by Giano Rocca
Chapter 21:
Metaphysic ideologized at base of the ideologies, and metaphysic scientific at basis of the scientific knowledge: of human nature and of structural reality historic
Jacques Niel had defined “mysticism”, the Hegelian philosophy, in that it had the intent to reconcile, in the unit, the finite and the infinite (definable, respectively, as: the structural logic, and rationality or the naturalness specific of humans). Hegel proposed such unit as “reconquest of the human integrity, of the total man” (1). This is, certainly, a form of “mysticism” that connects to the eschatology “Christian”, trying to complete it. Religion (“Christian”, but also one definable as the religion “Hegelian”) says that the original unit of the universe it has split by sin: namely the rationality it has cleaved, and opposed to reality, with the birth of the historical structures. Propose the synthesis between historical structures and rationality, as he did Hegel, equates to propose the unification between “the sinful world” with God: and this is manifestly absurd. Hegel attempted this unification, namely a “conciliation” (2) in the: “History of Philosophy”, with the concept of “historical mediation” (understood as historical transition between different types of societies) and a “mediation logic” (or of reason). This concept has been used by Marx, and it is useful to indicate the mutation between the social systems and between the historical phases statual, but is equivalent to attempt, inhuman, to reconcile the structural reality historical with the rationality of human nature.
Hegel proposed the overcoming of religious dualism (between the ideal and actual), through science, which can ensure the “full realization of man” (3), but the overcoming of the aforesaid dualism occurs, for Hegel, in the “mysticism” of the union (distinct from the identification) of the human being with God. For Hegel, the know absolute, or the wisdom, is the final result of philosophy, because is the wisdom it respond to all the problems to which the philosophy cannot respond. The wise, for Hegel, unlike the philosopher, is optimistic, and model to himself and to others (4). The wisdom will be, however, really this, only if you will be able to identify herself with the science of structural reality and of human nature. According to Hegel, the final goal of the human being is knowledge, which would be implemented gradually through the history, that, for this final outcome, it could be said the history of “freedom”, although, for its essence, is in opposition to the nature (5). The realization of such knowledge would occur through a “revolution”, which allows the “conciliation of man with nature” (6). If the contemporary philosophies, such as the “Marxism” and the “Existentialism”, theories daughters of the Hegelian Philosophy, however, present shortcomings and some unilateral interpretations of the Hegelian Philosophy. The Hegelian philosophy it has yet to be thorough in order to grasp the its real essence (7). Bobbio defined “worldly theology”, the Hegelian philosophy, since, by analysing the nature and structures, with terminologies and content that Bobbio claimed to be characteristic of religions (theory of the purpose of history and of the alienation of the human being with respect to the history). The “theology” Hegelian, however, outlines an immanence of the human being, of nature and history, that no religion can have. We can say that Hegel has demystified religion, freeing the content from the idealizations and from irrational transcendences. The “Hegelianism", which is a philosophy (that is proposed as the ideology of a given historical phase or historical moment) is ‘contradictory’ (8), in that proposing the appropriation and the fulfilment of history, in that “world” in which he was (although containing elements of a concept meta-historical). In fact, William James acknowledged that the Hegelian dialectic has predicted the overcoming of the structural reality, fact that he had considered currently, unattainable, but “that a day could prove feasible” (9). Norberto Bobbio stated that “all roads of the philosophy after Hegel are locked” (10). This, because every philosophy that limits itself to justify the structures, no longer has credibility. This, indicates that Hegel has come a long way in opposition to the historical structures, and philosophy, to continue to be the handmaid of structural reality, must ignore Hegel. It can be inferred as the times for the overcoming of historical structures are mature, also in the field of history of philosophical thought.
John Locke had used the experience, namely the empirical method, as the basis of the concepts, namely of the knowledge of reality historical structural and as “control instrument of the existential judgments” (11).
In the field of structural sciences and humanities, Bobbio noted “the inconclusiveness of the science” (12) current, and hoped the advent of the “total know”. We can say, therefore, that also on the level of structural sciences and human is felt the need for a qualitative leap, that allows to overcome of the logic of the historical structures.
Emile Durkheim defined sociology as the continuation, of type specialistic, of the philosophy (13). The epistemologists define as metaphysics, the conceptions: on the nature, about man and about history, that come to constitute the core of the “research program”, as stated by Lakatos, or “paradigm”, as stated by Kuhn. While accepting this “Metaphysics” as scientific, or basis of science, they demonize the metaphysics extraneous to their theories “scientific”, defining it as a unscientific, as, the rest, are doing, also, the same philosophers. Since a clear separation between scientific metaphysics and the unscientific, is very difficult, since the set of metaphysics constitutes the core of the current knowledge: on nature, about man and about history, there is an urgent need to create a metaphysics genuinely scientific, or falsifiable, namely controllable and progressive. Its current not controllability, stated Popper, derives mainly from “syntactic reasons” (14), or from “methodological reasons”, as stated by Lakatos. However the current metaphysics is not controllable only for reasons syntactic but, often, also for methodological reasons, and this both in the part “influential”, or connected to the science, as in that autonomous, the which last is never such of the everything, except in the case of items purely ideological or of type demagogic or pertaining to faith. Lakatos stated that exists the possibility to insert elements “uncontrollable” in “research programs”, as “hazels” (15), whose scientific approach would be inherent in a “regulatory issue”, and would, therefore, at be represented, essentially, by progressive capacity. On the part of many intellectuals and philosophers, you says, often, that it is not allowed to assimilate the the science, the content of metaphysics and the human sciences. Francis Bacon had recognized, moreover, that are not the contents of metaphysics at be unscientific, but its methods and its shape.
Sociologists, as Auguste Comte, do not transpose the transcendence of the human nature with respect to the realities of the historical structures, although they comprise the falsity of the religious concept of a being transcendent the nature human same (16). The positivists were aware of the fact that the “sciences” social they are constrained by the structural reality and by the dominant ideologies and hoped that all the sciences can become truly scientific or “positives”. However, actually, ignoring the extraneousness with respect to the human nature, of reality historical structural, have ignored, at the same time, what should be the foundation of scientificity of social sciences and of the philosophy of the future (17).
In the XVIII century the “reason” was considered, species by “the Enlightenment”, capable of finding (in itself) the solution of the social problem. Such a degree of confidence in the “reason” ended to determine “rationalisms” or transformations in a divinity, of the “reason” itself. Let’s talk about ideologies or of objects of faith, the which objects of faith, when they have become such, are explicit signs of the failure of the confidence, which had been granted regardless, in the “reason”.
In the nineteenth century, the lack of confidence in the ability of the “reason” to allow the solution to the social problem, became commonplace. Emerged the conviction that the maximum capacity of the “reason” were the adapt to structura
l reality in act, the understanding and encouragement of the evolution. This is the philosophical conception of Marxism. It emerged the conviction that the sign of the maximum “rationality” and the maximum intelligence consisted in the adhere to what seemed to be the inevitable event, namely what proved to be: the advent of a new feudalism. You do not even tried to investigate what was actually the essence of this new society, that was considered and it is proved (at least partially) to have been inevitable, and only in so far was inevitable, can be considered as desirable. In this way, the so-called “intellectuals” and “Thinkers” you are self-defined as “intelligent”, since they hoped in the return of a feudal society, only because it deemed unavoidable. This was the failure of “reason” in the period between the XVIII and XX century.
The “reason” or ratiocination, without an adequate cognitive tool, generates a faith irrational, while with a cognitive instrument adequate, generates awareness of their own potential and capacity, namely: rational consciousness of self or rational faith, being based on tools of the actual human emancipation and means of achieving this end.
The "socialism" was born as a theory of the possibility of resolution of the social problem (namely of the problem of the contrast between individuals and society) and of the social question (namely of the conflict between workers and employers), in the eighteenth century. The “Communism” was born it too in the XVIII century, on the basis of “Platonism” and of the “neo-Platonism”, as a reaction to the consolidation of the capitalist system competitive. The Marxism has melted together the two aforementioned theories, although these were of nature far and opposite. Of nature idealistic, utopian futuristic the “Socialism”, of nature inclined to feudalism the “Communism”. This operation of Marx, since prevailed on the above mentioned two existing conceptions (and in mutual opposition), has finished to kill the substance of the ideal “Socialist”, polluting and upsetting the same. The version “Anarchist” of the “Socialism”, made a synthesis, defined “Anarcho-Communism” from Kropotkin, and has, then, hybridized, it as well: the ideal “Socialist” of tendency “Libertarian”, with the theory "Communist".
Durkheim, speaking of “Socialism”, it highlighted the multiple characteristics appropriate to the nature of the feudal phases of the structural universe statual (18), although he not recognized him, explicitly, as specific ideology of the feudal phases. He spoke of “Communism ancient”, about the ideologies inclined to feudalism, produced in the “Ancient Age”, as the “Platonism”, while had distinguished them from the “Socialism”, or ideologies inclined to feudalism of “ Era Modern”, since the latters would tend, in a more explicit manner, at provide a phase feudal more centralised, with respect to that which was realized in the “Middle Ages” (19).
Marx had accused Hegel to be a metaphysical and he pretended to associate his theory to the supposed methodology of science “modern”: the inductive method. In fact Hegel, while adopting a metaphysical terminology, undertook an inductive analysis of the real human condition. Marx, on the contrary, undertook an analysis deductive, starting from incorrect assumptions and absurds. From its alleged empiricism had deduced the total immanence of the human being compare to history, eliminating entirely the essence of man and transforming him in the simple tool of the history. Marx accused Hegel of “speculative spirit” (20), namely accused him of being a philosopher, (because he analyzed the human essence), being obviously aware of being only an ideologue. If Hegel stated that the solution of the human drama consists in scientific knowledge, Marx accused him of proposing theoretical solutions to real problems (21). If Hegel is, certainly, open to criticism for not having been able to find outlets valid at his intuitions, the affirmation Marxist is however absurd: is equivalent to affirm that science is useless, because is a theoretical fact and, as such, it would unsuitable to solve the practical problems of the human being. In fact, since the Hegelian analysis invests the human essence, the proposed solutions may not start that from the human being, modify the her way of manifestation, to create, so, the conditions for overcoming the historical structures. Marx, on the contrary, herself reduced at analyze the historical reality, thinking its evolution editable, albeit only in the timing, on the part of human beings, thus falling in contradiction with its conception of human being: simple product of history. In the years 2000, some intellectuals have, finally, realized the scam cognitive, inherent in “Marxism” and in the “Marxism – Leninism”, and on the nature of “Slavery”, namely, of actual servitude inherent in the lagers “Communists” of the twentieth century (22).
Marx, affirming that the machines are the fruit of the mercantile society, should have drawn the consequence that: with the overcoming of the mercantile society, automatically, they are overcome, even, the machines; but since this would have revealed the true essence of the society that he propounded, he was careful, saying, absurdly, which machines do not constitute capital and, thus, they are able survive to the overshoot of the “capitalism”. In reality, the mechanization enters, surely, in crisis with the overcoming of the mercantile phase, given the cognitive decline and, then, scientific, that accompanies it. Another absurdity lies in the affirm that they are means of alienation, and, at the same time, beseech for the survival at the “capitalism”. Marx, in its historical analysis, had adopted scientific methodologies of type “positivistic”, while in its ideological formulations had dismissed the “positivism”, and adopted dogmatism typical of feudalism and, then, in total antithesis with the positive science, and able to oppose and to replace herself to it. If you can, then, say that the “Positivists” they put science to ideological base of the mercantile society, Marx proposed the ideology as the science of new feudal society, and he, starting from the analysis of the methodology proposed by the “Socialist utopians” for the attainment of the “Socialism”, and starting by the stadium of knowledge of historical reality, which was acquired in his epoch, came to the conclusion that the “Socialism” (so as assumed by the “Socialists utopians”), was unfeasible. He had deduced, then, that the “Socialism” it could have be used as an idea-force or theory-desire, which can be used in order to accelerate the spontaneous historical process, in which he saw the only possible form of “human progress”. He saw a progressive valence in the reality historical, since he had analyzed the historical process, as reality inclusive of scientific progress-cognitive, underestimating the cyclical component of human history, that he, however, did not deny. This theoretical confusion of the concepts of historical evolution and of the human progress, had determined a hoax, enlarged from the articulation of an ideology consistent with a new feudal phase, of which he he pleaded: “midwife”. He, thus, became the mandator (moral) of the murder of millions of people, victims or executioners of a faith which created a useless forcing, and totally inhuman, of the cyclical evolution of the structural reality statual. The "Marxism', believing, or making us believe, of have achieved the scientific knowledge of the historical reality, has identified in the repetition of a new feudal phase of the structural universe statual, the implementation of the latest form possible, and desirable, of society. Beyond the theoretical absurdity of this concept, how much such presumption and intention, were carriers of deception, the historical events of the last part of the twentieth century: it have fully demonstrated.
With the crisis mortal of “Communism”, subsequent to the revolutions political and social of the 1980 - 1993, you can assume that can relive the ideal “Socialist”, perhaps with another definition, title and, especially, with a different theoretical basis, this time: of authentic scientific value. Exists, currently, a movement tending to unify the science and philosophy. This fact shows that we have reached a stage of knowledge which makes impelling the unification of cosmic sciences (or physical-mathematicals) with the human and social sciences. It is, however, necessary avoid both that science not allowing it to be caged from philosophy (as happened in the, previous, phases feudal), nor that science will inhibit, or limits, th
e philosophy, while extending its method to the latter (23).
Kant had distinct the image, by the “plan”, where the latter is to be understood as “rule”, or general image of an object having dates general characteristics (24), defined as “determinations regardless of the time” (25). These can be the “plans”, characteristic of the universes structural historicals. Kant had stated, that time is, in itself, immobile and permanent, with the change of the phenomena (26). At the tempo, corresponds, in fact, the “substance” or structural reality historic. He stated that the “judgment synthetic”, (contrary to what it is “analytical”) consists in a comparison between two concepts based on a third term, the which last, consists in “a collection, in which they are contained all the our representations, namely the inner sense and its form first, the time” (27). Stated that the “judgement synthetic pure”, for exist, they must refer to the existence and at the possibility and, in this, is based their “objective validity” (28). Thus, he showed to believe superable the structural reality historic, since the latter is only a possibility. Kant had stated that “only in what it is permanent are possible temporal relationships .... namely the permanent is the substrate of the empirical representation of the time the same” (29). In this way, he had demonstrated not a quality of time, in itself, but of the reality structural statual which, in fact, he identified with the “substance”, affirming also the possibility of existence of other “times” (30). The changes are, therefore, regarded as of the “Modus” of the existence of what is “constant and permanent” (31).
