15 May 2013
by Creston Davis & Santiago Zabala
Physicist Stephen Hawking recently said that philosophers have not kept up with science and their art is dead [EPA] |
“When it comes to political deliberation, philosophy is a good servant but a bad master.”
From a political point of view people still believe in nostalgic and dangerous ideas like "objectivity" "reality", "truth" and "values" as a precondition for democracy. But believers in absolutes forget a crucial lesson borne out of the historic record namely, that the tide of secularisation is irreversible and remains inextricably bound-up in the human condition. This reality necessarily checks and harnesses the search for fanatical, absolute truth-claims that, we maintain, are contrary to the very nature of democracy.
Indeed the demand democracy places on us is therefore
a commitment to maximising critical, open dialogue whilst maintaining a minimal
peaceable solidarity among different social and political actors. We thus
submit the need to dispense with arrogant notions of truth opting instead for more
temperate and humble philosophical programmes, ones that, for example help
nurture a larger more volatile discourse of human flourishing.
It is worth briefly examining the logic that appeals to claims that are absolute and beyond the reach of history. From the birth of religion and early philosophy the ever-changing natural world was interpreted as threatening, chaotic and unpredictable. This further resulted in a neurosis, which was only cured, it was thought, when the threatening material world of change was a result of a more fundamental unchanging, immaterial idea, or a God.
By appealing to absolute moral foundations, or a God,
or Truth, any disagreement could be resolved so long as everyone agreed with
the final appeal pronounced by the ruling class. And if there was disagreement,
the rulers in power, like political or religious authorities, could be
justified in exacting violence against a dissenter.
Pragmatic
and hermeneutical approach
The danger in this metaphysical universe was that only
the King or Pope (or the philosopher-king) could discern what the true will of
God (or Reason) was on earth without question or criticism. In this way, an
eternal, unchecked idea was given moral justification beyond the reach of
democratic discourse. Consequently, unjust political regimes could get away
with implementing their power in the name of the Almighty or an idea.
It is little wonder that one minor tradition in Greek
philosophy, the Platonic legacy, was quickly adapted into the Greek and later
Roman Empire, as Peter Sloterdijk has recently argued. This legacy could then
easily be transferred into the hegemony of Christianity in the form of the
Roman Catholic Empire, which neutralised many other divergent Christian,
religious, pagan and philosophical traditions in order to alight as an absolute
authority both religious and political. This set the stage for the spread of
the Islamic Empire in the 7th century.
By contrast, we submit that history and not religion
(or unchecked Reason) must be taken seriously as opposed to idealising
absolutes, which, in political theologies, only serve as flimsy veils behind
which violent and inflexible premises invariably lurk. It is difficult not to
interpret mainstream religious ideology and its historical reality as employing
appeals to almighty God as a means to dominate the cultural, political, moral
and even economic discourse.
By contrast, when, for example, Churchill said that
democracy is the worst form of government excluding all others, what he meant
was that you cannot find a better system if you take history seriously. This is
a pragmatic and hermeneutical approach, which entails a modest style committed
to an experimentation and perpetual improvement on inevitable shortcomings.
Richard
Rorty, American philosopher
Post-metaphysical philosophy has never claimed
inerrancy; indeed it knows the tools it provides in good faith are nevertheless
fragile, incomplete and above all contingent unlike extreme and historically
unsustainable version of scripture that allows no room for error and all the
room for "justified violence". For this reason we agree with Stephen
Hawking, who recently pronounced the death of philosophy.
The philosophy that is dead is, of course, the one
that appeals to absolutes, that is, metaphysical philosophy. And with Hawking
we join sides with Slavoj Zizek and the late American philosopher, Richard
Rorty, by claiming that the duty of philosophy is a modest task.
"I think philosophy is a very modest
discipline," says, Zizek. Philosophy does not solve problems, "the
duty of philosophy is to show how what we experience as a problem is a false
problem". Philosophers deal less with absolute truth claims, like Hawking
thinks, and operate more like Rorty says, "when it comes to political deliberation,
philosophy is a good servant but a bad master".
In this modest sense, philosophy is useful in
formulating new interpretations of social phenomena, but neither is it
indispensable. What is distinctive about the hermeneutic (the philosophy of
interpretation) approach is that it gives priority to relations between
knowledge and social life, that is, to the concerns that arise as the
inevitable result of one's own existence: mortality, freedom, meaning and
death.
Developing a democratic society
A democratic society may develop itself only by
generating culture not as an abstract body of superior knowledge but as a
complex dialogue that must never come to rest. In fact, democracy must become a
lived philosophy, which it can only do by refusing absolute truth and its
attached totalitarian regimes. The only hope of a democratic politics is to
form citizens who articulate their own practical needs, freely and unencumbered
by the pressures of simplistic and lazy metaphysical systems.
The political message of philosophy after the end of
modernity is that there is nothing outside our human and natural community.
Philosophers must understand problems as rooted in society. The danger is that
philosophers become alienated from communities - as has happened to so many analytical
philosophers. We therefore submit that philosophy must subordinate itself to
the political demands of democracy.
Rorty, together with Hans-Georg Gadamer, Gianni
Vattimo, Zizek and many other philosophers, understand hermeneutics as
possessing this possibility because it does not presuppose an absolute that
dissolves differences. Hermeneutical philosophy is humbled by the hope that
agreement will never be lost as long as the conversation lasts. And so the hope
that characterises hermeneutics as the philosophy of postmodernity depends on
privileging human historical narratives as opposed to abstract theories of
reality. The moral justification of a political institution cannot thus be
found through a philosophical explanation alone but also in those historical
narratives that allow the conversation and even disagreement to continue
unfolding.
The point is to retrospectively interpret history as a
continuation of events that arrives at conclusions needed for the betterment of
society; that is, only by interpreting can we verify whether we are not simply
regurgitating outdated phantoms that continue to reproduce unjust symptoms and
forms of repressions. For example, when the American president, George Bush
tried to construct a case for going to war in the Middle-East, he did this by
appealing to God's will and used the Bible as evidence to justify his
theocratic agenda.
This way of appealing to absolutes should therefore be
interpreted as giving up on dialogue and democracy in a panic moment to push a
ruler's own agenda in the name of the religion. Democracy continues to be
difficult work, which never arrives at a resting place, but is always under
revision, refinement and revaluation. In this respect, democracy is not an
ideal - rather it is a process of employing tools of a modest hermeneutical
philosophy. In sum, democracy reminds us that we need each other for our very
survival.
Creston
Davis is Professor of Philosophy at the Institute of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Skopje. He is the co-author (with John Milbank
and Slavoj Zizek) of Paul's New Moment: Continental Philosophy and the Future
of Christian Theology; co-editor (with John Milbank and Slavoj Zizek) of
Theology and the Political: The New Debate; editor of John Milbank and Slavoj
Zizek The Monstrosity of Christ: Paradox or Dialectic? and author of Ghostly
Icons.
Santiago
Zabala is ICREA Research Professor of Philosophy at the
University of Barcelona. His books include The Hermeneutic Nature of Analytic
Philosophy (2008), The Remains of Being (2009), and, most recently, Hermeneutic
Communism (2011, coauthored with G Vattimo), all published by Columbia
University Press.
The
views expressed in this article are the authors' own and do not necessarily
reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
7 comments:
Democracy! a man shouted. What is a democracy? he asked? Everyone turns around and looks at this man as he was sane or simply a joke. Those who preached about democracy usually do not what they are talking about. They think they know, but if you are forcing them to respond, eventually, they will shock that they do now have a clue. Most would contradict of what they are saying. Between Communism, Socialism and Capitalism, it is all about who are in control and as long as they are in control; They could careless of what regime might that be in a given society so long as they are in power. Communism corrupted. Socialism corrupted and Capitalism is also corrupted. If all of these regimes are a corrupted regimes then what is left for us all? The answer is that it is not about any regimes, but a question of bad people who got elected to run the nation and the nation's wealth. Imagine, a nation such as United States whose Federal Reserves has trillion of dollars and a currency printing machines at their disposal. Khmer proverb once said,"ស្រមោច ហើយនិង ស្ករ។" It is like a magnetic and iron. Both is inseparable. This is why human must focus on law. The same a fisherman needs his compass when he travels the vast ocean front. Without his compass tells him where to go he would not know where to begin. Laws of a nation written by men. This is why you are speaking of democracy. When you are of democracy you are also speaking of rule of law. To write law, you need men of integrity; men of intelligence; men of wisdom. These men are voted into higher public offices because of their ability to understand public needs and hold them accountable for their actions. Hence, the birth of Congress where House of Senates and House of Representatives who will come together to draft law which will rule the entire nation and it comes to be known as Constitution. The same as when King Sihanouk created the Supreme National Council with the intention to draft Cambodian Constitution. But right after January 7th, 1979, from this time until our Constitution has drafted, we must ask ourselves, how many legal scholars and professors of law do we have? The answer...not many. But from 1979 until this present time, it has been 34 years to the moment I wrote this article. If you wish to know the truth then not fly to Cambodia and all you have to do is sit and observe. I have been to Cambodia many times. In fact, I have travel to many places. But what matter most is Cambodia. Why one might ask? I am borne Khmer. I will live my life as Khmer and I will die as Khmer. But as long as I am alive, I will do my best trying to help my country as best I know how. There is nothing more important than speaking out against anything that you do not like, specially to a politicians. They are voted into offices with power which entrusted on to them without question and it is to their best ability that which they must act on behalf of the people and the nation. This is why a true democratic society we must have. I can understand that humanity is easily corrupted, but not all. Having said that, it has brought to another subject: Term Limitation of a Prime Minister or a Presidency of a country. Let's take US for an example. Any candidate for Presidency if won, he or she will sit in the seat of power for 4 years for each term and 2 terms you are out. The only US President that has ever held power for 3 consecutive terms was Franklin D. Roosevelt and after that he was out. Unlike Cambodia, there is no term limitation and this could place a candidate to behave like a dictator or a tyranny of a nation. It is a very fine line to which Cambodia is walking on as we speak.
Phnom Pench Post
It is easier said than done. The truth is, Cambodia is being controlled by the outsiders. Whatever decision made is through corruption. e.g do what I say or else. So, to be able to act like one, we have to have an independent state or a 'state of sovereignty'. But sadly, Cambodia is not independent, so, no matter how much we want to change or how we much to run our nation with our way of life, it is merely impossible, why? because our leaders are not prepared to fight for what is rightfully ours, mainly because of thread and intimidation towards its members.
If Cambodia wants to survive, we have to prepare to fight and speak out loud to let the international community knows that we are being controlled by such crooks and needs to be rescued from its tyranny, oppressive and aggressive way of life. Yes, it is true that, 'if the wicked rule the nation, it will eventually fall apart' but how can we avoid if we are being taken as their hostages?
They killed up to 3million of our educated ones, in order for them to take over srok khmer and to control us khmers. They created Po Pot to kill Lon Nol and created Hun Sen to kill Pol Pot and in the end they said 'khmers are dumb, stupid, and very lazy', while they continue to steal, rob and kill us despited the rule of 'they shall not steal and kill' and so who is the dumb one here?
3million souls
សម្តេចតេជោថ្លែងថា "គេចង់ដូរបែបហ្នឹង បើដូរតែខ្ញុំ ដូរតែគណបក្ស ប្រជាជនវាអត់ចោទទេ តែគេដូររបបរាជានិយមចេញតែម្តង...”
នេះបញ្ចាក់ថា សម្តេចតេជោមានការ ព្រួយបារម្ភនិងមិនទុកចិត្ត នូវសមត្ថភាព ខ្លួន ក្នុងការទប់ទល់ ចំពោះមុខគណបក្ស ប្រកួតប្រជែងនានា ដោយទាញយកអ្នករបបរាជានិយមចូលមកបន្ថែម ដើម្បី ពង្រឹងនិងសង្រ្គោះ គណបក្ស ប្រជាជន។
ហើយមួយយ៉ាងទៀត សម្តេចតេជោ សំដែងនូវ ឆន្ទៈអារម្មណ៍ ថា សុខចិត្ដបាត់គណបក្ស ប្រជាជន ជាជាង បាត់នូវនាមខ្លួនជា សម្តេច ។
នាមជា សម្តេច មានតម្លៃលើសជាងអ្វីទាំងអស់ សំរាប់សម្តេចតេជោ។
នៅចំពោះមុខចលនាផ្សេងៗនៅសហរដ្ឋអាមេរិក ដែលសម្តេចតេជោថា មានលាក់ខ្លួនក្នុងគណបក្សប្រឆាំង។
សម្តេចតេជោថ្លែងថា «ចំណុចនេះប្រជាពលរដ្ឋត្រូវក្តាប់ឲ្យបានច្បាស់មិនមែនខ្ញុំបំភ័យទេ ហើយ ដែលអះអាងថា កើតសង្គ្រាមគឺវាកន្លែងហ្នឹង»។
នេះបញ្ចាក់ថា នាអនាគតនិងមាន ការចាប់ចង បោះ សំអាត អ្នកប្រឆាំង ហើយ អាចប្រើកម្លាំងអាវុធ រលំ ពុំទទួលស្គាល់នូវ រដ្ឋាភិបាលថ្មីណា ដែលកើតឡើង ដោយការបោះធ្នោតខាងមុខ ក្រៅពី រដ្ធាភិបាលនៃគណបក្ស ប្រជាជន ?។
លទ្ធិប្រជាធិបតេយ្យ នៅកម្ពុជា មាន ហានិភ័យ អន្តរាយ?។
លទ្ធិប្រជាធិបតេយ្យ នៅកម្ពុជាជា លទ្ធិប្រជាធិបតេយ្យ ក្លែងក្លាយ?។
Just wondering why this bright scholar Khmer patriotic at 6:38 AM and at a few other places changed the signature from "Phnom Penh Post" to "Phnom Pench Post"....as previously in:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=14854511&postID=3739762445771722120&isPopup=true
Smart ass must not be insecure and/or scared at all?
Well, impersonation doesn't kill anybody, but why take a chance?
when will physicists like Hawking ever learn? if he ventured a bit further than his blackboard, he will see that it's precisely his idea that "there is no God", "God is dead" etc.. that gave rise to the worst massacres in history from the world wars to Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot.. why? because in Hawking's eyes man is only matter and matter doesn't matter and therefore man is disposable. When fools like Hawking say there is no God, i can only say, wait for the day you have to show up before Him and give an explanation why despite being gifted by God with such a brilliant mind, he turns around and insult his own Creator?
Philosophying all you want...But do we know where Khmer is at this point of history?
Post a Comment