Saint-Martin
(1743-1803) is a rare sort of philosopher, like of which one wouldn't
expect to find out in the middle of French Enlightenment: a mystic,
who was especially famous for translating works of Jakob Boehme. It
is no wonder that a Schellingian like Franz von Baader was interested
of the fellow. Although Saint-Martin is then an interesting writer to
read, the peculiarity of his thought makes it also rather difficult
to evaluate what he is saying.
Compared to the
American religious thinkers I have acquainted myself with thus far,
Saint-Martin has a capacity to make his obsession with some biblical
stories sound nothing like preaching. This appearance is probably
caused by the fact that Saint-Martin does not seem to accept Bible as
a literal truth, but sees it more like an allegory of some deep-seated
truths of human condition.
It is especially the
story of fall that interests Saint-Martin. It is an important truth
for Saint-Martin that we live in some manner in a fallen state, in
which we are separated from our origin and from the truth of our
existence. Humanity lives then in a state of duality, in which one
force tries to tie her to the material nature around her, while the
other force tries to lead her back to the original unity.
What the material
world represents for Saint-Martin is the error that the title of his
work mentions. It is especially materialism, with its assumption that
matter is the primordial source of existence, which Saint-Martin
assumes to be erroneous. In a line of argument, reminiscent of
Leibniz, Saint-Martin suggests that matter cannot be eternal, because
it is always made of something else, and this something else must be
ultimately indivisible and therefore immaterial.
Yet, Saint-Martin is
not suggesting that matter would be made out of monads, but from two
primordial forces, one expanding matter into infinity, other
contracting it into a unity – all very reminiscent of Kant's theory
of matter. To unite these two forces, a third force is required, and
beyond these material forces, a fourth immaterial force, governing
the whole system of matter. These four forces correspond then with
four traditional elements.
It is quite clear
that Saint-Martin's theory of nature hails from a past, in which
nature was still seen as full of simple mysteries, written not with
the language of equations, but with the Pythagorean numerology. We do
hear more fascinating suggestions of fantastic numerical
relationships. Obviously three is an important number, as a symbol of
a unity between opposed forces, and so is four, because fourth point,
added to three points, makes up a material body. Zero symbolises
circles, because circles have no angles – and zero can be
identified with nine, for the very obvious reason that while adding
10 to a number adds one unit to it in the written form, adding 9 is
in this sense like adding a 0 (it doesn't bother Saint-Martin that
all of this occurs only in a decimal system). The most daring leap of
thought occurs, when Saint-Martin states that a circle must be
divided into 360 degrees, because shape of circle (0) can be approximated with
six (6) triangles (3).
All this numerology
sounds pretty far-fetched, but more interesting is Saint-Martin's idea
that these numeric relationships are indications of an original
language, of which all the earthly languages are mere faint
reflections – that is, that the human mind has some intrinsic
linguistic pattern, which makes us think there are interesting
patterns in such relationships. Of course, Saint-Martin does not
intend to draw any Kantian consequence, but assumes that this
original language will take us closer to the original truth.
Saint-Martin tries to uncover this original language from such a
supposedly universal grammatical pattern as subject-verb-object –
again, a triplicity. Yet, his final suggestion appears to be that
music might be closest we get to the original language.
One might think this
is just a harmless mysticism, with no practical application. Yet,
Saint-Martin wanted also to suggest actual political activities
conforming to his ideas. While the main idea of his philosophy is to
return back to the original unity or truth, it seems pretty obvious
he would emphasise the role of unity in state politics. Indeed,
Saint-Martin goes even so far as to suggest that a good state ought
to be governed by just one person – provided that she knows how to
to attain the truth and lead other people to it.
If one can ever speak of an ideal of an enlightened dictatorship, here is a proper place. The problem with the ideal seems obvious. Even if we supposed a person who could have miraculously stretched the limit between our fallen state and the assumed original unity, it would still be a mystery, how we, who still live in a fallen state and are lured by the call of matter, could ever hope to recognise the enlightened person for what she is. If we cannot, we should be forced into the unity - but this seems unlikely to work - and if we can, then we already do not need her assistance.
This interesting dilemma suggests that we must reject the idea of ever finding a divinely reliable guide to good life. In next post, we shall see how a certain American suggested an alternative of tolerating different ways of living.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti