Heavens and earth

The School of Athens was painted by Raphael sometime in 1510-1511. Here you will find all the philosophers of ancient times. The center figures are Aristotle (384BC-322BC) and his teacher Plato (424BC-347BC). Aristotle is pointing to the earth, reflecting his belief that knowledge was derived from experience, that materia prevailed over idea, that physical reality dictated our existence. Plato, on the other hand, points to the heavens, suggesting that in fact the opposite is true that the ideals shaped and configured our material world. These two philosophical currents, materialism of Aristotle and idealism of Plato shaped the Western philosophy through the ages, culminating in Hegel and Kant, Hegel influenced by Aristotle and Kant by Plato. Kant once said, ‘I am not saying anything new. I am only organizing and conceptualizing what Plato said in ecstasy.’


Of course, these philosophical trends were more complicated to be coined just by the names of ‘materialism’ and ‘idealism’. After all, both Aristotle and Plato knew very well the absurdity of oversimplification. The world is driven by both the physical earth-grounded elements and non-earthly, non-material elements. That is why ideals that cannot be materialized or realized in the real world are not relevant. It was Jose Ortega y Gasset , the great existentialist, who suggested that a theory that is incapable of being put into practice should be deleted and replaced with another. In other words, the theory that fails the practical experiment is not a good theory. That is why, there soon came the disillusionment with Communism. Marxist ideology, a theory, failed the practical experiment of mankind.

We all dream. In fact, the prerequisite of success and achievement is dreaming. Without dreaming, we do not have a clear vision where we are going, and why we are going. Without dreaming, we do not even have willingness to make a step forward. Dreaming entails passion, obsession, some degree of mental frenzy and restlessness. Nothing is impossible. Generally, the sky is the limit. But dreams that are not capable of being materialized in the world we live in, are not good dreams. Specifically, we all know that the world and society erect many barriers to our individual ideals day after day. Also, the lifespan of a mortal human being, the limitations of our physical existence are internal barriers that we simply are not in control of. So, there are external and internal barriers to realization of our dreams. What do we do then? Do we stop dreaming? Do we stop obsessing over our ideals? Do we simply give up? If Aristotle points to the earth, does that mean we should only settle for what is around us, forsaking Plato’s direction to the heaven?

That is the constant human struggle and no one of us will have the answer. Each of us will formulate own response to this ‘Aristotle-Plato’ dichotomy. But one thing is clear, without dreaming there will never be hope for better. Without hope for better, there is no meaning in life. But because there is a wide gap between the real world and our dreams, dreaming takes a lot more courage than you think. When you are crawling in the darkest tunnel with no light ahead, fearful to fall into the unseen pit ahead, in that darkest hour, if you can envision in your mind that light ahead, and smile, continuing to walk, that is courage, that is strength, that is spiritual power.

The Will to Live

A great German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) wrote in his famous "Will to Live":

Awakened to life out of the night of unconsciousness, the will finds itself an individual, all striving, suffering, erring; and as if through a troubled dream it hurries back to its old unconsciousness. Yet till then its desires are limitless, its claims unexhaustible, and every satisfied desire gives rise to a new one. No possible satisfaction in the world could suffice to still its longings, set a goal to its infinite cravings, and fill the bottomless abyss of its heart. Then let one consider what as a rule are the satisfactions of any kind that a man obtains. For the most part, nothing more than the bare maintenance of this existence itself, extorted day by day with unceasing trouble and constant care in the conflict with want, and with death in prospect. Everything in life shows that earthly happiness is destined to be frustrated or recognized as an illusion.

There is only one inborn error, and that is, that we exist in order to be happy. It is inborn in us because it is one with our existence itself, and our whole being is only a paraphrase of it, nay, our body is its monogram. We are nothing more than will to live and the successive satisfaction of all our volitions is what we think in the conception of happiness.

... Our life is like a payment which one recieves in nothing, but copper pence, and yet must then give a discharge for: the copper pence are the days; the discharge is death.

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980), a great French philosopher and existentialist wrote similarly in "The Age of Reason",

I am my own taste, I exist. That is what existence means: draining one's own self dry without the sense of thirst.

... For nothing: this life had been given him for nothing, he was nothing and yet he would not change: he was as he was made. He yawned: he had finished the day, and he had also finished with his youth. Various tried and proved rules of conduct had already discreetly offered him their services: disillusioned epicureanism, smiling tolerance, resignation, flat seriousness, stoicism-- all the aids whereby a man may savor, minute by minute, like a connoisseur, the failure of a life. He took off his jacket and began to undo his necktie. He yawned again as he repeated to himself: "It is true, it is really true: I have obtained the age of reason."

Well, existentialism that was born and developed by writings of these philosophers and others, including Nietzsche, Kafka, Gasset was a product of nihilism, another trend in philosophy. Nihilism-- rejection and negation of everything, reduction of certain settled things into nothing. At the same time, existentialism raised the human being and sanctified its existence by postulating that there is nothing wrong with selfish and self-centered human 'existence'. That people have a right to live their lives to the utmost, to the most ridiculous fullness and richness... That narcissism and epicureanism were not that bad... Existentialism was also affected by voluntarism, another trend in philosophy, which promulgated the willpower as the basis of human life... It must be known that existentialism was a philosophy to counter Marxism. Since Marxism was focused on the 'community', not the individual, the existentialism felt that individualism was under an assail and thus needed support. Idealism and materialism of the 18th century philosophy were replaced by Marxism and existentilism in the late 19th and 20th centuries.

But of course, one of the necessary by-products of individualism was the lonely and depressed individual, stranded on the road all alone, and in despair. The communitarianism on the other hand provided the joyful 'community', a mass of people, at the expense of one individual's needs and wishes... Thence, the writings of all existentialists were filled with this longing for happiness and satisfaction of inner dreams... Perhaps, the only existentialist, who truly understood this was Soren Kierkegaard (see on this blog). He is considered the father of existentialism. Yet, he wrote in contrast with most who followed him,

The great thing, as I regard it, is to live in the congregation, to bring something finer out of it, if one is able; at all events to subordinate oneself to it and put up with it if one is unable to better it.

Women and secularism

“What a man believes, and what he therefore regards as unquestionable reality, constitutes his religion.” Jose Ortega y Gasset, "Concord and Liberty". “His/her” religion, not everybody’s, because faith is a very intimate endeavor, perhaps the most private human space, after family and sex.

“The government is itself nothing but the self-established focus, the individual embodiment of the universal will.” Hegel, “Phenomenology of Mind.”

The idea of separation of church from state, or secularism has been a center of much debate. It is important to look at its origins in order to understand its true meaning. The Age of Enlightenment (18th century), when laying the foundation for the modern nation-state, promulgated that a state does not represent the Will of God, but the will of people. By its very nature the Enlightenment began the slow extermination of monarchs, who were ruling by grace of God, not by the will of people. In the new formula, the church as the earthly manifestation of God, was to be separate from the state. Moreover, religious scholasticism and mysticism of the Middle Ages were replaced by reason. Enlightenment was synonymous with reason. Thus, the Enlightenment thinkers recognized that the demands of religion/church are incompatible with the demands of the modern state institutions.

As these liberal institutions developed, the idea of separation of church from state deepened and became an integral component of a western liberal democracy. The state was not to establish any religion and was not to abridge free exercise thereof. Also, the state was not to let any church influence its workings. However, an unspoken dilemma was always there. The state is not an abstraction and in its functions, it is empowered by the people it purports to represent. As Hegel pointed out, the government is an embodiment of the will of people. Since religion constitutes an “unquestionable reality” for millions of people, the state is necessarily challenged with respect to religion. Therefore, it can never really and fully insulate itself from religion.

Today while most European states and America preach secularism, they do not follow what they preach. While the institutions such as Constitutions are secular in their formulations, the governments are influenced by religion. It all really revolves around how people understand faith and religion. If you subscribe to the broader definition of Gasset, the vast majority of people can be classified religious, since they all believe in something faithfully and even blindly.

The recent developments in the world have illustrated that things are not as simple as the Enlightenment thinkers envisioned and secularism needs serious review. While in its essence separation of church and state is necessary in many ways, in many others too much of it borders on suppression. Professor Madhavi Sunder called this era as the New Enlightenment (Read her brilliant article "Piercing the Veil"). Her vision is how to recharacterize secularism to serve the needs of religious minorities and first of all, women, who have made certain choices toward emancipation within religion/culture. So, the dichotomy is changing. Faith as it is understood by people, has to receive its redefinition in the state and its representation of people.

For example, when France banned the Muslim headscarf in public schools, Muslim women rebelled against it, “You are suppressing our religious faith. This is intolerance and discrimination under the guise of secularism.” The state had a lame response, “We are a secular state and cannot allow your religious symbols infiltrate the public sphere.” In fact, the real motivation behind the ban was the fear of Islamic fundamentalism and religious fervor. To give some break to the French government, it was really grappling with Islamic women—suicide bombers. Unfortunately, the ban resulted in more fundamentalism and more religious uprisings.

The problem is that while theoretically separation of church from state is a positive thing, it always ends up as a tool for religious discrimination by the majority culture of the minority, or in other situations, it simply turns into a tool to get rid of disfavored minorities. The headscarf for these women was not only a religious symbol, but a part of their cultural identity. France’s ban was to exclude them from the public sphere, or force them to choose rejection of their culture. But why should these women, already oppressed in their own culture, receive more oppression in the hands of a liberal democracy… Moreover, it seems the human rights law itself supports this. The European Court of Human Rights in Leila Sahin v. Turkey decided that Turkey was justified in prohibiting Sahin from wearing her headscarf in the public university.

I cannot pretend to have a ready answer to this dilemma, but it seems the goal should be to empower, rather than shut out these women, who have a right to choose… While Islamic extremism and militantism must be grappled with, I would search for other ways than suppression of religious minorities.

Iraq and Failed Export of Democracy

I hope by now people have recognized that democracy cannot be exported. Iraq at least is a living example. Jose Ortega y Gasset wrote in his book "Concord and Liberty," "Here we begin to understand that each authentic insitutiton is untransferable. Suppose we wanted to lift it out of its native soil, where should we cut it? Where begin and where end those political entities which language, owing to its magical power of creating phantoms, puts before us as independent and self-sustaining objects, calling them by the definite names of 'tribunate of the people,' 'parliament,' 'freedom of the press'? None of these institutions terminates in a clear-cut line. They all reach back into the particular collective life where they originated and whence they receive their indispensable supplements, their strength and their control. He who wishes to transplant an institution from one people to another must bring along with it that people in its veracity and reality. Laws of foreign nations may serve as incitement and even as guidance-- Rome not infrequently took her bearings from the juridical conceptions of Greece-- but in the last instance every nation must invent for itself. Invitation of alien political institutions betrays a pathological state of society. A people cannot take its institutions from the manifest surface of foreign nations: it must discover them in its innermost beeing if it wants to lead a life in freedom. Freedom cannot be achieved by proclaiming a few random liberties. Life in liberty presupposes a perfect continuity of circulation throughout the collective body, from the heart of its common beliefs to the skin which is the state, and back from the skin to the bowels of faith."