|
Reason and freedom
Progress
is primarily associated with the growing dominion of
reason, and this reason is obviously considered to be a
force of good and for good. Progress is the overcoming
of all forms of dependency—toward perfect freedom. The
kingdom of reason is expected as the new condition of
the human race once it has attained total freedom. The
political conditions of such a kingdom of reason and
freedom, however, appear ill-defined. Reason and freedom
seem to guarantee by themselves, a new and perfect human
community. And the two concepts were tacitly interpreted
as being in conflict with faith and the Church.
We must
look at two essential stages in the political
realization of this hope. First, there is the French
Revolution—an attempt to establish the rule of reason
and freedom as a political reality. The
Europe at the time looked on with fascination at these events, but,
as it developed, had cause to reflect anew on reason and
freedom. A good illustration is found in two essays by
Immanuel Kant. In 1792 he wrote “The Victory of the Good
over the Evil Principle and the Founding of a
Kingdom
of God on Earth.” He also tells us that revolutions can
accelerate this transition from ecclesiastical faith to
rational faith. The “Kingdom
of God” proclaimed by Jesus takes on a new presence; a
new “expectation” comes into existence: the “Kingdom of
God” arrives where “ecclesiastical faith” is vanquished
and superseded by simple rational faith.
In 1794,
in the text The End of All Things Kant considers the
possibility that, as well as the natural end of all
things, there may be another that is unnatural, a
perverse end: “If Christianity should one day cease to
be worthy of love ... then the prevailing mode in human
thought would be rejection and opposition to it; and the
Antichrist . . . would begin his — albeit short — regime
[presumably based on fear and self-interest].”
The
19th century held fast to its faith in progress as the
new form of human hope, and it continued to consider
reason and freedom as the guiding stars. Nevertheless,
the advance of technical development and the
industrialization soon gave rise to a new situation:
there emerged a class of industrial workers and the
“industrial proletariat” whose dreadful conditions
Friedrich Engels described alarmingly in 1845. For his
readers, the conclusion is clear: this cannot continue;
a change is necessary.
After
the bourgeois revolution of 1789, the time had come for
a new, proletarian revolution: progress could not simply
continue in small, linear steps. A revolutionary leap
was needed. Karl Marx took up the rallying call, and
applied his incisive language and intellect toward what
Kant had described as the “Kingdom of God.” Once the
truth of the hereafter had been rejected, it would then
be a question of establishing the truth of the here and
now. The critique of “Heaven” is transformed into the
critique of earth.
Progress
toward the better, toward the definitively good world,
no longer comes simply from science, but from politics —
that recognizes the structure of history and society and
thus points out the road toward revolution, toward
all-encompassing change. With precision, but with
certain bias, Marx described the situation of his time,
and with analytical skill he spelled out the paths
leading to revolution. His promise, owing to his
analysis, still remains a source of fascination. Real
revolution followed, in the most radical way in Russia.
But,
together with the victory of the revolution, Marx’s
error also became evident. He showed precisely how to
overthrow the existing order, but he did not say how
matters should proceed thereafter. He simply presumed
that with the expropriation of the ruling class, and the
socialization of means of production, the new Jerusalem
would be realized. Man and the world would sort
themselves out, because everything would belong to
everyone and all would desire the best for one another.
True,
Marx had spoken of the interim phase. This “intermediate
phase” we know too well, and we also know how it then
developed, not ushering in a perfect world, but leaving
behind a trail of appalling destruction. Marx not only
omitted to work out how this new world would be
organized. His silence on this matter follows logically
from his chosen approach. His error lay deeper.
He
forgot that man always remains man. He forgot man and he
forgot man’s freedom. He forgot that freedom always
remains also freedom for evil. He thought that once the
economy had been put right, everything would
automatically be put right. His real error is
materialism: man, in fact, is not merely the product of
economic conditions, and it is not possible to redeem
him purely from the outside by creating a favorable
economic environment.
(To be
continued next week)
Spe Salvi Encyclical of Pope Benedict XVI to all “On
Christian Hope”
For comments/feedback: e-mail: caritas_manila@yahoo.com;
for donations to Caritas Manila: 563-9311; and for
inquiries: 563-9308 and 563-9298; Fax: 563-9306. |
