[I-S] Review: Leszek Kolakowski's book "Modernity on Endless Trial"

---------- Forwarded message ----------



 

This is dedicated to Kevin, who I thought might find it interesting.  :>)

The prolific Polish (and ex-Communist) philosopher Leszek Kolakowski's masterwork may be his formidable and authoritative trilogy, Main Currents of Marxism.  I am still in the first volume, which begins with a discussion of Plotinus and the early Christian neo-Platonists, and proceeds through several more of the Christian mystic philosophers through the Enlightenment (which he does not break down into different categories), Rousseau and Hume, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, and the Young Hegelians.  At long last he arrives at Marx....  

Dr. Kolakowski was one who finally became convinced that Stalinism was an inevitable result of Marxism, and turned his back on it altogether.  (He wrote a famous Open Letter to his Communist colleague, the English historian E. P. Thompson, on the subject:  "My correct views on everything: A rejoinder to Edward Thompson's 'Open letter to Leszek KoÅ‚akowski'".  Click the title to download the pdf.)   To quote from Wikipedia:  "He became increasingly fascinated by the contribution that Christianity makes to Western, and, in particular, modern thought, and sought to defend the role that freedom plays in our pursuit of the transcendent."

The reviewer is one T. E. Wilder, of whom I know nothing whatsoever except that he (or she)  has a few pieces on the Web and he is NOT, he avers, a "Rev."   So not having read Dr. Kolakowski's book (although I now have it on order!) I can't attest as to the accuracy of the review.  However, it sounds creditable enough to me;  and at the least I thought some folks, perhaps especially Kevin and James (if he hasn't read the book) might find themselves tempted to give the book a go.

As presented at the source (in "scribd" format), material quoted from the book is indented.  Here, I've italicized it instead.

--J.

http://www.cairnsweb.net/book/essay-questions-for-the-humanistic-tradition/ 




Review of Modernity on Endless Trial

by T. E. Wilder

Modernity on Endless Trial, by Leszek Kolakowski (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1990) vii, 261 pages.

Contra Mundum, No. 1, Fall 1991


The failure of the modern age is generally acknowledged. What it was exactly, and how it
failed are greatly in dispute. Most writers have in mind something they think should
replace modernity. One who favors, e.g. international socialism, is interested to show that
the flaws of modernism that produced its dissolution are just those that the favored
alternative will correct. Only a few Marxists (for whom 'postmodernism' is heresy) have
directly challenged this postmodern enthusiasm. Books and essays proliferate designating
the key theme or idea that made the modern era modern. What is the same thing, debate
rages over the point where the West took a false turn leading to the modern dead end.
Was it Hegel? The Renaissance? The historian Stephen Toulmin blames Descartes. In its
more restricted field of philosophy of religion the Calvin College "Reformed
Epistemology" has laid the blame on John Locke. The debate still seems to be
intensifying and spreading to more disciplines.

Kolakowski, a Polish philosopher associated with Oxford University and the University
of Chicago, writes on this topic as one conscious of a Christian civilization in his past, a
civilization that seems to have run aground. He writes in criticism of the modern failure
to provide a workable substitute for Christianity. An unease with the cult of reason and its
effects is prominent in the title essay. The laments of contemporary cognoscenti over the
dissolution worked by the acid of secularization are, he notes, reminiscent of warnings
heard from ordinary pulpits for three centuries.

Written from 1973 to 1986 Kolakowski's essays precede the height of this debate and are
probably too probing, sane, and most of all too concerned with enduring questions to
satisfy postmodernists. Indeed he is skeptical of the debate.


Having no clear idea of what modernity is, we have recently tried to escape
forward from the issue by talking about postmodernity... I do not know what
postmodern is and how it differs from premodern, nor do I feel that I ought to
know. And what might come after the postmodern? The post-postmodern, the
neo-postmodern, the neo-antimodern? When we leave aside the labels, the
real question remains: Why is the malaise associated with the experience of
modernity so widely felt, and where are the sources of those aspects of
modernity that make this malaise particularly painful? (p. 6)

But the question cannot be avoided; Kolakowski blames Descartes's rationalistic
mechanics as a key instigator, and singles out Nietzsche as the one who finally smashed
the illusions that permitted traditional values to coexist for so long with modernity.

It seems to Kolakowski that "The explicit orthodoxy still consists of patching up. We try
to assert our modernity but escape from its effects by various intellectual devices, in order
to convince ourselves that meaning can be restored or recovered apart from the traditional
religious legacy of mankind..." Because of their artificiality, he has little regard for the
prospects of such attempts. "There is something alarmingly desperate in intellectuals who
have no religious attachment, faith or loyalty proper and who insist on the irreplaceable
educational and moral role of religion in our world..." This manipulative mentality
expresses modernity's tensions instead of healing them.

In "Looking for the Barbarians" he explores the problem of Western homage toward
other cultures. Does this mean that we cannot value our own? Further: "we have managed
to assimilate the kind of universalism which refuses to make value judgments about
different civilizations, proclaiming their intrinsic equality; on the other hand, by affirming
this equality we also affirm the exclusivity and intolerance of every culture—the very
things we claim to have risen above in making that same affirmation." The discipline that
most clearly embodies that ambiguity is anthropology. The anthropologist's attitude or
"spirit of research" is by no means shared or valued by the cultures he studies.

A European who says that all cultures are equal does not normally mean that
he would like to have his hand cut off if he is caught falsifying his tax forms...
To say, in such a case, "This is the law of the Koran, and we must respect
traditions other than our own" essentially amounts to saying "That would be
dreadful if it happened here, but for those savages it's just the right thing."
(p.21)

Similar difficulties arise in trying to assimilate all aspects of world or even European
cultural heritage.

In this connection Kolakowski reiterates a major theme of these essays. Historical change
has generated new cultural forms that cannot coexist with continuing elements from older
ones. Europe found in Christianity the balance it needed for scientific and cultural
development, but the humanistic tradition which emerged, once freed from Christianity,
appears to be self-destructing. For example:

the theory of inalienable rights of man was developed from the Christian idea
of a person as an unexchangeable value. Again, this theory was to establish
itself despite resistance from the Church; and later, when its various
imperatives proved less than perfectly compatible, and the idea of the State as
the distributor of all material and spiritual goods took precedence over the
idea of the inviolable rights of persons, it turned against itself. Thus the rights
of man became the right of the State to possess man, and a foundation was
laid for the idea of totalitarianism. (pp. 29-31)

At the end of the essay Kolakowski reaches for a consciousness of limitation, and anti-
utopianism as the enduring and universal value of European civilization. Christian
Europe, he thinks, achieved a sort of balance, especially between ascetic rejection of the
world and a pantheistic embrace of everything in it. But it has generated movements
which destroy the balance. The Reformation destroyed the mediæval barriers to
rationalism, issuing in the Enlightenment which degenerated into a deification of man and
nature. Out of this collapse there is a groping after the restoration of balance.

The twenty-three essays are organized into sections: I On Modernity, Barbarity, and the
Intellectuals, II On the Dilemmas of the Christian Legacy, III On Liberals,
Revolutionaries, and Utopians, and IV On Scientific Theories (these last are cleverly
humorous). We cannot explore each of the essays, but note briefly: 6. The enduring
psychological and social need for some form of religious values, 11. A study of the nature
of religious conversion. Some of the essay titles speak for themselves: 3. "The
Intellectuals:", "In God's Menagerie, Are They Necessary?" 7. "On the So-Called Crisis
of Christianity", 13. "The Idolatry of Politics", 18. "Revolution - a Beautiful Sickness".

The most important essay is "The Self-Poisoning of the Open Society"", an examination
of the weakness inherent in modern pluralism, "the process by which the extension and
consistent application of liberal principles transforms them into their antithesis". The
welfare state arises when the weak or disadvantaged are to be protected against the
stronger, but a free market involves competition. Thus a fully instantiated welfare state
results in suppression of the market, that is, suppression of disposal rights to property.
Also the Open Society where there is no coercion in beliefs or values becomes a society
without values since the values implicit in the tolerant society are by no means obvious or
natural. But there must be some moral education, some coercion, some imposed tradition
to maintain the society. Thus the institutions of law and education which enable society to
function are targeted by its enemies using the Open Society's values of openness,
tolerance, and disestablishment of authority.

Kolakowski in a sense follows his own heritage in providing a Romish reading of cultural
history. From that vantage the Reformation is seen as a humanistic break from long
standing consensus, emphasizing as it did the freedom of the individual conscience.
Calvin "by pitting his profound biblical conservatism against the haughtiness of
scholasticism ... left to future generations only the very secular reason he so vigorously
had condemned. In spite of his intentions, he thus created an intellectual environment that
soon nurtured the advocates of natural religion and the deists." And it is true that 17th
century freethinkers, 18th century skeptics, and 19th century theological liberals have all
claimed the Reformation's spirit as their own. (On the other extreme the radical secularist
perspective cannot distinguish Geneva from the Spanish Inquisition.) He is also attracted
to elements of the Enlightenment, and the ethical absolutism of rationalism, which
preceded the historicism so useful to totalitarians, but he can find no better ground for it
than its utility for free societies.

Kolakowski is offering us the reflections of a philosopher struggling with the diverse and
conflicting elements in his heritage and trying to see beyond the present darkness. Free of
the self-deception that characterizes the American liberal they are fresh alternatives to the
common intellectual fare. This book is literature. It deserves to be read for its examples of
the art of the essay, which is insufficiently practiced by American writers. In addition, on
most pages the reader will find probing comments on issues ignored or misunderstood by
the liberal intelligentsia. Kolakowski is aware of Calvinism and theocracy as constituting
at least theoretical options, though he doesn't like them. Thus he exhibits a better grasp of
the issues of modernity and can put them in a clearer perspective than the entire tribe of
postmodernists.

Of course we want more than this. The diagnosis should precede a prescription for
treatment, and it is here that the Reformed "world and life view" should transcend
Kolakowski. A lesson to be learned from the postmodernism debate is that diagnosis and
prescription are inseparable. Thus Rushdoony's probing books of social analysis in the
1960's are tied to his theonomy, and those who reject any form of the latter have
abandoned interest in his earlier work. Sadly most intellectuals who operate under the
Reformed banner offer a "me too" liberalism that falls far short of even Kolakowski's
reflections, even considering his deep suspicion of Calvinism. A smaller number are
offering biblical alternatives to modernism, and among these the most vigorous are the
theonomists. Perhaps now that the fundamental nature of the problems of the modern age
are so widely acknowledged, radically biblical solutions will be taken seriously.


__._,_.___
Reply to sender | Reply to group | Reply via web post | Start a New Topic
Messages in this topic (1)
Recent Activity:

Visit Your Group
Report any problems, suggestions or abuse to Individual-Sovereignty-owner@yahoogroups.com

MARKETPLACE

Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.

Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.