Robbins Library Notes

As the summer winds down, here’s some food for thought:

It would not be too much to say that the passion for originality begins with modern philosophy. Each thinker is intent on developing his own system and contrasting it with previous efforts. One wants a personal stamp on what one proposes: the Bullwinkle theory of knowledge, the Basil Faulty [sic] account of moral evil. There is indeed a lot of originality in modern philosophy, a lot of novelty. Most of it has a very short shelf life, pushed aside by the new and improved. In philosophy, as in the arts, novelty is all too easily come by, but truth is neither new nor old.

– Ralph McInerney, “Philosophia Perennis“

Good morning, readers!

At right: René Girard

There has been a lot of great philosophical material popping up over the last few days.

For instance: while poking around Bookforum.com yesterday, I found a link to a translation of an interview with the French anthropologist, René Girard. Titled “Intellectuals as Castrators of Meaning,” Girard offers sharp criticisms of modernity in its many forms, from post-modernism to scientism.  While Girard challenges mainly French post-modernism, he also does not spare parts of the analytic tradition as well, especially philosophy of science.

Here is one example of Girard’s critique:

Today there are three areas—nuclear weapons, terrorism, and genetic manipulation—in which man is especially placed in danger:

“The twentieth century was the century of classical nihilism. The twenty-first century will be the century of alluring nihilism. C. S. Lewis was right when he talked about the abolition of man. Michel Foucault added that the abolition of man was becoming a philosophical concept. Today, one can no longer speak of ‘man.’ When Friedrich Nietzsche announced the death of God, in fact he was announcing the death of man. Eugenics is the negation of human rationality. If one considers man as the outcome of mere chance and as crude material for the laboratory, a malleable object to be manipulated, one reaches the point of being able to do anything to man. That ends with the destruction of the fundamental rationality that belongs to the human being. But man cannot be reorganized thus and still remain man.”

The other parts of the interview are worth reading, if only as an alternative view to the modern project.  Nonetheless, I suspect that much of what Girard writes will irritate, annoy, and perhaps even anger some of my readers.

At left: Giambattista Vico (1668-1744)

Those upset by Girard’s critique might remember that he is not alone in challenging the dominant modern project’s paradigms.  Giambattista Vico, for example, offered many critiques of the modern project (and especially of Cartesian thought) in The New Science, On Humanistic Education, and On the Study Methods of Our Time.  Or Leszek Kolakowski’s essay, “Modernity on Endless Trial,” in the collection of the same title.

Sometimes, it’s a good idea to read things with which we might disagree, if only to see where the strengths and weakenesses of our own positions lie.

As for what I think of this interview, I’m not, at this point, suggesting that Girard is completely correct.  I have not read his work extensively, so I do not know how solid his critiques are.  All I will say is that his interview is provocative — to say the least! — and bears further study, nothing more.

What do you think, readers?