Tag: philosophy

Science and democracy: the magic words of the postmodern Western world. When converted into adjectives or adverbs, they confer on any term an incorruptible, magnificent, sacred character. And politics, filthy politics, does nothing but exploit them. The process holds no secret: it is to support, in the name of “science” or “democracy”, the realization of one’s own will. And then despoiling liberties. Who will be the madman to declare himself anti-science? And science can say—must say!—that something like artificial pregnancy, or the extinction of red meat from the menus, or any other measure that must be adopted by all, under penalty of fine or jail, is a matter of public health—here, of course, the role of the god State. Well done! For if it is on the name of “science” and “democracy” that this century will rely on to attack individual freedom, I am happy to declare myself the first anti-science and anti-democracy animal in the Western world.

I am introduced to a “genius” philosopher whose work perfectly integrates philosophy and science. “A positivist?” Negative. And, according to the genius, currents like existentialism are pseudo-philosophy. My smile is automatic. I am, in fact, on great days: thanks to Pessoa, I have devoted several hundred pages to astrology. I believe, however, that the genius philosopher will not take me the time to read a summary. It is glaringly obvious to me: philosophy is only harmonized with science when it ceases to deal with man’s great problems—precisely those that go beyond the scope of science. To integrate philosophy and science is, in a practical way, to mutilate philosophy and ignore the real applicability of science. But I admit: no surprise there. Although “scientific philosophy” is a crude joke, one of those that one does not tell at the dinner table, it is natural that human presumption wants to paste, in all available nouns, the supreme qualitative: this guarantees victory over the past—the very old past…

An ordinary person does not kill himself because of a mathematical problem, nor because he misunderstands thermodynamics. Maybe a physicist does, provided that such a problem, for him, takes on an existential dimension. But the common person, just like the physicist, kills himself after a great financial or affective loss, or after a romantic disappointment. We can see, here, a common trait between both, or a problem that affects both. This problem, exposed in the most varied ways, is the central problem of human existence. And I have to notice, among all the most brilliant minds in history, my predilection for those who were able to see it.

I feel, in equal intensity, attraction and repulsion for the academy. It is certainly no place for my species. But I am impressed by the number of brilliant minds that end up being lost in exchange for “integration”. Conventions, protocols, hierarchies… all of this undermining, stifling creativity, in an environment where the possible prize seems to be limited to recognition. To base a life’s work on the hope of applause? a better position, perhaps? It seems fragile. In the end, this path leads to tremendous frustration.