being, th e, 49Stoicism, 22
—3, 24 ; empty and rigid,
Subject-object dichotomy, 29 et seq. ;meaning of, 30—1 ; implications of
,
31 ; three modes of, 31- 3 ; resul t ofawareness of, 37- 8
Suffering, 20Superstition, symbols and, 36Symbol, metaphysics a, 35—6Symbolic logic, 149Symbols of transcendence, 50Systematization of the sciences, 76
Tao8
ists, attempt to apprehend God,4Teachers ofphilosophy, 165-
7Thales of Miletus (640—546 15Theology, and philosophy, 164
—5
Thomas, St .
,of Aquinas ( 1225
134, 175, 180—1, 182
Thought, God originating in, 40 et
seq. ; and radiance, 49 ; power of,126—8Thucydides (b. circa 4 70 100
Time, unconditional is timeless in, 58Tocqueville, Comte de ( 1805
176, 188
IN D EX
Tolerance, 91.Tools, invention of, 98
Totalitarianism , and
philosophy, 14 , r10Toynbee, Arnold Joseph, 97
independent
Tradition, 22 ; and universalprinciples, 82—3Transcendence, 32
—3 mystery of,
44 ; and freedom , 45 ; hieroglyphsor symbols of, 50 , and awareness ofself, 64 ; guidance through, 67—8 ;and obedience, 69 ; man
’
s relationto, 70—3 ; absolute, of God, 82Transcending refl ection, 123—4Transience, universal, of things,
10
Truth, search for, 12 ; fulfilled only incommunication, 26 ,
absolute, andthe absolutely true, 47 ; threatenedby overweening claims to the
absolutely true , 70; scientific and
philosophical, 163Tsin, Empire of, 102
Ultimate,attainment of the, 49
Unconditional imperative, the, 52- 6 ;implies a decision, 56—7 has realityin man, 57
—8 ; is timeless in time,
58 ; an intimation of God ’
s
guidance, 67Understanding, oriented towardobjects, 32
Unity in the history of philosophy,question of
,138—9
Unity of mankind, aim of history,106—8Universal imperative, 69—70University, striving of, to achieveunity of sciences and philosophy,163 et seq.
118,
Xenophanes of Colophon (six thcentury teaching on God, 40
Zarathustra, 100
Upanishads (circa 1000-400
Utility, and philosophy, 15Validity, universal, not producedphilosophy, 7
Van Gogh, Vincent ( 1853 11
Vauvenargues, Marquis de ( 17 1176 186
Vision and being, 113—14Wealth
,infinite , 49
Wel
é
er, Max ( 1864 97, 17
1 9Western character of develoChristian era, 135 et seq.
Whole, subordination to the, 26Will of God, 50Will to communication, the u ltimasource of philosophy, 26- 7Will to evil, 60Will to reality, 60Wilgam of Ockham ( 1300 17
1 1—2Wisdom , 12 ; of God, 46Wonder, sense of, 10 ; the sourcephilosophy, r7, 24World, the, 74—84 ; precariousnessthings in, 22 ; not eternal, 43—4 ; tphenomenality of empiricence, 79 ; reality of, 80—1World eternal, 82World systems and coherentledge
, 75Worship, religious 122- 3
