You are on page 1of 10

Symposium: Terror: Short Run and Long Run

IS THERE A QUARREL
BETWEEN THE ANCIENTS
AND THE MODERNS?
Stanley Rosen
t has been frequently said after the events of
S e p t e m b e r 11 t h a t life in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s is
n o l o n g e r t h e s a m e . T h e a s s e r t i o n is t r i v i a l l y t r u e
to t h e e x t e n t t h a t it r e f e r s t o o u r d i r e c t e x p e r i e n c e o f t e r r o r i s m o n a m a s s i v e s c a l e , a n d to t h e
r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t w e are n o t i m m u n e t o t h e a t t a c k s
t h a t h a v e b e e n s u f f e r e d b y o t h e r n a t i o n s at m a n y
t i m e s in t h e r e c e n t p a s t . N o t o n l y a r e w e n o t immune, but despite our wealth and technology, we
c a n b e hit e v e n h a r d e r t h a n less p r o s p e r o u s nat i o n s . But w e a l s o h e a r a m o r e r a d i c a l c l a i m ,
namely, that history itself has changed, and that
w e a r e n o w living in t h e a g e o f t e r r o r i s m . I t h i n k
t h a t t h i s s e c o n d c l a i m a b o u t t h e c h a n g e in hist o r y is an e x t r e m e e x a g g e r a t i o n . I n m y view, a n d
c e r t a i n l y n o t m y v i e w a l o n e , w e h a v e r a t h e r entered into an intensified stage of a process that
h a s b e e n a c c u m u l a t i n g in m o m e n t u m s i n c e t h e
t i m e o f t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t , a n d in p a r t i c u l a r t h e
French Enlightenment.
S t a t e d as s u c c i n c t l y as p o s s i b l e , t h e p r o c e s s is
t h a t o f w h a t is o f t e n c a l l e d " t h e q u a r r e l b e t w e e n
the ancients and the moderns." This expression
r e f e r r e d i n i t i a l l y to t h e l i t e r a r y q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r
a n c i e n t p o e t r y is s u p e r i o r to m o d e r n p o e t r y . T h e
various movements called "the Enlightenment"
effectively transformed this question into a much
more comprehensive, and fundamental, debate
about the relative merits of ancient civilization
a n d t h e n e w o r d e r t h a t is a c o n s e q u e n c e o f m o d e r n s c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e rep u d i a t i o n o f o l d r e l i g i o u s a n d p o l i t i c a l f o r m s , In a
word, the centrality of tradition was challenged
by the rhetoric of freedom.
Let m e say at o n c e t h a t t h e q u a r r e l b e t w e e n
t h e a n c i e n t s a n d t h e m o d e r n s is n o t o n e b e t w e e n

two homogeneous and opposing forces.There are


at l e a s t t h r e e m a j o r p a r t i e s to t h i s q u a r r e l : G r e e k
philosophy, revealed religion, and modern natural s c i e n c e . F u r t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n s c o u l d b e m a d e
w i t h i n e a c h o f t h e s e p a r t i e s . It w o u l d b e e a s y t o
say t h a t t h e q u a r r e l b e t w e e n t h e a n c i e n t s a n d t h e
m o d e r n s , in this w o r l d - h i s t o r i c a l o r g l o b a l f o r m ,
is t o o c o m p l e x to b e t r e a t e d p r o p e r l y in a s i n g l e
essay. U p t o a p o i n t , 1 w o u l d a g r e e . But i m m e r s i o n
in h i s t o r i c a l a n d p h i l o l o g i c a l d e t a i l s , if it is t o c a s t
a n y l i g h t u p o n t h e g e n e r a l d i r e c t i o n o f o u r lives,
must itself be accompanied, and even regulated,
by philosophical reflection. I say"reflection," not
d o g m a . T h e p r o b l e m is t h a t r e f l e c t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y
b u t n o t o n l y w h e n t h e y a r e c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d to
the need for political action, too easily deterior a t e i n t o d o g m a o r i d e o l o g y . But t h a t is a r i s k t h a t
p h i l o s o p h e r s a r e r e q u i r e d to take.
D e s p i t e all this c o m p l e x i t y , t h e f a c t r e m a i n s
that western European thinkers of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries did conceive of
t h e i r e p o c h as o n e o f a r e v o l u t i o n a g a i n s t a n c i e n t
philosophy and science, revealed religion, and the
t r a d i t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e s o f p o l i t i c a l life. S o m e o f t h e
m o s t i m p o r t a n t f i g u r e s in t h i s p e r i o d s p o k e o u t
against the modern revolution to one degree or
a n o t h e r ; I m e n t i o n P a s c a l a n d R o u s s e a u as i m p o r t a n t e x a m p l e s . O t h e r s , l i k e L e i b n i z , s o u g h t a rapprochement
between
the ancients and the
m o d e r n s . But d e s p i t e t h e v a r i o u s c o u n t e r - E n l i g h t e n m e n t m o v e m e n t s , t h e g e n e r a l d i r e c t i o n o f history was toward an embrace and celebration of
the new conceptions of truth, freedom, and the
g o o d . T h i s c e l e b r a t i o n t a k e s a n e x t r e m e f o r m in
the writings of Fichte, according to whom Being
is a d e r i v a t i v e f r o m a n d a n e g a t i o n o f f r e e d o m .

IS THERE A QUARREL BETWEEN THE ANCIENTS AND THE MODERNS?

"All B e i n g s i g n i f i e s a r e s t r i c t i o n o n f r e e activity."
T h i s a x i o m , if I m a y call it t h a t , s o o n c a m e t o b e
u n d e r s t o o d as t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t h u m a n b e i n g s
a r e f r e e t o r e c o n s t r u c t t h e w o r l d , a n d so h u m a n
life, in a c c o r d w i t h t h e i r o w n i n t e r e s t s , p u r p o s e s ,
and desires. Another consequence of this axiom
is t h e v i e w t h a t , s i n c e t h e w o r l d is a h u m a n artifact, it c a n b e r e a d i l y r e p l a c e d b y a n o t h e r , a n d t h a t
t h e r e is n o s t a n d a r d i n d e p e n d e n t o f o u r f r e e d o m ,
o r in o t h e r w o r d s , o u r o p i n i o n s a n d d e s i r e s . T h i s
f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e l e d to t h e d e v a l u a t i o n o f
the modern project through the same forces that
i n i t i a t e d a n d s u s t a i n e d it.
T h e r e is m o r e t h a n o n e w a y in w h i c h to d e f i n e
" f r e e d o m . ' T h e d e c i s i v e l y m o d e r n s e n s e o f freed o m is c l o s e l y c o n n e c t e d w i t h t h e d e s i r e to k n o w .
But in m o d e r n t i m e s , t h e s e n s e o f " k n o w i n g "
changes from that of grasping the ways of the
w o r l d as t h e y p r e s e n t t h e m s e l v e s t o us, to forcing, e v e n t o r t u r i n g n a t u r e to r e v e a l h e r s e c r e t s .
S o o n e r r a t h e r t h a n l a t e r t h e i n s t r u m e n t s o f torture themselves determine the nature of what
t h e y d i s c o v e r . K n o w i n g is g r a d u a l l y t r a n s f o r m e d
i n t o m a k i n g . T h i s is i m p l i c i t in t h e m o d e r n r e v o l u t i o n ; f o r e x a m p l e , it is e s p e c i a l l y e v i d e n t in
Galileo's distinction between primary and seconda r y a t t r i b u t e s . In this d i s t i n c t i o n , t h e "real" w o r l d
becomes a mathematical construction of the motions of material particles, whereas the world of
h u m a n e x p e r i e n c e is r e d u c e d to t h e s t a t u s o f a n
illusion. E v e n t u a l l y t h e m a t h e m a t i c a l c o n s t r u c t i o n
is itself s e e n as a p r o d u c t o f h u m a n labor, in w h i c h
the imagination, downgraded by the ancient phil o s o p h e r s a n d s c i e n t i s t s , a s s u m e s an e q u a l r o l e
with reason, and perhaps a superior role.We thus
f i n d o u r s e l v e s in t h e p a r a d o x i c a l p o s i t i o n o f att r i b u t i n g to s c i e n c e t h e t a s k o f d e f i n i n g reality,
e v e n as w e i d e n t i f y s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r i e s as "interp r e t a t i o n s " o r "models," w h i c h is t o say, h u m a n
creations.
T h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e m o d e r n w o r l d is o f
course not simply a homogeneous or continuous
p r o c e s s . If r e a l i t y is a n a r t i f a c t o f h u m a n c r e a t i v ity, it is d i f f i c u l t if n o t i m p o s s i b l e to r a n k - o r d e r
the differing creations by any criterion other than
t h e w i l l t o p o w e r . T h i s is b e c a u s e , in c r e a t i n g o u r selves, o r o u r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f o u r s e l v e s , w e crea t e t h e v e r y s t a n d a r d s b y w h i c h r a n k - o r d e r i n g is
a c c o m p l i s h e d . A s F i c h t e e x p r e s s e s this t h o u g h t ,
t h e p h i l o s o p h e r is i n t e r e s t e d in h i m s e l f , a n d t h e
kind of philosophy one chooses, depends upon
w h a t k i n d o f p e r s o n o n e is. F o r t h i s r e a s o n t h e
m o d e r n E n l i g h t e n m e n t p r o c e e d s in fits a n d starts,

SOCIETY

9 JULY/AUGUST 2002

with many counter-Enlightenments. The apparently uninterrupted progress of scientific and


t e c h n o l o g i c a l d i s c o v e r y is in f a c t o n e p o l e o f
a historical debate about the fate of the Enlightenment.
I c a n n o t g i v e t h e full s t o r y o f t h i s e x t r a o r d i n a r y d e v e l o p m e n t , b u t it h a d t o b e m e n t i o n e d
b e c a u s e it lies at t h e h e a r t o f t h e q u a r r e l t h a t c o n c e r n s us, a n d so o f o u r c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n . T h e m a i n
p o i n t o f m y r e m a r k s t h u s far is as f o l l o w s . T h e
m o d e r n E n l i g h t e n m e n t , t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t it foll o w s t h e F r e n c h m o d e l , is b a s e d u p o n t w o m a i n
a s s u m p t i o n s ; first, t h a t m a t h e m a t i c s is t h e h i g h est form of human reason and that mathematical
s c i e n c e n o t s i m p l y d i s c o v e r s b u t m a k e s o u r reality; a n d s e c o n d , t h a t p e a c e a n d p r o g r e s s d e p e n d
u p o n t h e s o f t e n i n g o f a n c i e n t v i r t u e , t h a t is, t h e
replacement of austerity by comfort.The dilemma
o f t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t is t h a t b o t h t h e s e a s s u m p tions have very serious negative consequences
t h a t t e n d to u n d e r c u t t h e i r a d m i r a b l e p o s i t i v e
influence. Science dissolves our values, or prov i d e s n o r a t i o n a l b a s i s f o r t h e p r e f e r e n c e o f science itself to ignorance.And the insistence upon
c o m f o r t m a k e s us t o o soft t o d e f e n d o u r s e l v e s
against the extreme forms of counter-Enlightenment.The courage upon which the modern revol u t i o n r e s t s is w e a k e n e d b y v i c t o r y .
If w e r e s i s t t h e t e m p t a t i o n to d e f i n e t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y s i t u a t i o n in t e r m s o f t e r r o r i s m a l o n e ;
t h a t is, if w e s e e t e r r o r i s m as an e x t r e m e f o r m o f
the contemporary counter-Enlightenment movement, but by no means the only form, and not by
any means the most dangerous, then we can pose
t h e d i l e m m a o f o u r o p p o n e n t s in a w a y t h a t p a r allels o u r o w n . T h e o n l y w a y in w h i c h t o b r i n g
d o w n t h e m o d e r n s is b y a d o p t i n g t h e i r w e a p o n s
and techniques, and this requires a great deal of
m o n e y a n d t e c h n i c a l e x p e r t i s e . But a n " a n c i e n t "
w a y o f life c a n n o t r e t a i n its p u r i t y if t h a t p u r i t y
d e p e n d s u p o n an a s s i m i l a t i o n o f t h e w a y s o f t h e
i n f i d e l . I r e f e r in t h i s o b s e r v a t i o n n o t j u s t t o a c t s
of terrorism but to higher forms of counter-Enl i g h t e n m e n t . To r e d u c e t h e w h o l e p o i n t to o n e
e x a m p l e , d r a w n f r o m d e b a t e s in r e c e n t p o l i t i c a l
t h e o r y , it is n o t p o s s i b l e t o o v e r t h r o w t h e c o n s e quences of modern medicine by citing the works
of Aristotle or Edmund Burke, especially when
those who quote these texts are themselves pat i e n t s o f m o d e r n p h y s i c i a n s . In c i t i n g e x a m p l e s
of the tyrannical enforcement of superstition by
a w e a l t h y few, w h o d o n o t h e s i t a t e t o m a k e u s e
of the comforts of modern western civilization,

w e t e n d to t a k e t o o s h o r t - s i g h t e d a view. M o d e r n i z a t i o n is also to b e f o u n d in r e a c t i o n a r y r e v o l u t i o n s , a n d s o o n e r o r l a t e r it s e r v e s t o m i t i g a t e t h e
r e a c t i o n a r y e l e m e n t s t h r o u g h a n i n c r e a s i n g app e t i t e f o r t h e f r u i t s o f evil.
F o r e a c h g e n e r a t i o n , t h e s e r i o u s p r o b l e m is alw a y s t h a t o f t h e s h o r t r u n , s i n c e in t h e l o n g r u n ,
as a w i s e m a n p u t it, w e w i l l all b e d e a d . In t h e
l o n g r u n , if t h e r e is a l o n g r u n , I a m r e a s o n a b l y
confident that the force of Enlightenment will
p r e v a i l . But t h e a f o r e m e n t i o n e d w e a k n e s s e s o f t h e
West, which in this context stands for the
m o d e r n s , a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y s t r o n g to m a k e t h e s h o r t
r u n a n e x c e e d i n g l y d a n g e r o u s p l a c e . A s a l w a y s in
h u m a n affairs, t h e e l e m e n t o f c h a n c e is at l e a s t as
p o w e r f u l as t h e r a t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s o f t w o c o n f l i c t i n g w a y s o f life. C h a n c e t o o n e side, I c a n illustrate the great danger that the Enlightenment
f a c e s b y r e f e r r i n g to t h e w i d e s p r e a d f e a r t h a t a
c u r t a i l m e n t o f o u r civil l i b e r t i e s in p r o s e c u t i n g
t h e w a r a g a i n s t t e r r o r i s m w i l l l o w e r u s to t h e l e v e l
o f o u r o p p o n e n t s . If t h i s is t h o u g h t t h r o u g h , it
c o m e s d a n g e r o u s l y c l o s e to t h e a d m i s s i o n t h a t w e
cannot defend ourselves against ruthless repres e n t a t i v e s o f t h e c o u n t e r - E n l i g h t e n m e n t . It is an
o p e n q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h i s is b a l a n c e d b y t h e
i n a b i l i t y o f o u r o p p o n e n t s to d e f e a t us w i t h o u t
a d o p t i n g o u r t e c h n o l o g y . It w o u l d b e a r a t h e r
t e n u o u s c o n s o l a t i o n to s a y t h a t a l t h o u g h w e m a y
be destroyed, our vanquishers will eventually
evolve into replicas of ourselves.
In t h e p r e c e d i n g i n t r o d u c t o r y r e m a r k s , I h a v e
t r i e d to s u g g e s t t h e f o l l o w i n g t h e s i s . T h e Enlighte n m e n t is in t h e p r o c e s s o f c a r r y i n g o u t its a g e n d a ,
b u t it is a l s o d e s t r o y i n g i t s e l f f r o m w i t h i n , in add i t i o n to b e i n g a t t a c k e d f r o m t h e o u t s i d e . It is n o t
clear, despite my own moderate optimism,
whether the progress or the destruction of the
E n l i g h t e n m e n t w i l l c a r r y t h e d a y . A n d it is at t h i s
point that the issue of courage becomes apposite. Let us n o w p u t t e r r o r i s m o f t h e i m m e d i a t e
k i n d to o n e side; it s e r v e d as a p o i n t o f d e p a r t u r e
f o r t h e g e n e r a l a r g u m e n t o f t h i s essay. I w a n t
r a t h e r t o c o n s i d e r t h e q u a r r e l b e t w e e n t h e anc i e n t s a n d t h e m o d e r n s at a m o r e p h i l o s o p h i c a l
l e v e l . A s I shall a r g u e in t h e b a l a n c e o f m y talk,
t h e r e is n o q u e s t i o n o f a b o l i s h i n g t h e E n l i g h t e n ment or returning to some more elegant arrangem e n t o f o u r p o l i t i c a l a n d s p i r i t u a l affairs t h a n is
to b e f o u n d in m o d e r n i n d u s t r i a l d e m o c r a c i e s . O n
t h i s p o i n t I a m in c o m p l e t e a g r e e m e n t w i t h
T o c q u e v i l l e . We m u s t live o r d i e in o u r o w n hist o r i c a l e p o c h . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e p r o b l e m , as sug-

g e s t e d b y c o n t e m p o r a r y t e r r o r i s m , is t h a t w e m a y
d i e in o u r o w n e p o c h , t h a t is, b e m u r d e r e d , b y
t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f f a n a t i c a l o p p o n e n t s o f Enl i g h t e n m e n t , a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t is r e n d e r e d eff e c t i v e b y t h e w e a p o n s o f t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t itself.
I s h a l l r e s t r i c t m y s e l f in w h a t f o l l o w s t o t h e
impossibility of a counter-Enlightenment movem e n t t h a t a t t e m p t s to r e p l a c e l a t e - m o d e r n d e c a dence with the wisdom of the ancients. I happen
t o b e l i e v e t h a t e v e n if s u c h a r e t u r n to t h e p a s t
w e r e p o s s i b l e , it w o u l d b e u n d e s i r a b l e . W h a t w e
r e q u i r e is t o e x h i b i t t h e s a m e c o u r a g e t h a t w a s
displayed by the founding fathers of the modern
age. U n f o r t u n a t e l y , t h e t a s k w e f a c e is in m a n y
ways more difficult than theirs. Our problems
spring from their success, not from their failures.
To m a k e t h i s last p o i n t in a n o t h e r way, I a m in
general terms a proponent of the Enlightenment.
But I d o n o t s e e t h i s a l l e g i a n c e t o t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t as a r e j e c t i o n o f t h e w i s d o m o f t h e a n c i e n t s .
If t h i s w e r e a n o t h e r essay, I w o u l d d i s c u s s at
l e n g t h t h e w a y s in w h i c h I b e l i e v e t h a t t h e salvation of modernity depends upon the adoption of
t h a t w i s d o m . Today, h o w e v e r , it is i m p o r t a n t to
m e to m a k e c l e a r t h a t in t h e d e e p e s t s e n s e , t h e r e
is n o q u a r r e l b e t w e e n t h e a n c i e n t s a n d t h e
m o d e r n s , if w e m e a n b y this e x p r e s s i o n a real dispute between two radically different and simultaneously actual epochs for the mastery of the
m o d e r n , o r let us say t h e p o s t - m o d e r n w o r l d .
It is an e s s e n t i a l c o r o l l a r y t h a t , j u s t as t h e r e is
n o r e a l q u a r r e l b e t w e e n e p o c h s , so t o o t h e r e is
no generic difference between the courage of the
a n c i e n t s a n d t h a t o f t h e m o d e r n s . C o u r a g e is exe r c i s e d a g a i n s t p e r c e i v e d d a n g e r s . It is a s o m e times useful but nevertheless facile oversimplification to suggest that the ancients arrived
c o l l e c t i v e l y at t h e a b y s s s e p a r a t i n g t h e m f r o m t h e
advent of modernity, and drew back, whether out
o f f e a r o r a h i g h e r c o u r a g e r o o t e d in a g e n u i n e
c o m p r e h e n s i o n o f h u m a n n a t u r e a n d its l i m i t s . I n
fact, t h e a n c i e n t s , o r t h e i r m e d i e v a l a n d r e n a i s sance surrogates, did not draw back_They stepped
o v e r t h e l i n e i n t o t h e m o d e r n e p o c h . So t o o it
would be absurd to ask the moderns to reverse
c o u r s e , a n d to l e a p b a c k w a r d s o v e r t h e a b y s s i n t o
t h e a r m s o f t h e w a i t i n g a n c i e n t s , in t h e h o p e o f
moving from decadence into genuine virtue.
T h e r e s i d e n c e o f c o u r a g e is so to s p e a k neit h e r in t h e p a s t n o r t h e f u t u r e , b u t in t h e p r e s e n t .
W e h a v e to f a c e u p to o u r i m m e d i a t e s i t u a t i o n ,
a n d in o r d e r to d o this e f f e c t i v e l y , w e r e q u i r e n o t

IS THERE A QUARREL BETWEEN THE ANCIENTS AND THE MODERNS?

o n l y c o u r a g e b u t s o u n d j u d g m e n t . If t h e r e is a
" q u a r r e l " b e t w e e n the ancients and the m o d e r n s ,
it is n o t o n e that c o u l d be s e t t l e d b y a r e t u r n to
t h e p a s t . T h e r e s u s c i t a t i o n o f classical v i r t u e , for
e x a m p l e , is s o m e t h i n g w h i c h , if it is p o s s i b l e at
all, c a n b e a t t e m p t e d o n l y b y t h e m o d e r n s . But
w e c a n n o t r e p r o d u c e a n c i e n t c u s t o m s a n d institutions by deconstructing our historical identity
w i t h o u t i n d u c i n g c u l t u r a l s c h i z o p h r e n i a at t h e
b e s t a n d o b l i t e r a t i o n at t h e w o r s t .
I will c o m e b a c k i n a m o m e n t to this i m p o r t a n t p o i n t . S e c o n d , as I m e n t i o n e d at t h e b e g i n n i n g o f this article, as s o o n as w e d e s c e n d f r o m
a n e x c e s s i v e l y g e n e r a l v i e w p o i n t for a c l o s e r l o o k
at t h e h i s t o r i c a l terrain, it b e c o m e s clear that t h e r e
is m o r e t h a n o n e b r a n c h of t h e a n c i e n t army. I n
a d d i t i o n to t h e e q u a l l y f a m o u s q u a r r e l b e t w e e n
A t h e n s a n d J e r u s a l e m , o n e c a n n o t a s s i m i l a t e all
a s p e c t s of p a g a n c i v i l i z a t i o n i n t o a n a m a l g a m of
Plato a n d Aristotle. How, for e x a m p l e , c o u l d w e
i s o l a t e f r o m o u r h y p o t h e t i c a l r e s t o r a t i o n o f anc i e n t v i r t u e t h o s e e l e m e n t s o f t h e p a s t t h a t gave
rise to t h e p r e s e n t ? A n d it is far f r o m e v i d e n t that
P l a t o ' s r e v o l u t i o n a r y i n t r o d u c t i o n of p h i l o s o p h y
i n t o p o l i t i c s is c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e m o d e r a t i o n
of A r i s t o t l e ' s s e p a r a t i o n o f t h e o r y a n d p r a c t i c e .
In sum, I v i e w the q u a r r e l b e t w e e n t h e a n c i e n t s
a n d m o d e r n s as t h e u n d e r l y i n g s t r u c t u r e o f hist o r i c a l r e f l e c t i o n , r a t h e r t h a n as a s p e c i f i c historical o r p o l i t i c a l p r o b l e m that r e q u i r e s a d e f i n i t i v e
s o l u t i o n . Every r e t u r n to the p a s t is artificial a n d
r e s u l t s o n l y in a d e c a d e n t v e r s i o n of the p r e s e n t .
This is t h e a d v i c e that N i e t z s c h e gives to t h e c o n s e r v a t i v e i n p a r a g r a p h 43 of The Twilight o f the

Idols:
S p o k e n i n t o the ear o f t h e c o n s e r v a t i v e ....
W h a t o n e did n o t k n o w previously, w h a t o n e
k n o w s today, w h a t o n e c a n k n o w t o d a y ... a
b a c k w a r d education, a t u r n i n g back in any
s e n s e a n d d e g r e e at all, is n o t p o s s i b l e . W e
p h y s i o l o g i s t s at l e a s t k n o w t h a t . B u t all
priests and moralists have believed in that
[ r e t u r n ] . T h e y w a n t e d to r e t u r n m a n k i n d to
a n e a r l i e r m e a s u r e of v i r t u e , to s c r e w h i m
b a c k [ i n t o t h e p a s t : zuri~ckschrauben].
Morality was always a b e d of Procrustes.
Even the statesmen have imitated the
p r e a c h e r s of m o r a l i t y i n this r e s p e c t : t h e r e
are t o d a y still p a r t i e s that d r e a m of t h e c r a b ' s
m o t i o n as t h e goal of all t h i n g s . But n o o n e
is free to b e a c r a b . T h e r e is n o c h o i c e : o n e
m u s t go f o r w a r d , so to say s t e p b y s t e p far-

10

SOCIETY

9 JULY/AUGUST 2002

t h e r i n t o d ~ c a d e n c e ( w h i c h is m y d e f i n i t i o n
o f m o d e r n " p r o g r e s s " ...).
I w a n t to r e t a i n w h a t is v a l i d i n N i e t z s c h e ' s
a d v i c e w h i l e at t h e s a m e t i m e a l t e r i n g its i m p o r t
b y a shift i n r h e t o r i c . N i e t z s c h e is c e r t a i n l y corr e c t to say t h a t w e c a n n o t s c r e w h u m a n i t y b a c k
i n t o a p a s t e p o c h o f history. But it d o e s n o t foll o w t h a t all f o r w a r d m o v e m e n t t a k e s us d e e p e r
i n t o d e c a d e n c e . N i e t z s c h e is i n fact m i s t a k e n
a b o u t t h e m o t i o n of t h e c r a b ; it s c u t t l e s s i d e w a y s ,
n o t b a c k w a r d . S o m e t i m e s o n e m u s t take a crabs t e p to the side o f a n o b s t a c l e i n o r d e r to c i r c u m v e n t it. T h e r e m a y b e s p a c e i n t h e s h a d o w s o f
d e c a d e n c e to m a n e u v e r for t h e b e s t p o s s i b l e exit.
My o w n c r a b - s t e p s are i n t e n d e d to c o n t r i b u t e
to t h e r e s t o r a t i o n of s t a b i l i t y to t h e p r e s e n t , a n d
n o t at all to r e t u r n us to t h e p a s t o r to p r o j e c t u s
i n t o t h e f u t u r e . A n d b y "stability" I d o n o t m e a n
the rigidity of dogma. I can therefore agree w i t h
N i e t z s c h e w h e n , as for e x a m p l e i n B eyond Good
a n d Evil, h e s p e a k s o f t h e h u m a n b e i n g as "the
n o t y e t e s t a b l i s h e d animal." He m e a n s b y this, o f
c o u r s e , that o u r n a t u r e is to b e i n c o m p l e t e , or t h a t
it is o u r n a t u r e to b e p e r p e t u a l l y e n g a g e d i n t h e
a t t e m p t to c o m p l e t e o u r s e l v e s . I d i s a g r e e w i t h
N i e t z s c h e , h o w e v e r , o n o n e c r u c i a l p o i n t , o r at
least p u t a d i f f e r e n t e m p h a s i s o n t h e c o n c e p t o f
i n c o m p l e t e n e s s . T o b e i n c o m p l e t e , or t o strive to
c o m p l e t e o n e s e l f , is to h a v e a n a t u r e o f a c e r t a i n
k i n d , a n d t h u s to b e p r o v i d e d w i t h c r i t e r i a b y
w h i c h to r e g u l a t e o u r s t r i v i n g , h o w e v e r f l e x i b l e
t h e s e c r i t e r i a m a y be.
For N i e t z s c h e ' s Z a r a t h u s t r a o n t h e o t h e r h a n d ,
m a n is a n a n i m a l t h a t m u s t b e o v e r c o m e . By "overc o m i n g , " Z a r a t h u s t r a r e f e r s to s u r p a s s i n g , a n d this
i n t u r n rests u p o n a s t a n d a r d b y w h i c h p r o g r e s s
can be distinguished from retrogression.This central i s s u e is c o n f u s e d i n N i e t z s c h e b e c a u s e h e
vacillates b e t w e e n two quite different standards.
O n t h e o n e h a n d , N i e t z s c h e ' s v a l u e s are c l e a r l y
t h o s e of t h e p a g a n a n d r e n a i s s a n c e artist-warriors;
in general, he praises the aristocracy of the spirit
a n d is t h u s c o m m i t t e d to a d i s t i n c t i o n b e t w e e n
nobility and baseness. On the other hand,
N i e t z s c h e d e f i n e s o v e r c o m i n g as a n i n c r e a s e i n
p o w e r , a n d h e s u p p o r t s this d e f i n i t i o n w i t h app e a l s to p h y s i c s . N o b i l i t y is t h e a c c u m u l a t i o n o f
e n e r g y , w h e r e a s b a s e n e s s o r d e c a d e n c e is its dissipation. In the fluctuation between these two
s t a n d a r d s , w e see N i e t z s c h e ' s i n n e r q u a r r e l between his versions of the ancients and the
moderns.

N i e t z s c h e is for us t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t e x a m p l e
of the bad consequences of the excessive dominance of the modern paradigm of reason. Despite
his p h i l o l o g i c a l a n d p s y c h o l o g i c a l g e n i u s , h e accepts the paradigm of mathematical physics, or
m o r e generally, o f n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y m a t e r i a l i s m
a n d d e t e r m i n i s m , as a c o r r e c t a c c o u n t o f r a t i o nality. A n d t h i s in t u r n l e a d s h i m t o r e j e c t r a t i o n a l i s m a n d so t o an e x c e s s i v e p r a i s e o f p a s s i o n s
and emotions, which can be expressed prosaically
in n e u r o p h y s i o l o g i c a l t e r m s o r p o e t i c a l l y as t h e
d o c t r i n e o f w i l l to p o w e r . T h i s is a n u n s a t i s f a c t o r y f o u n d a t i o n for t h e c e l e b r a t i o n o f n o b i l i t y . It
c a n n o t w i t h s t a n d t h e s t e a d y d e t e r i o r a t i o n o f spiritual w o r k , w o r k w h i c h N i e t z s c h e f a v o r s , i n t o t h e
satisfaction of material desires, which encourages
an excessive emphasis
upon comfort, the
penultimate step toward the decadence that
Nietzsche opposes.Alternatively, the celebration
o f t h e w i l l to p o w e r c a n l e a d t o e x c e s s i v e h a r s h ness and tyrannical political regimes like that of
t h e Taliban.
I have made this extended
reference
to
N i e t z s c h e b e c a u s e h e is p e r h a p s t h e h i g h e s t manif e s t a t i o n o f a t y p i c a l m o d e r n figure, namely, a g r e a t
son of the Enlightenment who sees the faults of
his f a t h e r w i t h s p e c i a l clarity, b u t w h o is h i m s e l f
f i n a l l y b r o u g h t d o w n b y his g e n e t i c d e s t i n y . O n e
m u s t n o t p u s h t h e c o m p a r i s o n t o o far, b u t in s o m e
w a y s N i e t z s c h e is a l a t e - m o d e r n O e d i p u s w h o
i n s t r u c t s us t h a t w e c a n o v e r c o m e b l i n d n e s s w i t h
c o u r a g e , a n d n o t m e r e l y w i t h a m o r fati o r t h e acq u i e s c e n c e in f a t e . T h i s is m a d e c l e a r in t h e m o s t
i m p o r t a n t r e f e r e n c e t o c o u r a g e in Thus Spoke
Zarathustra. It o c c u r s in t h e first s e c t i o n o f t h e
o p e n i n g e p i s o d e o f B o o k III, a n d is e n t i t l e d " O n
the Vision and the Riddle;" in this episode,
Nietzsche introduces the central doctrine of the
e t e r n a l r e t u r n . C o u r a g e is t h e r e d e f i n e d as t h e
d e c i s i v e h u m a n a t t r i b u t e t h a t p r e s e r v e s us f r o m
falling i n t o t h e a b y s s o f life; t h a t is to say, it p r e s e r v e s us f r o m d i z z i n e s s b u t also f r o m p i t y for
h u m a n s u f f e r i n g . C o u r a g e l e a d s us t o c o n q u e r
e v e n d e a t h in t h e a f f i r m a t i o n o f life:"Was t h a t life?
Well, t h e n , o n c e m o r e ! "
A l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e e l e m e n t s o f S t o i c i s m in
N i e t z s c h e , h e is n o t a n a n c i e n t b e c a u s e h e r e f u s e s
to a c q u i e s c e in t h e s i m p l e l o v e o f fate t h a t ign o r e s a n d t r i v i a l i z e s life r a t h e r t h a n i n v e s t i n g it
w i t h v a l u e . It is a l s o i m p o r t a n t t o c o n t r a s t
Nietzsche's attitude on this point with the
Socratic thesis, presented
explicitly in the
T h e a e t e t u s a n d P h a e d o , t h a t p h i l o s o p h y is a de-

t a c h m e n t f r o m life a n d a p r e p a r a t i o n for d y i n g .
P e r h a p s o n e c o u l d say t h a t t h e r e is i n d e e d a q u a r rel b e t w e e n t h e a n c i e n t s a n d t h e m o d e r n s o n h o w
t o r e s p o n d to d e a t h . T h e d e c i s i v e l y m o d e r n p h i losophers dispute the efficacy of theoretical contemplation on behalf of the reconstruction of the
c o s m o s as a w o r l d fit f o r h u m a n h a b i t a t i o n .
Descartes, the father of modern philosophy,
w i s h e d for a n d b e l i e v e d in t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e
conquest of death through modern science.
P o s t m o d e r n d e c o n s t r u c t i o n , w h a t e v e r its p o s i t i v e
a t t r i b u t e s , m u s t b e s e e n in this c o n t e x t as t h e ass e r t i o n o f t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e m o d e r n a t t e m p t to
become masters and possessors of nature.
T h e s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n a b o u t p o s t m o d e r n i s m is
w h e t h e r it p o s s e s s e s a m o r a l c o r e , t h a t is, a c o u n t e r p a r t to N i e t z s c h e ' s c o u r a g e t h a t is n o t at bott o m a n i r o n i c w i n k at t h e triviality o f d i f f e r e n c e .
T h e p o s t m o d e r n i s t s , e x a c t l y like t h e i r c o n t e m p o r a r y e n t h u s i a s t s for c o m p u t e r s and robots, are t o o
close to t h e "last m e n " of Thus Spoke Zarathustra to
qualify as r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f Z a r a t h u s t r a ' s c o u r a g e .
N i e t z s c h e p r o v i d e s us w i t h t h e t r a g i c c o - o r d i nate to Machiavelli's comic representation of the
p l i a n c y o f f o r t u n e to t h e h u m a n will.A c y n i c m i g h t
say t h a t m o d e r n i t y b e g i n s in l o w c u n n i n g a n d term i n a t e s in h i g h b r a v a d o . S o m e o f us, h o w e v e r , I
a m o n g t h e m , w i l l p r e f e r a r h e t o r i c a l e x c e s s in t h e
a f f i r m a t i o n o f life to t h e t h e o r e t i c a l d i s t a n c e t h a t
d e t a c h e s us f r o m it. O d d l y e n o u g h , it is p r e c i s e l y
at t h i s p o i n t t h a t I d e v i a t e f r o m N i e t z s c h e ; his
r h e t o r i c a l e x c e s s is t h e m a s k o f an i n n e r e m p t i n e s s o r i n c a p a c i t y to g r o u n d t h e m e a n i n g a n d sign i f i c a n c e o f h u m a n e x i s t e n c e , w h i c h is in h i s
terms a perturbation on the surface of chaos.
It w o u l d t a k e us t o o far a f i e l d to c o n s i d e r t h e
i s s u e in d e t a i l , b u t I w a n t at l e a s t t o m e n t i o n t h e
deterioration from the nobility of Nietzsche's
rhetoric to the vulgarity of twentieth-century
m a t e r i a l i s m , t h a t s p e a k s in t h e i d i o m o f s c i e n c e
fiction, neurophysiology, and the engineering
m a n u a l . T h i s is o n e c o n s e q u e n c e o f N i e t z s c h e ' s
d e e p l y f l a w e d a n d h y p n o t i c a l l y a r t i c u l a t e d crit i q u e o f r a t i o n a l i s m , w h i c h l e a v e s us, o r s e e m s to
l e a v e us, w i t h t h e p r a c t i c a l a l t e r n a t i v e o f r h e t o r i c o r m a t h e m a t i c s . But m a t h e m a t i c s c a n n o t triumph politically without the assistance of rhetoric, nor can rhetoric sustain itself without
mathematics.The mere combination of the two,
h o w e v e r , is u n s t a b l e ; w h a t w e r e q u i r e is t h e synthesis of philosophy.
I h o p e it is c l e a r f r o m m y a n a l y s i s o f N i e t z s c h e
t h a t I a m in n o s e n s e a n u n q u a l i f i e d p r o p o n e n t o f

IS THERE A QUARREL BETWEEN THE ANCIENTS AND THE MODERNS?

11

t h e so-called c o u r a g e of the m o d e r n s . But t h e att e m p t to c h o o s e b e t w e e n t h e c o u r a g e o f t h e anc i e n t s and that of the m o d e r n s is a m i s t a k e , a n d it


leads directly to ideology, n o t to a g e n u i n e l y philosophical politics or political philosophy.
T h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t and Political C o n s e r v a t i s m
Let me i n t r o d u c e the n e x t p o r t i o n of my essay
w i t h a q u o t a t i o n that i l l u m i n a t e s t h e d e f e c t of an
u n m i t i g a t e d r e p u d i a t i o n of t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t ,
a n d in general, t h e d e f e c t of p o l i t i c a l c o n s e r v a tism.The q u o t e d s t a t e m e n t is by Leo Strauss, w h o
can h a r d l y be a c c u s e d of a b l i n d a d m i r a t i o n for
the d o c t r i n e of h i s t o r i c a l p r o g r e s s . In his evaluation of H e r m a n n C o h e n ' s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Judaism, Strauss w r i t e s : " O n e must say t h a t in his critique of Spinoza Cohen commits the typical
m i s t a k e of the c o n s e r v a t i v e , w h i c h c o n s i s t s in
c o n c e a l i n g the fact that the c o n t i n u o u s and changing t r a d i t i o n w h i c h he c h e r i s h e s so greatly w o u l d
never have c o m e into being t h r o u g h conservatism,
or w i t h o u t d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s , r e v o l u t i o n s , a n d sacrileges c o m m i t t e d at the b e g i n n i n g of the c h e r i s h e d
t r a d i t i o n a n d at l e a s t s i l e n t l y r e p e a t e d in its
course."This i m p o r t a n t p a s s a g e e x h i b i t s Strauss's
a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e s o b e r c o r e of N i e t z s c h e ' s
a d v i c e to c o n s e r v a t i v e s , a l t h o u g h it in no w a y
t r a n s f o r m s him i n t o t h e N i e t z s c h e a n r e v o l u t i o n a r y n i h i l i s t c o n j u r e d up by Shadia D r u r y a n d
L a w r e n c e Lampert.
W i t h all d u e a c k n o w l e d g m e n t of t h e d e f e c t s
of the E n l i g h t e n m e n t , t h e r e is no w a y in w h i c h
to e x t r i c a t e o u r s e l v e s from its e m b r a c e e x c e p t
t h r o u g h the d e s t r u c t i o n of history. I w a n t to argue this p o i n t in s o m e detail, and I will do so by
offering a radically r e v i s e d and e x p a n d e d v e r s i o n
of an a r g u m e n t that I e m p l o y e d in an o l d essay,"A
Modest P r o p o s a l to R e t h i n k the E n l i g h t e n m e n t . "
Like all a r g u m e n t s a b o u t h i s t o r y and politics, m i n e
is d i a l e c t i c a l and r h e t o r i c a l ; it p r o c e e d s b y w a y
of p r o b a b i l i t i e s , p s y c h o l o g i c a l h y p o t h e s e s , a n d
p r u d e n t i a l e s t i m a t i o n s . Y e t I do n o t b e l i e v e that it
violates any laws of l o g i c . W h e t h e r t h e a r g u m e n t
is p l a u s i b l e or n o t is for you to judge.
The c o n c l u s i o n of m y a r g u m e n t has a l r e a d y
b e e n stated. Not only is it i m p o s s i b l e to r e v e r s e
the E n l i g h t e n m e n t , but it is also u n d e s i r a b l e . W h a t
we call " m o d e r n i t y " is n o t s o m e alien b o d y ins e r t e d by force i n t o t h e s p i r i t o f antiquity; it is
the c o n s e q u e n c e , s o m e t i m e s successful and sometimes not, of the long effort to m i t i g a t e t h e defic i e n c i e s of h u m a n e x i s t e n c e . T h i s effort is in my
v i e w n o b l e a n d c o u r a g e o u s . It is n o b l e r a n d m o r e

12

SOCIETY 9 JULY/AUGUST 2002

c o u r a g e o u s t h a n t h e t e n d e n c y to a c q u i e s c e in t h e
a f o r e m e n t i o n e d deficiencies, or to p a i n t t h e m o v e r
w i t h s a l u b r i o u s r h e t o r i c w h i l e s e e k i n g r e f u g e in
p u r e c o n t e m p l a t i o n . In t h e l o n g run, t h e h e a l t h
o f t h e h u m a n s p i r i t d e p e n d s u p o n its f r e e d o m to
f u n c t i o n , a n d t h e r e b y to p u t i t s e l f at risk.
Let us n o w t u r n to t h e details of t h e a r g u m e n t .
Some w o u l d say that if t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t is all o w e d to c o n t i n u e , t h e r e s u l t will b e e i t h e r outr i g h t d e s t r u c t i o n o r at t h e v e r y least t h e t r i u m p h
of b a s e n e s s , a n d so that w e n e e d to r e t u r n to s o m e
e a r l i e r p o l i t i c a l m o d e l , s u c h as t h a t of Aristotelian or, m o r e realistically, B u r k e a n p r u d e n t i a l conservatism.And indeed, one often meets with the
v i e w that t h e a n c i e n t t h i n k e r s a d v o c a t e d the cons t r u c t i o n of p o l i t i e s in a c c o r d w i t h a p e r c e p t i o n
of a n o b l e a n d w i s e life, w h e r e a s t h e f o u n d e r s o f
m o d e r n i t y w e r e m o t i v a t e d b y t h e e x c e s s i v e daring that l e d t h e m to a t t e m p t to m a s t e r n a t u r e for
utilitarian or b r o a d l y p h i l a n t h r o p i c motives.As my
o w n teacher, Leo Strauss, o f t e n s t a t e d this view,
t h e m o d e r n s a i m e d l o w e r t h a n t h e a n c i e n t s , in
o r d e r to a c c o m p l i s h t h e a m e l i o r a t i o n of t h e hum a n c o n d i t i o n ; in so d o i n g , h o w e v e r , t h e y m a d e
courage a virtue of higher rank than wisdom,
w h i c h w a s itself r e c o n c e i v e d as an i n s t r u m e n t of
the will.The twin sovereigns of courage and the
will, a c c o r d i n g to this thesis, h a v e p r o d u c e d t h e
v u l g a r i z a t i o n o f the h u m a n s p i r i t to w h i c h I alluded above.
The m o d e r n reply, to c o u n t e r o n e o v e r s i m p l i fication w i t h another, is of c o u r s e that the Enlighte n m e n t , and m o r e b r o a d l y t h e m o d e r n r e v o l u t i o n ,
is n o b l e r in p r i n c i p l e t h a n t h e p r u d e n c e of t h e
a n c i e n t s . It is e n t i r e l y n o b l e to strive to e x t e n d
t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f a c o m f o r t a b l e life to t h e maj o r i t y of h u m a n b e i n g s , a n d it is also n o b l e r to
e x t e n d t h e joys of t h e i n t e l l e c t a n d s p i r i t to t h o s e
w h o can benefit from them, than it is to k e e p t h e m
for a f a v o r e d m i n o r i t y in a n e c e s s a r i l y r e s t r i c t e d
form. It is, h o w e v e r , o n e t h i n g to e n d o r s e t h e nobility of the p r i n c i p l e of E n l i g h t e n m e n t , and somet h i n g else again to b e c o m e m a s t e r s a n d p o s s e s s ors of t h a t p r i n c i p l e , r a t h e r t h a n b e i n g m a s t e r e d
a n d p o s s e s s e d by it.
My first r e c o m m e n d a t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t to t h e
quarrel b e t w e e n the ancients and the m o d e r n s
has to do w i t h t h e r e c i p r o c a l w e l l - b e i n g of phil o s o p h y a n d p o l i t i c s . In my view, t h e w e l f a r e o f
p h i l o s o p h y r e q u i r e s that it have a l e g i t i m a t e prese n c e w i t h i n o u r p u b l i c or p o l i t i c a l a r r a n g e m e n t s .
T h e c o n v e r s e is also true; p o l i t i c a l life d e p e n d s
for its s p i r i t u a l h e a l t h u p o n t h e p r e s e n c e of p h i l o -

s o p h i c a l activity. I do n o t m e a n b y this t h a t phil o s o p h y n e e d s to be a p o l i t i c a l i d e o l o g y ; w h a t I


urge is r a t h e r that no political i d e o l o g y is a d e q u a t e
to t h e n e e d s of t h e h u m a n s p i r i t if it s u p p r e s s e s
p h i l o s o p h y . In o r d e r to see this, o n e has only to
o b s e r v e t h e d i s a s t r o u s c o n s e q u e n c e s that f o l l o w
u p o n the radical r e s t r i c t i o n of t h e o r e t i c a l inquiry.
I w o u l d of c o u r s e n o t d e n y that p h i l o s o p h e r s
have b e e n i n g e n i o u s in f i n d i n g w a y s to justify
t h e i r p u r s u i t on the basis of p r e v a i l i n g r e l i g i o u s
and p o l i t i c a l d o c t r i n e s . Medieval A r a b i c a n d Jewish p h i l o s o p h y is p e r h a p s t h e g r e a t e s t but n o t the
only e x a m p l e of this i n g e n i o u s n e s s . A t first glance,
o n e m i g h t r e a s o n a b l y a r g u e t h a t the a c c o m m o d a t i o n of p h i l o s o p h y to r e l i g i o n a n d p o l i t i c s is
actually n e c e s s a r y for the welfare of the non-philos o p h i c a l majority.As I u n d e r s t a n d the h i s t o r y of
p h i l o s o p h y , h o w e v e r , t h e r e s u l t s of this a c c o m m o d a t i o n s o o n d e v i a t e f r o m t h e s a l u t a r y to t h e
m a l i g n a n t . Either d o g m a t i c c o n f o r m i t y stifles intellectual and spiritual perfection, or the inner
t e n s i o n of the r e p r e s s e d s p i r i t leads to r e l i g i o u s
and p o l i t i c a l quarrels, sects, r e v o l u t i o n s , and wars.
Stated w i t h e x c e s s i v e b u t n o t m i s l e a d i n g concision, s u p p r e s s i o n results e i t h e r in s t a g n a t i o n or
chaos.
This o f c o u r s e d o e s n o t a l t e r t h e fact that an
u n m i t i g a t e d m a t e r i a l i s t o r p o s i t i v i s t Enlightenment, to use old-fashioned b u t still effective terms,
leads to the s t e a d y l o w e r i n g of s p i r i t u a l a n d so
p h i l o s o p h i c a l standards. It is p r e c i s e l y the s u c c e s s
of t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t t h a t a c c o u n t s for the chaotic c o n t e m p o r a r y situation, in large p a r t b e c a u s e
that s u c c e s s is itself d e p e n d e n t u p o n a c o n s i d e r able d e g r e e of s u p p r e s s i o n , always of c o u r s e in
the n a m e o f s c i e n c e a n d d e m o c r a c y . But it is a
q u e s t i o n h e r e of b a l a n c i n g o n e evil against another. P e r h a p s o n e c o u l d say that c h a o s is marginally s u p e r i o r to s t a g n a t i o n , b e c a u s e if everyt h i n g is a l l o w e d , t h e n g o o d t h i n g s are at least
possible.
O n e m u s t not, t h e r e f o r e , m i s u n d e r s t a n d m y
a s s e r t i o n that p h i l o s o p h y f e c u n d a t e s t h e h u m a n
spirit in such a w a y as to i n v i g o r a t e a n d r e n d e r
n o b l e p o l i t i c a l life. In r e c o m m e n d i n g t h e political p r e s e n c e of p h i l o s o p h y , I am n o t i d e n t i f y i n g
it w i t h m a t e r i a l i s m , p o s i t i v i s m , or anti-theological i r e . T h e o p e n n e s s of p h i l o s o p h y w i t h i n a trad i t i o n a l s o c i e t y is n o t n e c e s s a r i l y a n d p e r h a p s in
no g e n u i n e s e n s e , t a n t a m o u n t to t h e d e s t r u c t i o n
of t h e b e s t in that tradition. The i c o n o c l a s t s of
the F r e n c h E n l i g h t e n m e n t w e r e n o t s u p p o r t e r s
of a g e n u i n e o p e n n e s s of t h e o r e t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n

b u t r e s t r i c t e d f r e e d o m of r e a s o n to m o d e r n scie n c e . T h e h u m a n s p i r i t is i m p o v e r i s h e d as m u c h
b y t h e e l i m i n a t i o n of r e l i g i o n and m e t a p h y s i c s as
it w o u l d b e b y t h e s u p p r e s s i o n of s c i e n c e and
c o n c e p t u a l analysis.
O n e m i g h t a c c e p t m o s t of t h e p r e c e d i n g ref l e c t i o n and n e v e r t h e l e s s c o n t e n d that it is equally
or e v e n m o r e d a n g e r o u s n o t to r e s t r i c t the fundam e n t a l i m p u l s e of the E n l i g h t e n m e n t , namely, the
free a n d p u b l i c p u r s u i t of t r u t h as w e l l as its diss e m i n a t i o n by u n i v e r s a l e d u c a t i o n and t h e s t e a d y
a p p l i c a t i o n of s c i e n c e to t h e a m e l i o r a t i o n of t h e
h u m a n c o n d i t i o n by m e a n s of t e c h n o l o g y . Is t h e
g r e a t e r d a n g e r of t h e g r a t i f i c a t i o n of this i m p u l s e
n o t a n e c e s s a r y c o n s e q u e n c e of m y o w n a c c o u n t
of t h e i n n e r f l a w o r c o n t r a d i c t i o n of t h e Enlighte n m e n t ? D o e s t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t n o t l e a d inevitably to t h e t r i u m p h of t e c h n o l o g y and m a t e r i a l ism, and c o r r e l a t i v e l y to a t r a n s v a l u a t i o n of values
in w h i c h t h e h i g h b e c o m e s l o w and the l o w bec o m e s high? This is a r e a s o n a b l e q u e s t i o n .
Let us t h e r e f o r e c o n s i d e r the p o s s i b i l i t y o f a
c o m p r o m i s e w i t h t h e i m p u l s e of E n l i g h t e n m e n t .
T h e t h e s i s b e f o r e us has t w o m a i n parts. First, it
is h e l d that p h i l o s o p h y s h o u l d be r e s e r v e d for t h e
f e w w h o are c a p a b l e of d i s c o v e r i n g it t h r o u g h
t h e i r o w n efforts, s i n c e it is t o o d a n g e r o u s to the
m o r a l a n d p o l i t i c a l o r d e r w h e n it b e c o m e s accessible to t h e m u l t i t u d e . S e c o n d , it is h e l d that t h e
natural and e x p e r i m e n t a l sciences must themselves be r e s t r i c t e d to an i n t e l l e c t u a l elite, w h o
will r e g u l a t e the d e v e l o p m e n t of t e c h n o l o g y in
s u c h a w a y as to p r e v e n t the d e t e r i o r a t i o n of t h e
a f o r e m e n t i o n e d order. In s h o r t , t h e t h e s i s rests
u p o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e r e is a n a t u r a l a n d
so u n b r i d g e a b l e g a p b e t w e e n t h e f e w a n d t h e
many.This m a k e s p o s s i b l e a r e s t r i c t e d o r m a s k e d
E n l i g h t e n m e n t , of a k i n d i n d i c a t e d by Bacon in
T h e N e w A t l a n t i s a n d R o u s s e a u at the e n d of his
Discourse on the Arts a n d Sciences.

I b e g i n my r e p l y to this t h e s i s w i t h a b r i e f observation about contemporary physical science.


I n t e r e s t i n g l y e n o u g h , it is n o t so m u c h the "conservatives" as t h e "liberal progressives," to use t h e
p o p u l a r t e r m i n o l o g y , w h o favor t h e r e s t r i c t i o n or
even e l i m i n a t i o n of all scientific r e s e a r c h that m a y
be m i s d i r e c t e d t o w a r d t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e hum a n r a c e . T o this e x t e n t at least, p r o g r e s s i v e libe r a l i s m s h o u l d r a t h e r be c a l l e d r o m a n t i c c o n s e r vatism, in t h e style of t h e R o u s s e a u of t h e F i r s t
D i s c o u r s e . T h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s that m o t i v a t e t h e
c o n t e m p o r a r y v e r s i o n of p h i l a n t h r o p i s m , h o w ever, have t a k e n us b e y o n d t h e p o i n t at w h i c h

IS THERE A QUARREL BETWEEN THE ANCIENTS AND THE MODERNS?

13

we can take seriously Rousseau's proposal that


s c i e n t i f i c r e s e a r c h b e r e s t r i c t e d to a f e w g e n i u s e s
a n d c o n d u c t e d i n s e c r e t , as i n B a c o n ' s N e w
Atlantis.This is b e c a u s e late m o d e r n t e c h n o l o g y
e x c e e d s in p o w e r a n y t h i n g t h a t R o u s s e a u c o u l d
h a v e i m a g i n e d . It is n o w t o o l a t e to i m p l e m e n t
Rousseau's version of a restricted Enlightenment,
short of instituting a global dictatorship that
would itself depend upon massive technological
support.
S u c h a s o l u t i o n is o b v i o u s l y n o t w o r t h f u r t h e r
practical consideration. Nevertheless, for the sake
o f t h e o r e t i c a l clarity, l e t us a s k w h a t w o u l d b e
r e q u i r e d in o r d e r to save o u r s e l v e s f r o m t h e p o tentially destructive force of scientific Enlightenment. Whereas no one would argue against the
w i s d o m o f a t t e m p t i n g to p r e v e n t a n u c l e a r h o l o caust or the biochemical pollution of the environment, not many are prepared to admit that the
o n l y s e c u r e w a y in w h i c h to p r o t e c t o u r s e l v e s
a g a i n s t s c i e n c e is to a b o l i s h it e n t i r e l y . Y e t h o w
could this conclusion be avoided? The only possib i l i t y o f k e e p i n g s c i e n t i f i c d i s c o v e r i e s s e c r e t is
by the institution of tyrannical power, a power
t h a t c o u l d u s e s c i e n t i f i c k n o w l e d g e a n d its assoc i a t e d t e c h n o l o g y to e n s l a v e t h e h u m a n race. Even
if w e w e r e b l e s s e d w i t h a r e g i m e o f p h i l o s o p h e r s c i e n t i s t s w h o w o u l d r u l e w i t h w i s d o m a n d justice, t h e c o n t i n u e d p o s s e s s i o n o f s c i e n t i f i c k n o w l e d g e w o u l d l e a v e us at t h e m e r c y o f a d e c l i n e in
t h e q u a l i t y o f o u r r u l e r s . N o r d o I n e e d to e m p h a size t h e p r o b l e m s i n v o l v e d in i d e n t i f y i n g p h i l o s o p h e r - k i n g s , let a l o n e in a r r a n g i n g f o r t h e i r a s c e n t
to p o w e r , s i n c e t h i s h a s a l r e a d y b e e n d o n e b y
Plato.
I do not see how we can avoid coming to the
conclusion that the machines must be broken and
t h e b o o k s b u r n t , if w e are to f r e e o u r s e l v e s f r o m
the dangers of scientific Enlightenment.And we
shall require the aforementioned philosopherk i n g s , o r failing t h e s e , m e r c i l e s s t y r a n t s , to w e e d
out and destroy the potential scientists of each
s u c c e s s i v e g e n e r a t i o n . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , it is n o t p o s s i b l e to i d e n t i f y w i t h c e r t a i n t y e v e r y c h i l d w h o
is a p o t e n t i a l s c i e n t i f i c g e n i u s . Lest t h e w h o l e hist o r y o f s c i e n t i f i c d i s c o v e r y r e p e a t itself, p r u d e n c e
r e q u i r e s t h a t w e d e s t r o y all c h i l d r e n w h o s e i n t e l l i g e n c e e x c e e d s a c e r t a i n l e v e l . But w h i c h level?
A n d to t h e d e g r e e t h a t w e a r e s u c c e s s f u l , w i l l
there not come a time when the guardians are
themselves too dull-witted to separate the dangerous children from their innocuous brothers
and sisters? Even granting the steady deteriora-

14

SOCIETY

9 JULY/AUGUST 2002

t i o n o f t h e g e n e - p o o l , t h e r e m a y b e s p o r t s , o r exc e p t i o n s w h o h a v e e s c a p e d a t t e n t i o n . T h e r e is
always the danger of chance geniuses who will
have concealed their superiority, or been conc e a l e d b y s i m p l e a n d l o v i n g p a r e n t s . Safety req u i r e s t h a t all c h i l d r e n b e d e s t r o y e d ; t h i s is t h e
ultimate absurdity of the attack against Enlightenment.
Some will accuse me of making my point by a
r e d u c t i o a d a b s u r d u m , t h a t is, b y p r e s s i n g l o g i c
to f r i g h t e n m y a u d i e n c e w i t h a n e x t r e m e c a s e ,
and for that reason with a solution that will never
b e r e q u i r e d . I a m h o w e v e r n o t at all e x c l u d i n g
the possibility of a wise modification of the goals
o f E n l i g h t e n m e n t . M y p o i n t is r a t h e r t h a t t h e s e
modifications can take place only within enlighte n e d s o c i e t i e s . W h a t w e r e q u i r e is n o t less Enl i g h t e n m e n t , b u t m o r e . By t h i s I d o n o t m e a n
more pure science or more powerful technological equipment, but more wisdom. We need to
m o d i f y o u r c o n c e p t i o n o f r e a s o n , o r as o n e c o u l d
also p u t it, w e r e q u i r e a m o r e r e a s o n a b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f w h a t it m e a n s t o b e e n l i g h t e n e d . A n d
s u c h a n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a s s u m i n g it t o b e a v a i l a b l e ,
cannot be imposed onto the populace for reasons
a n a l o g o u s to, o r t h e s a m e as, t h o s e I h a v e j u s t
g i v e n . I m p o s i t i o n d e p e n d s u p o n p o w e r t h a t is itself accessible only under circumstances that are
as u n d e s i r a b l e as t h e d a n g e r s w e w i s h t o a v o i d .
N e v e r t h e l e s s , in o r d e r t o b e c e r t a i n t h a t w e
h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t h e w h o l e p i c t u r e , l e t us n e x t
a s s u m e t h a t it is i n d e e d w i t h i n o u r p o w e r to regul a t e s c i e n t i f i c a n d t e c h n o l o g i c a l p r o g r e s s b y rec o n s t i t u t i n g p o l i t i c a l s o c i e t y in a c c o r d w i t h t h e
wisdom of the ancients, or let us say of Bacon
and the early Rousseau.Access to scientific education will be restricted to a narrow minority of
c a r e f u l l y s e l e c t e d a n d e d u c a t e d c i t i z e n s . T h e development of technology will be determined by
the rulers' conception of the prudent and virtuo u s e x i s t e n c e o f t h e c o m m u n i t y . A d v a n c e s in m e d i cine, communication, transportation, industry,
c o n s t r u c t i o n , a n d t h e like, w i l l c o m e t o a r a p i d
a t t e n u a t i o n in s o m e a r e a s a n d a n o u t r i g h t h a l t in
others.Weapons technology poses a special problem unless the entire globe has somehow been
transformed into a Greek polis. Such a possibility
is c o n t r a d i c t e d b y t h e v e r y n a t u r e o f a p o l i s ; w e
a r e in fact t a l k i n g a b o u t w h a t A l e x a n d r e Koj~ve
calls t h e u n i v e r s a l a n d h o m o g e n e o u s w o r l d s t a t e .
Or rather, we are attempting to construct a univ e r s a l a n d h o m o g e n e o u s w o r l d - s t a t e t h a t is a l s o
a G r e e k p o l i s . In o t h e r w o r d s , it is i m p o s s i b l e t o

possess ancient virtue under modern historical


c o n d i t i o n s . C o r r e l a t i v e l y , o n e c a n n o t c o n t r o l scie n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y e x c e p t t h r o u g h its u s e .
We must therefore adjust our reasoning accordingly and assume the establishment of a small and
isolated community that duplicates the principles
o f S o c r a t i c o r A r i s t o t e l i a n w i s d o m . A s w e h a v e alr e a d y s e e n , s u c h a c i t y is m a r k e d b y an e c o n o m y
o f s c a r c i t y , a n d so b y t h e n e e d f o r a class o f l a b o r ers, j u s t as v i r t u o u s g o v e r n m e n t d e p e n d s u p o n
t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a w e l l - t o - d o class w h o s e m e m bers possess the leisure, upbringing, and educat i o n r e q u i r e d for p o l i t i c a l life in t h e full s e n s e o f
the term.The social structure of the city must be
t h a t o f t h e f e w a n d t h e many, a n d so t h e r e c a n b e
n o e q u i v a l e n t to t h e l a r g e m i d d l e class o f m o d e r nity.The society will be aristocratic, and neither
democratic nor bourgeois.The arts will be either
directly censored by political laws or kept free of
innovation by tradition and inculcated taste.
Patriotism will be buttressed by love of the
l o c a l g o d s a n d h a t r e d o f s t r a n g e r s . P e r s o n a l relat i o n s w i l l b e r e g u l a t e d b y t h e city. O l d m o n e y , t h e
p r i n c i p l e o f a r i s t o c r a c y , w i l l b e r e g a r d e d as bett e r t h a n n e w m o n e y , just as t h e l a n d e d g e n t r y w i l l
be accorded a higher status than town-dwellers.
As a c o n s e q u e n c e , f a r m i n g w i l l b e p r e f e r r e d t o
m a n u f a c t u r e a n d o f c o u r s e t o c o m m e r c e . T h e dist i n c t i o n b e t w e e n t h e f e w a n d t h e m a n y l e a d s to a
s m a l l e d u c a t i o n a l s y s t e m a n d h e n c e t o t h e elimin a t i o n o f t h e c l a s s o f i n t e l l e c t u a l s as w e l l as
m i d d l e - c l a s s c u l t u r e . But s u r e l y it is u n n e c e s s a r y
to c o n t i n u e this r a t i o n a l fantasy. H o w e v e r w e l o o k
at t h e m a t t e r , it p r o v e s to b e c o r r e c t t h a t m a n is
n o t a c r a b , in N i e t z s c h e ' s s e n s e o f t h a t m e t a p h o r .
T h e a t t e m p t to p r o d u c e a m o d e r a t e E n l i g h t e n m e n t t a k e s us s t e p b y s t e p b a c k w a r d s i n t o a p a s t
t h a t is a c c e s s i b l e o n l y t h r o u g h t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f
o u r c i v i l i z a t i o n . In t h e p r e s e n t h i s t o r i c a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f o u r p o l i t i c a l life, a n d c e r t a i n l y in t h e
u n i v e r s a l a n d h o m o g e n e o u s s t a t e , it is i m p o s s i b l e
to r e p r o d u c e t h e v i r t u e o f p r e - m o d e r n t i m e s . N o t
o n l y t h a t , b u t it is d u b i o u s , to say t h e least, t h a t
p r e - m o d e r n v i r t u e is s u p e r i o r o n all c o u n t s to
modern virtue.
Let m e e m p h a s i z e t h e m a i n p o i n t in t h e p r e c e d i n g r e m a r k s . A " r e t u r n " t o t h e p a s t is n o t simply a reversal of forward motion through a retraci n g o f o u r f o o t s t e p s ; it is a r e t r e a t a n d as s u c h , a n
a d m i s s i o n o f t h e failure o f t h e h u m a n s p i r i t . I a m
e n o u g h o f a N i e t z s c h e a n t o b e l i e v e t h a t life is
degraded and de-spiritualized, not made nobler or
more virtuous, by such an admission. Even those

w h o w o u l d p r e f e r t o r e t r a c e t h e c o l l e c t i v e footprints of the western tradition cannot thereby


return to lost innocence; they would carry with
them the knowledge of their retreat, and this
knowledge would inevitably alter the character
o f t h e d e s i r e d v i r t u e itself.
T h u s far I h a v e a r g u e d t h a t t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t
is i n t e r n a l l y f l a w e d a n d also i n d i s p e n s a b l e . If t h e
a r g u m e n t is s o u n d , it f o l l o w s t h a t t h e b e s t w e c a n
h o p e f o r is t h a t t h e f u t u r e o f h u m a n h i s t o r y is
g o i n g to l o o k v e r y m u c h l i k e t h e p a s t . H u m a n loc o m o t i o n w i l l c o n s i s t in an i r r e g u l a r c o n c a t e n a tion of forward and backward steps. Some parts
of this sequence will be regarded by reasonable
o b s e r v e r s as p r o g r e s s a n d s o m e as d e c l i n e . By t h e
inevitability of Enlightenment, then, I do not mean
perpetual progress but the enduring capacity to
distinguish between progress and decline. And
m u c h o f t h e t i m e , I s u s p e c t , w e w i l l s e e m to o u r selves to be scuttling sideways, thus both agreeing and disagreeing with Nietzsche's dictum that
m a n is n o t a c r a b .
F o r r e a s o n s o f t h e s o r t t h a t I h a v e s k e t c h e d in
t h i s talk, I w a n t to d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n t h e historical differences between antiquity and modernity, a n d t h e i d e o l o g i c a l d o c t r i n e s t h a t h a v e b e e n
i n v e s t e d w i t h t h e m e l o d r a m a t i c title o f " t h e q u a r rel b e t w e e n t h e a n c i e n t s a n d t h e m o d e r n s . " I call
these doctrines ideological rather than philosophical because they have been detached from
their historical context and transformed into pol i t i c a l s l o g a n s . T o t a k e an i m p o r t a n t e x a m p l e , it is
a great mistake to infer from Aristotle's teleological p h y s i c s t h a t h e w o u l d h a v e r e j e c t e d m o d e r n
s c i e n c e o n m o r a l a n d p o l i t i c a l g r o u n d s . It is c e r tainly true that Aristotle's conception of human
p o l i t i c a l n a t u r e as f u l f i l l e d in t h e p o l l s is e n t i r e l y
incompatible with the circumstances of modern
p o l i t i c a l e x i s t e n c e . But t h e c r u c i a l r e a s o n for t h a t
i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y is t h e s t e a d y p r o g r e s s o f s c i e n c e
a n d t e c h n o l o g y . A r e w e s e r i o u s l y to b e l i e v e t h a t
A r i s t o t l e , w h o is u n e q u i v o c a l in his s t a t e m e n t o f
t h e s u p e r i o r i t y o f t h e o r y to p r a c t i c e , w o u l d h a v e
advocated the suppression of science and techn o l o g y f o r p o l i t i c a l r e a s o n s ? O n e s h o u l d n o t forg e t t h a t for A r i s t o t l e , t h e r e is n o s p l i t b e t w e e n
science and philosophy.A philosophy that restricts
s c i e n c e r e s t r i c t s itself.
O n e m a y r e p l y t h a t for A r i s t o t l e , " t h e o r y " h a s
n o t h i n g to d o w i t h t e c h n o l o g y o r e x p e r i m e n t a l
s c i e n c e , b u t e v e n if w e a c c e p t t h i s a s s e r t i o n ( a n d
I a m n o t s u r e t h a t it is u n q u a l i f i e d l y t r u e ) , it h a r d l y
follows that we would be well-advised to repeat

IS THERE A QUARREL BETWEEN THE ANCIENTS AND THE MODERNS?

15

his error. I e n t i r e l y r e j e c t h y p o t h e t i c a l a r g u m e n t s
b a s e d u p o n t h e c l a i m t h a t if A r i s t o t l e w e r e alive
today, h e w o u l d b e u n t o u c h e d b y m o d e r n civiliz a t i o n a n d w o u l d c o n t i n u e to b e an A r i s t o t e l i a n .
T h i s m a k e s a b o u t as m u c h s e n s e as t h e c l a i m t h a t
if R u d o l p h C a r n a p h a d b e e n b o r n in f o u r t h - c e n turyAthens, he would nevertheless have invented
logical positivism. One does not need to be an
A r i s t o t e l i a n in o r d e r to s e e t h e d a n g e r s o f u n r e stricted
technology
and the merits
of
c o m m u n i t a r i a n i s m . But n e i t h e r is a p e r c e p t i o n o f
the limitations of the Greek polis available exclus i v e l y to l i b e r a l p r o g r e s s i v i s t s o r p o s t - m o d e r n
anarchists.
I h a v e in n o w a y d e n i e d t h a t w e h a v e m u c h t o
l e a r n f r o m t h e w i s d o m o f t h e a n c i e n t s , a n d in
particular with respect to the defects of modern
p o l i t i c a l life. But t h e a n c i e n t s , if I m a y p u t it so,
h a v e m u c h to l e a r n f r o m us, a n d in p a r t i c u l a r w i t h
r e s p e c t to t h e d e f e c t s o f a n c i e n t p o l i t i c a l life. Seco n d , I h a v e s u g g e s t e d o r i m p l i e d t h a t it m a y b e
w i s e to r e t i r e t h e e x p r e s s i o n , w h i c h I m y s e l f h a v e
u s e d all t o o f r e q u e n t l y , o f t h e q u a r r e l b e t w e e n
the ancients and the moderns.
In m y o w n w o r k o n Plato, I h a v e s o m e t i m e s
been accused by ostensible defenders of historical o b j e c t i v i t y o f r e a d i n g c o n t e m p o r a r y d o c t r i n e s ,
a n d e v e n m y o w n p e r f e r v i d fantasies, i n t o t h e text.
T h i s is n o t t h e p l a c e to r e v i e w t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e
hermeneutical problem of historical scholarship.
Suffice it to say t h a t n o o n e c a n u n d e r s t a n d P l a t o
w h o is i n c a p a b l e o f r e t h i n k i n g his d i a l o g u e s in
s u c h a w a y as to m a k e t h e m s p e a k t o t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y r e a d e r . T h e r e is n o o t h e r w a y i n t o t h e p a s t
t h a n t h r o u g h t h e p r e s e n t . We c a n b r i n g t h e p a s t
into the present more easily than we can screw

the present into the past, to borrow Nietzsche's


term.
In o r d e r to d e f e n d t h e E n l i g h t e n m e n t , o n e m u s t
u n d e r s t a n d its f a i l u r e s as w e l l as its s u c c e s s e s . It
has been my contention today that the Enlightenment can succeed only when we understand
t h o s e f a i l u r e s . But u n d e r s t a n d i n g is n o t r e p u d i a t i o n . T o r e p u d i a t e t h e p r e s e n t is o f c o u r s e also t o
r e p u d i a t e t h e f u t u r e ; o n e t h i n g it is n o t , h o w e v e r ,
is a g e n u i n e r e t u r n t o t h e p a s t . T h e c o u r a g e t h a t
is r e q u i r e d t o d a y is t h u s v e r y m u c h t h e s a m e as
t h e c o u r a g e t h a t is d e s c r i b e d b y A r i s t o t l e . But t h i s
does not mean that the dangers against which we
d i r e c t o u r c o u r a g e a r e t h e s a m e as t h o s e f a c e d
by Aristotle.The success of the Enlightenment
depends upon our ability to preserve the entrance of philosophy into the marketplace that
was initiated by Socrates, without the destruction of philosophy or the marketplace. In this
s e n s e , t h e g e n u i n e p r o c e s s o f e n l i g h t e n m e n t beg a n , n o t in t h e s e v e n t e e n t h o r e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r i e s o f t h e m o d e r n e p o c h , b u t in f i f t h - c e n t u r y BC
A t h e n s . In s a y i n g this, I d o n o t f o r g e t t h e g r e a t
differences between the Socratic achievement and
its m o d e r n c o n s e q u e n c e s . But t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s
a r e t h e m o s t e l o q u e n t t e s t i m o n y to t h e c o n t i n u ous need for the courage of the philosophers.
W i t h o u t t h a t c o u r a g e , t h e r e is n o i l l u m i n a t i o n ,
w h e t h e r a n c i e n t o r m o d e r n , b u t only, in t h e w o r d s
of Matthew Arnold, ignorant armies that clash by
night.

Stanley Rosen is Borden Parker Bowne Professor


of Philosophy and University Professor at Boston
University He is author most recently o f T h e Exa m i n e d Life.

Excellent, this journal is a real gem!

--IRVINGLOUISHOROWlTZ

Rutgers University

"A ~reat read."

anscending the all-too-common politicization and su- - - CHARLETONHESTON,


Actor
erficiality of public policy research and debate, The
great interest."
INDEPENDENT REVIEW is the quarterly journal devoted -"Of
- C. VANN WOODWARD
to excellence in the critical analysis of government policy.
Yale U n i v e r s i t y
Edited by Robert Higgs, The INDEPENDENT RE-VIEW is "'An exciting journal"
DIGGe,'S
superbly written and based on solid scholarship, featuring - - JOHN
CityUniversityof New
path-breaking studies b y m a n y of the world's outstanding
York
scholars and policy experts.
"Distinctivein neededways."
- - LELAND YEAGER
The INDEPENDENT REVIEW features in-depth exAuburn University
aminations in comprehensive historical, ethical, and eco"Highest standards. "
- - TIMURKURAN
nomic perspectives. Undaunted and uncompromising,
U. of Southern California
this is the journal that will pioneer future debate!
1 P H O N E : 800"927"8733 F A X : 510"568"6040
The INDEPENDENT
W E B S I T E : http:l/www.independent.or~,
ITUTE
--

I n d i v i d u a l : $28.95/yr.,$54.95/2 vr. Institutional: $84.95/yr.,$159.95/2 yr.


International orders add $28 per subscription for s h i p p i n g

" V e ~ interesting and


etqoyable. "

--DAVID FRUM

The Weekly Stamlard


"Great team and tough
analysis. "
- - BRUCEYANDLE

The I n d e p e n d e n t I n s t i t u t e , D e p t . 9 Z A , 100 S w a n W a y , O a k l a n d , C A 94621-1428


16

SOCIETY

9 JULY/AUGUST 2002

You might also like