Customer Reviews

Modernity on Endless Trial

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Twenty-four essays by philosopher Leszek Kolakowksi ( Univ of Chicago / Oxford ) comprise the totality of "MODERNITY ON ENDLESS TRIAL", a volume divided into 4 parts:

I. "On Modernity, Barbarity and Intellectuals"
II. "On the Dilemmas of the Christian Legacy"
III. "On Liberals, Revolutionaries and Utopians"
IV. "On Scientific Theories"

The book in its entirety is an examination of the ceaseless argumentation among opposing ideas that has propelled and sustained that part of Western Tradition expressed in "the pluralist society". In his brief forward he submits his essays as-

"semi-philosophical sermons in which...to point out a number of unpleasant and insoluble dilemmas that loom up every time we attempt to be perfectly consistent when we think about our culture, our politics and our religious life...these essays are not edifying. They are rather appeals for moderation in consistency..."

True to form, Kolakowksi consistently refuses the knifepoint threat of "either/or" ultimatums, exploring the mutually antagonistic yet symbiotic struggle between tradition and progress. Select quotations from his essays will not do the author justice but may perhaps give some evidence of his train of thought:

"It would be silly, of course, to be either `for' or `against' modernity tout court, not only because it is pointless to try to stop the development of technology, science and economic rationality, but because both modernity and antimodernity may be expressed in barbarous and antihuman terms".
( MODERNITY ON ENDLESS TRIAL )

"Ultimately we may say the Europe's cultural identity is reinforced by her refusal to accept any kind of closed, finite definition and thus she can only affirm her identity in uncertainty and anxiety... The choice between total perfection and total self-destruction is not ours; cares without end, incompleteness without end, these are our lot. Thus, in the doubt which Europe entertains about herself, European culture can find its spiritual equilibrium and the justification for its pretensions to universality"
( LOOKING FOR THE BARBARIANS )

"It is difficult to protect democracy by democratic means; difficult, but feasible on condition that democracy has the resolute will to defend itself. Tolerance is not necessarily indifference; the pluralist order is obviously founded on the recognition of particular values, and is not `value free' or neutral; also, the indifference of the law presupposes no neutrality of values; it is anchored in a social philosophy. In order to defend itself, the pluralist order should voice those values ceaselessly and loudly. There is nothing astonishing or outrageous about the fact that within the pluralist society, the defenders and enemies of its basic principles are not treated with exactly the same indifference; it is quite possible to treat them differently without harming citizens' rights or the principle of tolerance. A pluralism that acquired from its own norms carelessness about its existence and made it a virtue would condemn itself to death."
( THE SELF-POISONING OF THE OPEN SOCIETY )

"I admit to speak in defense of the conservative spirit. However, it is a conditional conservative spirit, conscious not only of its own necessity but also the necessity of the spirit which opposes it. As a result, it can see that tension between rigidity and structure and the forces of change between tradition and criticism, is a condition of human life- a thing its enemies are seldom prepared to admit...Culture, when it loses its sacred sense, loses all sense. With the disappearance of the sacred, which imposed limits to the perfection which could be attained by the profane, arises one of the most dangerous illusions of our civilization- the illusion that there are no limits to the changes that human life can undergo, that society is `in principle' an endlessly flexible thing, and that to deny this flexibility and this perfectibility is to deny man's total autonomy and thus to deny man himself... If it is true that in order to make society more tolerable, we must believe it can be improved, it is also true that there must always be people who think of the price paid for every step of what we call progress. The order of the sacred is also a sensitivity to evil- the only system of reference that allows us to contemplate that price and forces us to ask whether it is exorbitant."
( THE REVENGE OF THE SACRED IN SECULAR CULTURE )

"The general conclusion of these remarks might sound somewhat banal but, not unlike many banalities, worth pondering. It says that the idea of human fraternity is disastrous as a political program but is indispensable as a guiding sign... It is likely that two kinds of mentality- the skeptical and the utopian- will survive separately, in unavoidable conflict. And we need their shaky coexistence; both of them are important to our cultural survival. The victory of utopian dreams would lead us to a totalitarian nightmare and the utter downfall of civilization, whereas the unchallenged domination of the skeptical spirit would condemn us to a hopeless stagnation, to an immobility that a slight accident could easily convert into catastrophic chaos. Ultimately, we have to live between two irreconcilable claims, each of them having its cultural justification.
( THE DEATH OF UTOPIA RECONSIDERED )

In this collection of essays Leszek Kolakowski displays not only intellectual acumen but a certain level of humility expressed in clear, jargon-free thought. And, as a "bonus", the justifiably serious tone of the book is given relief in a couple of parody pieces, which reveal the author's sense of dry humor.

As a contrast to the ( variously valuable ) examples of thinkers along more partisan "conservative/progressive" lines, Kolakowski acts as a kind of "referee", momentarily separating the "combatants" in a contest that, one perceives, were it to cease, no society worth living in would exist.

This wide ranging collection of essays is an introduction to a major XXth century thinker. Utterly lucid, he draws on philosophy, theology, and a deep knowledge of modern history to trace the seeds of "modernity" and their fruits, good and bad. His encyclopedic knowledge of both Christian thought and Marxism gives him a unique position to examine both how we got to where we are and to see the flaws in most unexamined assumptions. Unfortunately, they broke the mold. Will we ever see his like again? He must be talking to Isaiah Berlin in the Elysian Fields and I'd love to overhear it.

I've followed Kolakowski's writings since the 1970s. He brings the cold-eyed East European perspective to the political, diplomatic, ideological and social struggles of the 20th century.