Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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
"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
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
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
11
12
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 -
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.
13
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
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
--IRVINGLOUISHOROWlTZ
Rutgers University
--DAVID FRUM
SOCIETY
9 JULY/AUGUST 2002