To Change or Not to Change: Dynamism of Tradition

I begin with Karl Marx.  Marx’s 11^th thesis on Feuerbach is as follows: The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point is to change it.  I find myself conflicted.  On one hand, the danger of constant change and progress is that a revolution is always on the horizon.  Revolution is a great possibility and most of those who follow Marxian principles welcome such a possibility.  On the other hand, I am in favor of human movement of ideas and actions. 

Was Marx misunderstood?  Perhaps not.  Perhaps what we have misunderstood in accepting Marx’s position of class consciousness and class division, is that we have turned an economic principle into a philosophical principle.  But, yet another contradiction emerges: Marx affirms that philosophers should change the world; that philosophers are not mere observers.

The 11^th thesis mentioned above reveals a lot about our society and what role should philosophy in relation to the social order.  I keep going back to this idea of “life of contemplation” and “life of action.”  It is such an interesting, welcoming tension and at the center of what it means to be a human being, rather than committing oneself to a bestial existence.

We ask often which life is the highest in the tradition of great Greek thought.  Relating to that, we ask what is a good life?  However, before we can even begin to ask such questions, I must say something about current manifestations of our culture.

In my previous essays, most of which can be found on this blog, I have written about the significance of an encounter with other human beings and the ensuing knowledge of a face-to-face relation.  Relationality with the Other (whether a human being or an idea) is at the center of my theorizing.  In fact, a face-to-face relation is a pre-requisite for a realization of cosmopolitan and moral ideals.  This encounter, which I describe is sadly lacking.  We have made ourselves into non-material entities without knowing how to relate.  This is not just a social problem.  It is a metaphysical and moral problem.

The encounter reveals the known and the unknown.  It illuminates and it conceals.  To ask what a good life should consist of means that the external world is an inescapable path we must take.  No one is alone.  Even in the most intense throes of solitude, one is not alone.

Philosophy is not done in vacuum, and it is most certainly not a question of mental Olympics.  Disagreements arise, however, not knowing the answer immediately should not be seen as a defect on the part of the philosopher. Because of the inherent dialogic nature of philosophy, I am saying that the encounter is utmost importance.  The otherness of an idea, as well as the otherness of the Other makes its appearance in front of our existence, and asks us to remain wakeful and vigilant to our world. 

I come back to Marx’s statement.  Should philosopher attempt to change the world?  Should philosophical inquiry end in a moral obligation toward the Other?  If a philosopher is changing the world, actively, and he is no longer an observer, then is he ceasing to be a philosopher? 

I do not consider myself to be a philosopher.  At times, I suffer from extreme lack of knowledge, and anything I say seems empty or not well thought out.  I am not highly logical.  My arguments often times do not connect, and I am a jumble of connecting paragraphs, life in disarray, chaos, striving toward some order, some clarity.  At times, I yell out in frustration: I know nothing!  And knowing nothing is the only certain thought I have. 

I do observe.  I observe our culture, the souls and the interiorities of others, pains and pleasures.  But I never objectify.  And if I do, then I quickly correct myself.  My observations are always entangled with movement toward something better than what we already have.  My contemplations are always intertwined with actions for there is no other way to live this life than in absolute truth and difficult freedom.  And why can’t we have a “dynamic Tradition” or a “dynamic orthodoxy?”