June 13, 2012
A Philosopher of Small Things
A post for Morgan Meis. This one makes me happy; despite my intellectual proclivities, I have liked Lev Shestov (finding him less, er, high-pitched than Simone Weil) ever since I came across the piece on him (and Weil) by Milosz. David Sugarman in Tablet:
Lev Shestov, né Lev Isaakovich Schwarzmann, was born in 1866 into a prosperous merchant family in Kiev. His father was very knowledgeable about Jewish law and literature but was not religious or observant. Shestov married in 1896 and began his career as something of a man of letters in Russia, writing about Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Chekhov through the prism of Nietzsche’s philosophy. The tumult of the early decades of the 20th century, however, brought tragedy and instability into Shestov’s life: His son was killed serving in the Russian military, and the October Revolution in 1917 forced his family to flee the country. Shestov would spend the next few years in exile, journeying through Crimea and Switzerland, until 1921, when he would finally settle in France. He died in Paris in 1938.
Shestov’s first sustained work of original philosophy, The Apotheosis of Groundlessness (1905), explored what he termed the “groundlessness,” or irrationality and uncertainty, of man’s experience of the world. “We know nothing of the ultimate realities of our existence, nor shall we ever know anything,” he wrote. “Let that be agreed.” The world does not make sense, argues Shestov, and philosophy should not hope to find reason in it: “The business of philosophy is to teach man to live in uncertainty … it is not to reassure people, but to upset them.”
Shestov’s view that philosophy needed to proceed from an axiom of groundlessness, from an understanding of the human condition as essentially absurd and pointless, was argued in opposition to philosophers who emphasized reason—and the supposedly rational nature of human existence—above all else. Rational and logical thinking clearly help humans understand certain aspects of the world, Shestov acknowledged; “to discard logic completely would be extravagant,” he wrote. But Shestov also believed that rational thought was merely one human ability among many. If used in every sphere of life, he believed, reason would corrode man’s ability to connect to a more spiritual realm. Shestov thus advocated that faith and reason, theology and science, needed to be regarded as two distinct entities. “It seems to me,” Shestov wrote, “that it is enough to ask a man, ‘Does God exist?’ immediately to make it impossible for him to give any answer to this question.”
Posted by Robin Varghese at 02:03 AM | Permalink






















Comments
Honored, sir, and thank you kindly. And, yes, Milosz converted me to Shestov as well, though I suppose the conversion 'took' rather more strongly in my case.
morgan
Posted by: morgan meis | Jun 13, 2012 4:35:29 AM
It's interesting that 1905 is when Einstein published his papers introducing Relativity and what would be called Quantum Mechanics. Just a few years earlier, some physicists were saying that all there was left to do was add some more decimal points to the measurements of nature. There wasn't anything new to learn. But GR and QM totally fixed that. And a hundred years later, we have a pretty good grasp on our ignorance.
But one suspects that Shestov was talking about how people go about doing things. We're finally getting some inroads in neurology which might address this. Eyes don't work like cameras. The brain fills in the blanks and provides continuity - but it's really an illusion. The brain itself doesn't work at all like a computer. And so on.
It takes quite a bit of study of philosophy before it's "obvious" that it shares more roots and goals with religeon than science - despite logic and math.
So, we're left with science to answer questions like "Does God exist?". There's some irony.
Posted by: Stephen | Jun 13, 2012 12:45:09 PM
Just for the sake of variation, could we go to the effort of saying why we don't like someone like Weil instead of relying on lazy adjectives like high-pitched, shrill, grating, etc.? The former would actually give the rest of us something to go on other than that she temperamentally isn't your cup of tea, with the additional advantage that it wouldn't (stereotypically) label some woman you don't like as prickly or whatever.
Posted by: scott | Jun 14, 2012 3:46:10 PM
Post a comment