Читаем Философское полностью

Сам по себе когито принципиально неспособен удерживать человека на краю пропасти и тем более провести его в «обетованную землю» бессмертия. Лишь в живительной атмосфере творческого отношения к миру, лишь в царстве «высшего мышления», пафоса, покоящегося на платформе человеческих сущностных сил (сознание и не-сознание, «мышление и все чувства»), он, разум, только и способен гармонизировать этот мир. Только творчество возвращает человека к себе. И, видимо, потому, рассуждая о наилучшем устройстве насущного мира, Маркс говорил, что завтрашний день должен позволить каждому человеку максимально развивать именно творческие импульсы, возвращающие человека к прошлому, которое впереди.

NON-CONSCIOUSNESS: CREATIVITY AS A COMEBACK

International Symposium on the Problem of the Unconscious (1979)

That which cannot be represented through any other thing should be represented through its own self.

Barukh Spinoza

1

If one were to formulate a two-word definition of all our era, it might sound as «the imperialism of rеаson». This definition appears to be closest to the truth for two reasons. First, what other than reason proved to be the only god of our time, and, secondly, what other than the imperialisitic divide et impera strategy has been the instrument with which this relentless god asserts himself?

Divide and Rule! This initial and essential principle of reason has, however, in the long run, yielded paradoxical results. Indeed, any rule based on division turned out to be undivided; but such a victory appears still more doubtful than that of Pyrrhus. Man's reason has pervaded everything, not just the micro- and macrocosm, but its own self as well. It has challenged everything; but this very activity of reason has ultimately proved to be destructive, i.e. disuniting everything. Even our remote ancestors knew that all our world, everything around us and within us makes one whole, that «adonai eloheinu adonai ekhad.» But then the triumphal pervasion (invasion) of reason forced us to, at best, disregard this truth.

Everything turned out to be divided. Everything turned out to be constituted by something else, and the constituents of this «something else» are, primarily, separate principles. Whatever stand reason took, it divided, in the first place. The imperialism of reason brought about, for example, the fact that our entire world fell apart into at least two portions — East and West. Even that was not enough: Kipling came and proclaimed that «East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.» The background of this geopolitical subdivision is, of course, the detailed parcelling of everything, intuition separated from reason, thought separated from the senses, man separated from the world, and both dissected, — boundless alienation of everything from everything else. And if we were to discourse of all the above in a form «adequate» to such a content, i.e. in-a strictly academic, even a-la scientific form, then this discourse would have been yet another evidence of the division of human psychics into «scientific» and «normal» psychics.

Meanwhile, the division of the whole could not but attain that ultimate sophistication which emerges in the form of crisis. The most evident manifestation of this crisis is, as it appears to us, the peculiar present-day situation of homo-centrism. This situation is practically illusive, i.e. false; nevertheless, alas, it is real. It is real in the same measure as present-day man is real, literally, as Homo sapiens, as Man-Reason; but it is false, inasmuch as man himself is not Man-Reason at all. Homo-centrism is the tower of Babel of human presumption, presumption which be draws from his reason, from his consciousness; it is a tower erected by man in a world which was not established by man; it is essentially a hideous monument to Reason devoid of Pathos.

Homo-centrism has long been maturing by degrees, as a result of a persistent separation of that which is conventionally termed the East from that which is just as conventionally termed the West, a separation of Pathos from Cogito, sanctified by the tradition of separating that which is called Consciousness from that which cannot be called Consciousness, and is therefore called the Non-Conscious. Homo-centrism is primarily the result of the development of philosophy (philosophy as it began with Aristotle and has now, regretfully, «matured» to become positivism) at the expense of non-philosophy (as it took shape in the immortal books of the ancients, books in which it la impossible to dissever thought from Pathos, the idea from the image, pure Reason from «sympathy». («Sympathy is the feeling which feels the feeling to which it reacts» (A. Heschel, The Prophets, Harper Row, N.Y., 1962, p. 311).

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

Критика политической философии: Избранные эссе
Критика политической философии: Избранные эссе

В книге собраны статьи по актуальным вопросам политической теории, которые находятся в центре дискуссий отечественных и зарубежных философов и обществоведов. Автор книги предпринимает попытку переосмысления таких категорий политической философии, как гражданское общество, цивилизация, политическое насилие, революция, национализм. В историко-философских статьях сборника исследуются генезис и пути развития основных идейных течений современности, прежде всего – либерализма. Особое место занимает цикл эссе, посвященных теоретическим проблемам морали и моральному измерению политической жизни.Книга имеет полемический характер и предназначена всем, кто стремится понять политику как нечто более возвышенное и трагическое, чем пиар, политтехнологии и, по выражению Гарольда Лассвелла, определение того, «кто получит что, когда и как».

Борис Гурьевич Капустин

Политика / Философия / Образование и наука