What made Western creativity possible? And why is it waning?

Here is an e-mail I wrote to Fjordman:

I just came upon this essay by you on whether the ancient Greeks could have carried out the Scientific Revolution. You make valuable points. First, you show the limitations of the Greek culture that would have prevented them from creating modern science. (It’s no accident that the ancient Greek culture came to an end so quickly, as, despite its unique greatness, it had inner limitations it could not surmount.) Second, you show how Christianity added understandings to the Western consciousness that made modern science and other achievements possible. In the below passage, you get at the key point, which I would put this way: the belief that truth objectively exists outside us, that truth is real and valuable and meaningful, is what makes the highest human creativity, including scientific discovery, possible. And this understanding of truth comes from Christianity.

And therein lies the paradox at the heart of human culture and consciousness, and of Western culture and consciousness in particular. The belief that truth objectively exists outside us, the belief that makes science possible, could not come from scientific reasoning by itself. It comes from spiritual revelation (e.g., “the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect”), and from noesis (that intuitive aspect of rationality by which we perceive first principles).

You write:

Murray writes: “It was a theology that empowered the individual acting as an individual as no other philosophy or religion had ever done before. The potentially revolutionary message was realized more completely in one part of Christendom, the Catholic West, than in the Orthodox East. The crucial difference was that Roman Catholicism developed a philosophical and artistic humanism typified, and to a great degree engendered, by Thomas Aquinas (1226-1274). Aquinas made the case, eventually adopted by the Church, that human intelligence is a gift from God, and that to apply human intelligence to understanding the world is not an affront to God but is pleasing to him.”

He believes that the 20th century witnessed a decline in artistic accomplishment, as artists and intellectuals rejected religion. It’s also a challenge for democratic societies to keep up standards of excellence while there is an obsession with making everyone equal. Moreover, Murray is pessimistic regarding the current state of Europe. While visiting, he noticed that Europeans take no pride in their scientific and artistic legacy, and attempts to point this out to them will always be met with pessimism and a sense that European civilization is cursed.

Maybe belief in a higher purpose is necessary for the creation of true greatness. Achievements that outlast the lifespan of a single human being are generated out of respect for something greater than the individual. Many Europeans no longer experience themselves as part of a wider community with a past worth preserving and a future worth fighting for, which is arguably why they see no point in reproducing themselves. Europe in the past believed in itself, in its culture, its nations and above all its religion, and produced Michelangelo, Descartes and Newton. Europe now believes in virtually nothing, and produces virtually nothing. Maybe we can regain our talent and strength, but in order to do so we first need to regain our faith, not juts religious faith, but faith in ourselves, our culture and our future. Can we do that?

What you and Murray say about the Europeans’ pessimism and loss of meaning and their loss even of any admiration for their past accomplishments is devastating. What do you think this European pessimism comes from? What made Europeans believe that European civilization is cursed? Is it just liberalism—the belief in an equality and compassion that no earthly society could live up to, and therefore all earthly societies (or at least our own) are cursed?

- end of initial entry -

Chris B. writes:

Now, I’m not a very good writer so I’ll try to make this as brief and as clear as possible.

“the belief that truth objectively exists outside us, that truth is real and valuable and meaningful, is what makes the highest human creativity, including scientific discovery, possible.”

Egalitarianism (socialism more accurately) marks a break from this tradition. For egalitarianism shifts the reference arbiter of reality away from the outside, non human world, and towards only “The People.” For instance, these days it is considered, more than anything else, “good” to be “diverse”: more than wealthy, peaceful, moral and successful. That the government in Norway is planning to dissolve successful companies that do not meet the 40 percent quota of female representation on the boards bares out this fact.

So, ironically, all that primitive, religious and superstitious rubbish that the left says “poisons everything” actually primes the mind for thinking more about reality, or at least the world outside of our selves.

Another irony is that people on the right charge Christianity with fostering socialism and egalitarianism.

Here are some biblical selections to strengthen my idea that Christ and Christianity, in contradistinction to what VFR has called “Liberal Christianity” (“Why can’t you all just love each other?”), wasn’t even remotely socialistic or egalitarian:

Luke 8: 21 “My brethren are these which hear the word of God and do it.” Undemocratic.

John 5: 44 “How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another, and seek not the honour that cometh from God only?” That doesn’t sound at all like someone who would approve of “diversity.”

Sebastian writes:

As an American with family and friends in Europe and frequent trips to Europe, I’d like to suggest a short answer to your monumental question: What do you think this European pessimism comes from?

One word: Nazism.

In the current European interpretation of human history, all roads lead to Auschwitz. From the all white male Greek world, to the Roman Coliseum; from Christianity to objective rationalism; from Mozart to Wagner; from the nation-state to patriotism—it’s all understood as a prelude to Nazism.

The erroneous Marxist narrative that paints Nazism as an extreme form of traditionalism, as a continuation of “bourgeoisie dominance,” is implicitly accepted by the entire continent. The fact that National Socialism was an atheistic and radical departure from the past and antithetical to the core values of Greco-Christian culture is something no influential post-War European thinker can argue. This is what’s behind the enthusiasm to abolish nation-states and the wholesale rejection of Christianity. Ask Fjordman how many European students know about Stalin and the Gulag, and compare this to their knowledge of Nazi atrocities.

After Italy’s latest World Cup victory (which I witnessed from a restaurant in Milan), Romano Prodi, an embodiment of the post-War European consciousness, worried out-loud that Italians were displaying a dangerous form of nationalism with fascistic overtones because too many flags were being waved and no EU flags were seen over Rome. The now-mandatory EU flag is the penance Europeans must pay for the crimes of the Nazi era; the reminder of what happens when nations are free to chose. No European nation trusts itself enough to fly alone; all must now be subjected to the transnational human rights regime. Nazism is equated with “populism,” so democracy must take a back seat and Europe must be made free of its democratic temptations.

I believe that, in the day to day, this dangerously incorrect view of National Socialism underpins the pessimism Fjordman speaks of in all his essays. It is a specter always haunting the European mind. Any mention of race, religion or traditional authority must be Nazism rearing its ugly head, as the EU’s protocols say. Europe is being made weaker and is increasingly unable to recognize, much less fend off, genuine fascism and totalitarianism precisely because it misunderstand its own recent history. Of course, this means that practically the EU can go ahead with its own atheistic and totalitarian leveling project so long as its couched in the language of anti-fascism. Leftist ideology has made an accurate reading of history impossible. Thus, European self-hatred.

Consider what the civil rights movement has done to Americans’ self-understanding and multiply it by 100.

LA replies:

What Sebastian is saying is horrifying. We’re familiar with the Europeans’ notion that they are all somehow tainted by Nazism, but I’ve never seen it portrayed as the central, all-consuming idea in the European mind as Sebastian has done here. If this is truly what the Europeans believe, then it would explain the mystery of their utter loss of confidence in themselves and their more or less conscious desire to destroy their civilization via the EU and Eurabia. But the belief itself is completely insane. So in a sense Sebastian has only put off answering the question: WHY would the European be so insane and suicidal as to subscribe to the insane, suicidal idea that all European civilization is a prelude to Nazism?

LA continues:

Also, in her interview with Reason magazine, Hirsi Ali gave a very different answer to the question about the reason for white guilt. She said it comes from colonialism. She said Americans are only guilty toward blacks (and American Indians), while Europeans are in effect guilty toward the entire Third-World because of colonialism. And the Euros’ sense of guilt is much worse than ours. I had never thought the colonialism would be seen as a bigger sin than slavery.

Sebastian replies:

This may be academic but I think Hirsi Ali is wrong. Ali’s understanding of Western Civ. is reducible to a radicalized version of liberalism. Your critique of her has been accurate. Though she was a member of the Dutch Parliament, I do not believe she is privy to the true European mindset because no one would be willing to have an open conversation with her. Things are said in European homes, including among upper class families, that would never be said in the company of an African immigrant or even an American. The EU openly states that the legacy of colonialism necessitates multiculturalism. But not all European nations were colonial, and I have never met a European who feels any guilt for what happened in the Belgium Congo. But I do think, perhaps just anecdotally, that all white Europeans feel some responsibility or guilt or complicity or something because of Nazism. I still insist that the fear of right-wing politics or the mention of race is fueled by this memory, not colonialism, much less slavery. It is the specter of Nazism that make resistance to the EU’s unpopular polices impossible, for all opposition can be dismissed as reactionary politics based on white supremacy. When the EU finally shuts down Fjordman, it will do so by comparing him to the Nazis, not to British colonials.

I really do believe Western Civ. was almost killed at those camps and only emerged as a shadow of its former self. Or so that has been my experience.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 16, 2007 09:46 AM | Send