There are two main types of human being:
Philosophers and Barbarians. It is not an absolute division, and there are
mutations, but it is nevertheless a fundamental anthropology. For all practical
purposes, it is the nature of things. There are Philosophers and there are
Barbarians: that is the human predicament.
The well-being of human beings is absolutely dependent upon Philosophers. Without Philosophers there would only be Barbarians and human beings would hardly be distinguishable from animals.
On the other hand, Philosophers have no idea how to hunt and kill a wooly mammoth. Philosophers are those endowed with the philosophic nature, which consists in a capacity to reside in the paradoxes and complexities created by reflective thought. Barbarians can’t do this. It just baffles them. It is as though Philosophers have an extra mirror in their inner equipment that Barbarians just don’t have.
But it leaves the Philosopher vulnerable. Contemplation – gazing at the extra mirror - is a dangerous non-activity in a world of action. In the natural state Barbarians often kill Philosophers, catching them while they’re contemplating their navels - and when they’re not contemplating their navels Philosophers spend much of their time cowering from Barbarian and beast alike.
It became necessary, therefore, for human beings to develop a third kind of being: the Gentleman (or the female version, the Lady).
The Gentleman isn’t very philosophical himself, but he understands, however dimly, that without Philosophers he and humanity at large would be dragging their knuckles in the dust. He understands the disadvantages of barbarism. He tolerates Philosophers and their ways because he wants the benefits of philosophy.
Don’t be fooled though. The Philosopher is always a misfit, and the Gentleman is always, or usually, a Barbarian in a suit. The philosophic nature, though essential, is nevertheless disruptive. Life is inherently dangerous for the Philosopher, and the Gentleman will always side with the Barbarians when push comes to shove. The Gentleman is a human contrivance, not a fact of nature. Do not be mistaken on this point.
Given such a predicament, there comes about various grades of accommodation, thus:
The Pure Philosopher
The Pure Philosopher is rare and is often killed by Barbarians. In the best cases, whether killed or not, the Pure Philosopher can overturn barbaric norms and bring about revolutions.
Where not enough Pure Philosophers have survived the culling by Barbarians it is sometimes necessary to invent them.
The Philosopher-Gentleman
The Philosopher who dabbles at being a Gentleman. Philosophers are not naturally Gentlemen. Some Pure Philosophers struggle with personal hygiene. The Philosopher-Gentleman is housetrained.
The Gentleman-Philosopher
The Gentleman who dabbles at being a Philosopher. Gentlemen will acquire smatterings of philosophy sometimes, just to impress their friends. The professional class.
It can be hard to tell a Philosoper Gentleman from a Gentleman Philosopher, but it is an important distinction.
The Gentleman-Barbarian
The Gentleman who just can’t help being a Barbarian. The unconvincing Gentleman. There are an aweful lot of these in the modern world. One of them even became the President of the United States.
The Barbarian-Gentleman
The Barbarian who dabbles at being a Gentleman but draws the line at philosophy. He can adapt to soap but not syllogisms. Also plentiful these days. The most common type of all.
The Pure Barbarian
The savage with no philosophical or gentlemanly inclinations whatsoever. Beware.
There is one other type: the Barbarian-Philosopher. Or the Philosopher-Barbarian. Either way, the vulgarian with a philosophy degree. There are Barbarians who claim a great self-overcoming. They usually despise Gentlemen and propose taking the citadel by force. Nietzche – a Pure Philosopher, but syphillitic – proposed the Barbarian-Philosopher as the only hope for mankind. We now know that this road leads to the Bronze Age Pervert.
Ha! This was great. I'm not sure why but the tone, and comparison between human types, reminded me of Notes from the Underground and Dostoyevsky's comparing the 'man of action' with the 'self-conscious man'.
ReplyDeleteGiven the current disdain for the pure philosopher even among the neo-reactionaries, most of those 'out of phase' today would celebrate walking the road to BAP, bar a few squabbles over details. They yearn for the Barbarian-Philosopher, and barring few exceptions had mighty hopes that Trump was such a man. A new Caesar.
This right obviously sees itself as the ideological opposite of the left - the left being an inversion of all things true, natural, good and beautiful. The 'bugmen' as BAP would call them. But from a traditional 'religious' viewpoint, the right today shares with the left a basic acceptance of Nietzche's Will to Power - a reduction of all things to a Barbarian power dynamic, with some Gentleman pretensions to keep up appearances.
Would you be so kind as to summarize why the road to BAP is a dead-end? Where exactly do the pure philosophers and the classical man Bap and others so adulate part ways?