 |
Kdysi jsem viděl na youtube přednášku od filosofa Slavoje Žižka s názvem Materialismus a Theologie. Žižek, ačkoliv sám ateista (a komunista) se tam vyjadřuje pochvalně o myšlenkách G. K. Chestertona. To jméno mi bylo povědomý a po pročtení wiki jsem si vzpoměl na starý dobrý časy s tavernou a Marcusem m.
Včera jsem přečet Orthodoxy a ta kniha mě uchvátila inteligencí svojí chybnosti. Poskládat myšlenky napůl správně a napůl špatně dokážou všichni. Poskládat myšlenky přesně špatně vyžaduje hlubokej vhled, inteligenci a sensitivitu.
Esenci Chestertonova poselství jsem pochopil zhruba následovně: Křesťanská ortodoxie je konsistentní systém, kterej je dostatečně bohatej na to, že v něm najdou svoje místo všechny ctnosti, aniž by jedna potlačila druhou. Tahle pospolitost ctností ale neni docílená lacinym pohansko/východně/theosofistickym odvoláním se k "rovnováze", ale je naopak docílená jasnym vymezením rolí.
A soldier surrounded by enemies, if he is to cut his way out, needs to combine a strong desire for living with a strange carelessness about dying. He must not merely cling to life, for then he will be a coward, and will not escape. He must not merely wait for death, for then he will be a suicide, and will not escape. He must seek his life in a spirit of furious indifference to it; he must desire life like water and yet drink death like wine.
Chesterton dojde k závěru, že když moderní myšlenky nahradily Křesťanství jako dominantní zdroj hodnot ve společnosti, tak společnost ztratila tuhle jednotu protikladů. Výsledkem je chaos.
For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it. As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie. He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble. The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite sceptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.
Chesterton má pravdu. Dnes je možné v jedné ulici najít člověka, který studuje moderní fyziku, jeho souseda, který se modlí k panence Marii, dalšího souseda, který telepaticky kontaktuje mimozemské stavitele piramid, a souseda, který se nezajíma o nic přesahující jeho materiální potřeby. V současné společnosti nepanuje koncensus nad základními předpoklady o životě vesmíru a tak vůbec.
To, ale není nic, čemu by stálo za to se divit. Když se zhroutí tyranie, následuje anarchie. Když věda zdiskreditovala křesťanství, naše civilizace ztratila jednotící prvek. Král je mrtev, ale nemá následníka. Monarchie se rozpadla a na poli světonázorů soupeří gangy. Chestertonova odpověď je evidentně návrat ke starým pořádkům.
Nádhernou ironií je, že Chesterton sám nevědomky naznačí možnost alternativní odpovědi:
The French Revolution was really an heroic and decisive thing, because the Jacobins willed something definite and limited. They desired the freedoms of democracy, but also all the vetoes of democracy. They wished to have votes and NOT to have titles. Republicanism had an ascetic side in Franklin or Robespierre as well as an expansive side in Danton or Wilkes. Therefore they have created something with a solid substance and shape, the square social equality and peasant wealth of France. But since then the revolutionary or speculative mind of Europe has been weakened by shrinking from any proposal because of the limits of that proposal. Liberalism has been degraded into liberality. Men have tried to turn "revolutionise” from a transitive to an intransitive verb. The Jacobin could tell you not only the system he would rebel against, but (what was more important) the system he would NOT rebel against, the system he would trust.
Jestli theismus je monarchie, new-age mysticismus a postmoderní relativismus je anarchie, tak řešení je republika.
Chesterton odmítne materialismus neuvěřitelně hloupým argumentem.
Lest this should be called loose assertion, it is perhaps desirable, though dull, to run rapidly through the chief modern fashions of thought which have this effect of stopping thought itself. Materialism and the view of everything as a personal illusion have some such effect; for if the mind is mechanical, thought cannot be very exciting, and if the cosmos is unreal, there is nothing to think about. But in these cases the effect is indirect and doubtful. In some cases it is direct and clear; notably in the case of what is generally called evolution. Evolution is a good example of that modern intelligence which, if it destroys anything, destroys itself. Evolution is either an innocent scientific description of how certain earthly things came about; or, if it is anything more than this, it is an attack upon thought itself. If evolution destroys anything, it does not destroy religion but rationalism. If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly, especially if, like the Christian God, he were outside time. But if it means anything more, it means that there is no such thing as an ape to change, and no such thing as a man for him to change into. It means that there is no such thing as a thing. At best, there is only one thing, and that is a flux of everything and anything. This is an attack not upon the faith, but upon the mind; you cannot think if there are no things to think about. You cannot think if you are not separate from the subject of thought. Descartes said, “I think; therefore I am.” The philosophic evolutionist reverses and negatives the epigram. He says, “I am not; therefore I cannot think.”
Pomineme-li zjevné zmatení materialismu a solipsismu, které je snad omluvitelné tím, že Chesteron měl daleko k obojímu, tak základní chyba leží v tvrzení "if the mind is mechanical, thought cannot be very exciting". To není pravda. Tvrzení by mělo být "if the mind is mechanical, mechanics must be very exciting". Chesterton žil zřejmě v iluzi, proti které materialisté bojují ve filosofických debatách do dnešního dne. Ta iluze říká, že prohlásit mysl za pouhý produkt biologického počítača a ještě k tomu prhlásit ten biologický počítač za pouhý produkt necílené evoluce přírodním výběrem, je degradace mysli. To není pravda. Náhled, že mysl je produkt biologického počítače, je exaltace biologických počítačů a náhled, že biologické počítače jsou produktem evoluce přírodním výběrem z neživé hmoty, je exaltace spontání kreativity přírody.
Vědecko-materialistická mytologie říká, že na počátku byl prach země a na něj svítilo slunce. Po čtyř miliardách let se prach země organizoval to formy, která skládá poezii. Materialismus se dá kritizovat za ledacos, ale ne za to, že postrádá kouzlo. |