Typical of 19th century faith in progress, the French
philosopher
August Comte (1798-1857). Comte believed we were making progress
in what the
philosophers call ontology, the way we understand the world around us.
According to Comte, human beings initially explained the world
in
terms of spirits everywhere--a spirit, in every rock, every tree, every
river, etc. This was the "animist" phase of human development--not a
particularly good way to understand the world.
Eventually, humans advanced to the polytheistic phase, of phase
of
human history in which we explained the world, not in terms of spirits
everywhere, but as the work of a number of great gods, e.g., Apollo,
Poseidon, Zeus, etc. Is there an earthquake? That's
Poseidon. A thunderbolt? That's Zeus.
This was a better way of understanding the world, but still not
the
best we could do. Eventually human beings explained the world as
the work of just one great creator god--the monotheistic understanding
of the world. This was a much better approach than polytheism,
but we still didn't have it quite right. We were about to enter
the next great phase in our understanding of the world: the positive
phase.
During the positive phase of history, we would abandon belief
in
gods and spirits all together and explain the world entirely in terms
of material forces.
Now you might think that, since he doesn't believe in gods of
any
kind, Comte would have no use for religion. But that is not so.
Comte thought religion served a very important social function, and
there would still have to be a religion during the positive phase of
human history.
But what would we worship? The highest thing left around:
ourselves! During the positive phase of history, we would worship
mankind, saying prayers in honor of mankind, and following a religious
calendar that honored the great men of science, the men who helped us
understand the world.
As priests for the new religion, we would have the philosophy
professors. And as the high priest of the new religion?
Comte himself.
Comte began to spread his ideas in a series of lectures in
Paris--but he had scarcely begun to get started when he had a mental
breakdown. He had to be institutionalized off and on for the
remainder of his miserable life--and I mean miserable. Comte
fathered a child by a woman who was married to someone else. He
then himself married a prostitute. When he couldn't support the
family, she went back to turning tricks to support them both.
Nevertheless, Comte ended up having a major impact on
subsequent
history. He invented a new academic discipline: sociology.
Comte intended sociology to be a secular substitute for religion. How
should we relate to our husbands and wives? How should we relate
to others in our community? For most of human history, people
relied on religious authorities for answer and advice. Now, says
Comte, let's go go the sociologists who will give us "scientific"
answers.
Not all sociologists view sociology as a secular substitute for
religion, but that is certainly a major emphasis in the work of many
sociologists. They are a kind of secular priesthood.
Comte also has a great influence indirectly through the work of John
Dewey. Dewey was a Columbia University professor, the founder of
"modern American progressive education." Dewey drew on many
sources, but one of them was Comte. Dewey liked Comte's
materialist approach and incorporated it into his own philosophy of
education. And this was a major turning point.
Through most of European history, the investigation of
spiritual and
religion questions was generally regarded as about the most important
of education. Plato's academy focused more than anything else on the
human soul--and that's in pre-Christian days. As the great
universities grew up in the Middle Ages (places like Oxford, Cambridge,
and the University of Paris), religious questions were of course *the*
most important areas of investigation. And as the great
universities of America were established--Harvard, Princeton, Yale,
etc.--the primary purpose of these institutions was to train Christian
ministers.
And the American idea of free *public* education came from
people who
believed that all children needed to learn to read so they could read
their Bibles and save their souls. *Public* education was
initially established for religious as well as secular reasons.
But with the adoption of Dewey's philosophy, that
changed.
Religious questions have no place in Dewey's schemed, and it is, by and
large, the Dewey position that dominates American education
today.
Just about every school of education in America--included that at
NSU--bases its philosophy on Dewey and his entirely materialistic
philosophy.
[Links are dead. I'll try to see if
can fix them eventually.]
Auguste
Comte Links
A
Comte prayer in honor of mankind (see bottom of page)
A
summary of Comte's contributions
Annotated
Comte links (See especially this Comte
chronology.)
A fairly good summary
of Dewey' life and influence (sympathetic to Dewey)
An amusing criticism
of Dewey from the left.
II. Hegel
Another 19th century believer in progress was the German
philosopher
Hegel. Hegel believed mankind was making progress in the realm
of ideas through a process he called the dialectic (thesis vs.
antithesis
leading to synthesis). Hegel's idea was that, about any subject
in any society, there was a dominant idea, what he called the
thesis. A great genius would eventually come along to challenge
that idea, posing a counter idea (an antithesis). There would be
a debate over these ideas until something new emerged, a
synthesis. This synthesis would be a better understanding of that
subject. People would adopt this new idea, and it would now be the
thesis, the dominant idea of that subject in that society. A
great genius would come along and propose a new counter-idea, a new
antithesis.
Once again, the conflict of these ideas would result
in a new synthesis, a better understanding of that subject. The
majority of people would now accept that new idea, and it would be the
thesis, the dominant idea on that subject and that society. A
great genius would come along and propose a new counter-idea, a new
antithesis.
Once again, the conflict of these ideas would result
in a
new synthesis, a better understanding of that subject. The
majority of
people would now accept that new idea, and it would be the thesis, the
dominant idea on that subject and that society. A great genius
would come along and propose a new counter-idea, a new
antithesis.
Once again, the conflict of these ideas would result
in a
new synthesis, a better understanding of that subject. The
majority of
people would now accept that new idea, and it would be the thesis, the
dominant idea on that subject and that society. A great genius
would come along and propose a new counter-idea, a new
antithesis.
Once again, the conflict of these ideas would result
in a
new synthesis, a better understanding of that subject. The
majority of
people would now accept that new idea, and it would be the thesis, the
dominant idea on that subject and that society...and this would go on
and on forever! We would continually improve in our understanding
of all things.
Now these ideas, said Hegel, were the driving force of all of
history. As our ideas improved, our society would improve as well.
IV. Nietzsche
I noted that the combination of Darwinian and Hegelian ideas
could be particular destructive. One such combination: the work
of the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche believed
that progress would come through the emergence of a new kind of
human being, the "superman" who would be
superior to the rest of us in that he would abandon traditional moral
standards
and substitute the "will to power." Nietzsche believed that our
moral sense was at one time an evolutionary advantage. People who
believed in good and evil automatically believed that they were on the
side of good. Therefore, they fought with more
determination--and, when they one, made sure to subdue completely their
"evil" enemies. But, said Nietzsche, once one realizes that
morality is only a product of evolution, we can no longer truly believe
in morality. And we don't need it anyway: our moral sense can be
replaced by an even stronger motivator, the "will to power," the desire
to dominate others.
Things like love, peace, pity for the weak--these should all
go. The weak of the earth should take up as little space,
strength, and sunlight as possible.
Crazy ideas? Yes! And Nietzsche was, quite
literally, a madman. He had to be institutionalized for the last
12 years of his relatively short life. And yet these obviously
crazy ideas have had a great following in the 20th century--with
terrible effects. It was ideas like these that paved the way not
much later for Adolf Hitler.
V. Marx and Engels
Two other German thinkers, Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels, combined Hegelian and Darwinian ideas in a
different
way. Marx and Engels adopted from Hegel the idea of the
dialectic. But, influence by Darwin, the interpreted life in
terms, not of intellectual struggle, but of physical struggle.
They "turned Hegel on his head" saying that conflict of material forces
drove history and that changing ideas were produced by these conflicts,
not the other way around.
The resulting philosophy of history Marx and Engels called
"dialectical materialism." All history was the story of class
struggle. A dominant class (the thesis class) was challenged by a
new class (an antithesis class) until a new dominant class was produced
(the synthesis). Then a new antithesis class would arise.
In the "Feudal" phase of history, the nobles were
dominant. They were challenged by the bourgeoisie. The
bourgeoisie then became the dominant class in a new phase of
history, the Capitalist phase. The bourgeoisie in turn was now
challenged by a new class, the Proletariat, the working class.
The Proletariat would soon emerge on top in a new phase of history, the
Dictatorship of the Proletariat. And this would be then end of
history. Why? Because the Dictatorship of the Proletariat
would be a classless society. With no classes, there would be no
class conflict, and, without class conflict, there would be no more
historical change.
Marx and Engels believed that this was an inevitable process,
but, nevertheless, they wanted to do everything possible to speed
things along. Why? Because the bourgeoisie had so corrupted
every aspect of human life.
Many of Marx and Engels criticisms of capitalist society are on
target. However, there solution is a dangerous one. At the end of
the Communist Manifesto, the say that their aims can be achieved *only*
by the overthrow of *all* existing social conditions. Their
recipe for the future included:
1. Social change. No classes--and, also, no
traditional families. Marriage is a bourgeois institution, so
it's got to go.
2. Political change. No democracy. Again,
that's a bourgeois system. In place of democracy, one should have
the "dictatorship of the proletariat" which, in practice, means the
rule of one strong man in the name of the proletariat.
Theoretically, after the dictatorship of the proletariat is firmly
established, there will be a "withering away of the state" and freedom.
But that's quite a ways down the road!
3. Economic change. Most private property
disappears. Businesses are controlled by the government, not
capitalists. Farms are reorganized so they operate like
factories, as great collectives. Once again, they are controlled
by the government. Banking, transportation, and communication are
all controlled by the government.
4. Religious change. Religion is the "opiate of the
masses." Traditional Christianity must go. And, in its place, a
new "religion," adoration of the Marxist state.
Here's the theme song, the Communist
Internationale (1930's version) and here in an updated
version.
A cheery tune--ironic for a political movement that has
destroyed more lives than any other in the history of mankind.