Destiny of Man’s Consciousness in the Age of Rationalism
Tuesday, February 28th, 2006What is destiny of man? Or what is destiny of humanity? There are several answers suggested by philosophers but very few could answer it correctly. Philosophies of infinity declare that man’s destiny should not be less than his absolute freedom. Freedom not in relative term rather freedom from all relative phenomena. These philosophies were not meditated from the point of man as ‘desiring being’ rather from the point of ‘being’ as pure and eternal. Man’s destiny thus is not to satisfy only desires rather to realize some more important truths of life. But philosophies of modern age declare another truth and decided another destination for humanity to achieve and it was ‘desire’. Desire became the sacred philosophical truth which bore the seed of modernity. And the epistemology that narrated the philosophy of desire was rationalism.
This great narrative of desire which was narrated from the reason took many turns, this time is has incarnated in the form of philosophy of post modernism. In the history of western thought philosophy of desire had always been central theme, it was necessary for every philosopher to make it central point of investigation. Reason which is always contradictory became man’s light. This reason which narrates the desire was/is desire itself. It dismantled very thing which did not supported it. Desire is blind, it sees nothing accept desire. Thus all religions and religious philosophies became obscure, irrational, speculations; rationalism which declared hitherto existed everything irrational and speculations was itself speculative from the very beginning . Started with Rene Descartes to till now, the philosophers of rationalism are speculating.
Science too which is based on the rationalist philosophy speculated not less and still is speculating however they declare that their theories are solely based on concrete observations. For example the concept of atom propagated by Vaisheshik philosophy was just speculation but the same thing when invented later by Dalton it became science. Though Dalton could not provided any proof other than a speculative hypothesis that there is a smallest particle in the matter called atom which later declared wrong since there were uncountable particles. Till today, science is speculating about the root of the matter, recently they have speculated that there is a phenomenon in the heart of the matter and thus cosmos, called string; on which everything is based. And this string is floating in time and space, it is both outside and inside, it is a kind of absolute element, from which everything is formed or which forms everything. But a symbolic expression of philosophies of infinity in this regard is useless and just an irrational idea. Einstein in his hypothetical journey once speculated that ‘ presence of mass ‘ curves space’ gravity is a property of space’ but before his death he declared that ‘ space has devoured ether and time; it seems to be on the point of swallowing up also the field and corpuscles, so that it alone remains as the vehicle of reality’. But when a Vedanta philosopher says that space is primary element in the material phenomena it becomes speculation.
The rationalist- empiricist philosophy which is solely based on rational categorization of things, on sign system, on system of unity destroyed the very human endeavor to jump in the truth infinite. System of knowledge which was earlier free wandering in the matter of things became so rational and closed that it lost its inner wisdom. Rationalism’s sole concern was not to take any flight rather to structuralize things, situations, events etc in order to hold power. Its major philosophical concern was to exploit people in the name of progress.
In all this progress of science and society, man was no where only there were concepts in which man’s destiny was captured. Man’s consciousness which he brought with him became a subject to be governed and all this was done with the political concept of ‘common’ of rationalists. Man was bolted in the mechanism of ‘common’ beyond it he has no individuality. Man is man through the ‘common’. The day this concept of ‘common’ came into existence man lost his very freedom to think and meditate. It was Hobbes who formulated it first in his book Leviathan. He was the first rational political philosopher who said that, ‘in the beginning, before the formation of society there was war (and it was for sex and material gain) to get rid of this bloody situation of war in which each was against each one; they came to form a ‘common’; a contract that from now on we are bound by a law of ‘common’. Of which king became head in which absolute sovereignty resided, no one could transcend his absolute sovereign power of law making and enforcing.
Since than, the theory of ‘common’ is in practice, no political theory raised any question on the metaphysics of ‘common’ in which man is destined to suffer. Since Hobbes, all the political theories only upgraded his theory, only refined it and made it more and more complex. Even most acclaimed revolutionary political theory of Marx too could not go beyond Hobbes. Only Heidegger raised question regarding reason’s authenticity he said, “the domination of intellect and logic has to be ‘broken’ in order that we may raise question concerning being and nothingness”. He contemplated on the relationship between man and every man (common). In ‘being and time’ he said, “ the dictatorship of every man might be seen as a conservative, unimaginative narrow minded, and ‘conformist’ way of endorsing a common cultural background, in which one identifies oneself entirely with traditional stereotype role”. He too could not think beyond common though he was against man’s rational positioning in the ‘common’. He says that one should learn to be responsible for oneself within the matrix of the ‘common’. Thus man can not free himself from the commonality of the ‘common’. But the ‘Common’ which was formed as a system of law, in its later phase of evolution transformed in to a mechanism, of which there was a goal.
This goal, which was attributed to the ‘common’, was not of people who formed it rather of those who got hold on production mechanism. Thus the ‘common’ got a goal that in its later development became universal. The goal which was set forth for the ‘common’ was not any ideal or any virtue or any higher goal like liberation or moksha rather to produce. Production of materials and things related to materialism became the highest goal of ‘common’ other than this what ever was existed became irrelevant. There is no pursuit of truth, if there is; it should be productive to the mechanism of production. This mechanism of production which is a movement of consciousness of self-interested rationalists, in which comes industrialists and philosophers, poets, cultural thinkers associated to it; is solely based on metaphysics of desire. Desire is the moving force of the production mechanism, in which desire is produced, things of desire is produced even culture of desire is also produced. In this production of desire man is transformed into a little beast, having lost his individuality, his freedom of consciousness; he dreams nothing other than the things of desire. This is the reason that there is no philosophy of dream, no literature of solitude, and no art which reveals mystery.
Philosophy of desire became the enemy of goodness and godliness. In it every thing is bound by desire it is the soul of all living beings. It is the soul of art and culture which has come to an end with the revolutionary appearance of culture industry. Man’s consciousness which have lost its freedom has become ‘common’ consciousness; the consciousness directed towards the goal to produce the humanity of sex and war. Man’s consciousness in the movement of ‘common’ consciousness neither dances nor sings, if he dances and sings it is because of his business; all sacred values are considered marketable and productive. Man has been dehumanized, objectified, and rationalized in the dynamic of materialist production. In the dynamic of production man is constructed, his subjectivity is defined and re-defined. Through out history man’s subjectivity has always been displaced, located, shifted from one system of production mechanism to another.
Is there any option other than the dynamic of materialist production which has now become universal concept of progress, in which man does not exist? When will man find his natural dwelling? When the set meaning of being in the world will change? Is being in the world is being through dynamic of materialist production? Isn’t Heidegger’s suggestion a relevant one in this regard, that man should find an authentic condition of his existence in order to achieve the ideal of being authentically oneself. The ideal of being authentically oneself is what the ideal of Vedanta philosophy is. And later Vedanta as taught in Bhagvata Gita provides complete authentic condition for man to achieve his goal, which he can achieve without losing anything.
Karma yoga opens highway for humanity to reach its goal but without any accident, without any suffering. Rationalists think that there is no philosophy other than objective rationalism in which desire finds its eminence. Because they do say that all philosophies of infinite turn their face towards asceticism. These thinkers never come across the theory of karma yoga and Indian tantrik philosophies in which desire is not discarded rather is being put in a proper plane of idealist discourse. Desire is considered divine in Gita, the teacher of Gita says, ‘desire is myself’ i.e. of the nature of truth itself; but only that desire which does not violate the law of Rit -the dharma underlying all phenomena.(dharma viruddhokamosmi).
In Buddhist Mahayana tantricism desire and passion is being considered as a path to realization of ultimate truth-Sunyata. In Indian philosophies desire has been regarded most important aspect of humans and it was never repressed as in the case of Christianity. In Christianity it is sin because of which man has fallen from the heaven but in Hindu philosophies it is desire when raised spiritually causes liberation.
But alas! Real question of materialist philosophers is not that that desire is not finding its eminence rather how desire could find a proper plane in their discourse of exploitation. Rationalist discourses on life never provided any solution for man. What they provided throughout the ages is ‘the discourses of exploitations’; this that how man could be enchained. How man’s dignity and freedom of consciousness could be placed in the proper plane of materialist production machinery but not in materialist discourse since they know this that it can take a leap( it too can be dangerous for them). And in this they succeeded but since man can not live with bread only, every time they face problem from man’s inner fluttering for liberation. This is why they go on philosophizing, creating bunch of philosophies.
Capitalist production machinery is spending a lot of money to produce a solution to the basic human problem of freedom but under the mechanism of ‘common’ only. But they don’t understand that reason can not provide any solution to humanity since it is divided and confused. Reason can not see the complete truth in its entirety. This is the reason that throughout its history it has a tendency to return back to theologies for support. Reason has destroyed all possibilities of man’s leaping into unknown realities. It has destroyed the tradition of philosophizing “the questioning of extra ordinary’ as Nietzsche have said. The philosophies of reason have always organized things, made arrangements, fitted man in a situation from where he could not escape. The whole history of rationalism shows that it has never had any holy purpose; it was vicious from the very outset, since than, when it rejected the very tendency of people’s questioning about infinity. It rejected man’s quest for timeless value, a timeless truth not from the rational point of view rather from the sake of rejecting itself since it never fully took the systematic rational approach.
For instance, the approach of scientific experimentation is based on the ‘to see the truth’ in the laboratory through physical means only, if any said truth is not tested in laboratory or through any physical testing mechanism it is bluntly declared false. Truth must be seen in microscope since only than it could be utilized, could be usable, could be made for production. Everything sublime was thus destroyed for the sake of materialist production. Though these philosophies of infinity were always helpful in providing humanity some immortal values as for as humanity as such is concerned. For materialist production mechanism these philosophies had been useful throughout the ages and still it is, but now some postmodernist want to destroy the remaining ties too. Because they want to make humanity utterly material, the materially refined man, a man-machine even they want to open factories where subjectivities would be produced.
In producing mechanical subjectivities culture would play the most important role as it played in history. Marxists have used it in their struggle against capitalism. This question of culture is most important regarding society of control and on this issue Theodore Adorno has fought most remarkable war against capitalist ideologues. Being Marxist he was always in the favor of autonomy of culture since he wanted to save man’s ‘being’: pure and authentic. When he was invited by one American researcher of ‘American Traditions of Applied Social Research’ Mr. Paul Lazaesfeld to help in his research on the relations between culture and policy, he refuted his request remarking that, ‘culture is opposed to administration. Culture would like to be higher and more pure, something untouchable which can not be tailored according to any tactical or technical considerations.
In educated language, this line of thought makes reference to the autonomy of culture. Popular opinion even takes pleasure in associating the concept of personality with it. Culture is viewed as the manifestation of pure humanity without regard for its functional relationships within society.’ Against his approach to culture Researcher Mr. Paul reacted that ‘Adorno should aspire to greater empirical precision, that ‘culture might be precisely that condition that excludes a mentality capable of measuring it’. Thus the capitalist intellectuals want to exclude people (those who can raise any question) from the field of culture in order to control them through the culture itself. New destiny of man is machine and he is becoming. All philosophies which advocate man’s freedom through a system are administrative philosophies and are aspiring towards absolute power therefore are against man. When most sublime aspect of humanity is structured, becomes organizational, territorial, productive, and mechanical than know that man is dead. In this dark age of mechanical production of man’s consciousness there is only light; to raise questions and wage a war against those criminals of humanity, who having lost all hopes in the divine play of life want to play the game of war and sex.
Author is an art critic and writer of three books ‘contemporizing Buddha’, ‘ Hindu Tantra Yoga’ and ‘Concerning The Spiritual In Art-an Indian modern art perspective’. He has been awarded with ‘Lalit kala Academy Scholarship Award′ for art criticism in 2005. Currently working on a book ‘Buddhist tantra yoga’. He lives and works in Delhi India.
