MAIN WORLD VIEWS

Our reflection implies: a renewed view of history of philosophy (& science) and the corresponding philosophy of history, including the connected history of religion (& art). All possible world views, with their general rationalities and anthropologies, are taken into consideration.

Such a speculative and general topic can bring an important contribution to a concrete intercultural and “interepochal”[1] dialogue. Here a crucial concept will be “Modernity”, since it involves a key appreciation for cultures rather than a descriptive and neutral concept. “Modernity” can no longer be regarded as exclusive of Denaturalism.

We have to be very cautious, because our claims are ambitious. We are aware of the risk of oversimplification. In fact, this is one of our main claims: All past, present and future world views and religions, all existing or possible general philosophies, belong to one of these three models: Naturalism, Supernaturalism and Denaturalism. Moreover, since philosophy is a basis for sciences, these models also constitute the general framework of all scientific developments. Art has always been expressing and promoting these panoramic views and their multifarious divisions or trends.

Naturalist world views and religions[2] have a circular perception of reality according to the natural model. Basically the term “nature” keeps its etymological meaning of “what is given by birth”[3]. In Naturalism everything is natural, given by nature, given by birth. Therefore Naturalism implies at least some tendency to determinism: everything is determined by birth. This destiny remains within a general circular order abundantly observed in nature (seasons, day and night, tides, deaths and births, periods, etc.).

Naturalists see everything as nature: an anonymous, living and well characterised strength turning around on itself. Even gods belong to nature, since they did not create it out of nothing. Divinity is widespread and hence not well distinguished. In consequence, Naturalist world is heavily sacralised. But this does not imply necessarily a pantheism. Paradoxically, this basically anonymous and impersonal identity of nature (which is not a personal design of a personal being) is combined with recurrent anthropomorphisms. There cannot be real theocentrism or anthropocentrism, since neither divine nor human “persons” are properly distinguished yet, though there are some meritorious attempts. This view is a confusing mixture of anthropomorphism and sacralism, but within the impersonal atmosphere of circular nature. It represents a time of pre-humanism and pre-divinization.

This age-old view has covered two major stages: first, Mythical Naturalism and then, starting with the Greeks, Intellectualist Naturalism. Naturalism in the first stage was conceived in the free fantastic way of myth. Myth was also a rational production and played the crucial role of giving sense to major environmental and social phenomena. Obviously in myth areas or aspects of reality are not well distinguished; in exchange they are represented in a free and attractive use of fantasy.

Progressively the Greeks became most enthusiastic with the general view of a perfectly aesthetic, rational and vitalist world, ruled by a “logos”. Everything was still natural, but this nature or “physis” was believed to be fully arranged according to a divine “logos” (or “nous” or “eidos”), i. e., a divine intelligence. The universe was a “cosmos”, a beautiful order; everything had soul, life. Such a passionately poetic and intellectual approach was the inspiration, the real Muse of Greek religion, philosophy, art, science and general culture or way of living.

Rome gave Greek intellectualism permanency, balance, unity and spread. “Logos” became “lex” and then “imperium”: in philosophical terms, a broad, solid and millennial universalization of a supranational, consistent and systematic rationality.

Christianity, especially by those non-Christians, can be understood as a philosophy or a world view, which is not necessarily revealed, but able to contribute rationally to a deep truth. In this context, a revolutionary Jewish-Christian general contribution is the clear discovery of the supernatural.

A generalised anachronism is confusing the idea of divinity (obviously very present and relevant in Naturalism) and the idea of the supernatural (the radical novelty in Jewish-Christian philosophy). “Divinity” expresses the notion of a supreme being or beings. Such a being or beings can be a part of nature (in Naturalism) or constitute a new realm over nature, as the absolute and unique Creator of nature (in Supernaturalism). There are no definitive scientific grounds to accept the first option, the second one or to deny both. Despising beforehand the second one (the supernatural perspective), as it is customary to do in secularist countries, is simply absurd and an irrational unfairness. It is politically correct to assume that if an Ancient Greek (a Naturalist) or a post-Cartesian thinker (a Denaturalist) state something about god(s), he may be doing philosophy, while if the author speaks as a Christian, he can only do a sort of dogmatic theology. But every ideology and each person’s way of life is based on beliefs, on a particular “creed”: some beliefs are more reasonable and others are less consistent; some are recognised as such beliefs, while others are boldly presented as “scientific” (e.g. “scientific socialism” and “positivism”).

Firstly Jews and then Christians have conceived the supernatural realm, as well as the corresponding human supernatural openness. Human beings could think of themselves as images or reflections of the supernatural Being. The revolutionary starting-point is the idea and the historical experience of a wholly transcendent, absolute and personal supreme Being. He created everything out of nothing, but love and power, and is fully involved in the providential recreation of all people as his children, provided their active and creative collaboration. The Creator of nature could no longer be a part of nature. As children of such a supernatural Being, people could discover their openness and vocation to supernatural life both here and after death.

Human time was liberated from natural circularity, because there is a beginning (creation) and an end (historical and eschatological recreation): a full perception of the specific human historicity was born. That is the framework of a civilisation of humanism as well as of divinization (distinction and mature experience of God in human life).

Supernaturalism is not at all a rejection of nature. Even more so, nature is revaluated as the work of such an Artist and is progressively rediscovered in its astonishing autonomy and complex order. The Creator of nature cannot reject his own work. The Creator and his creative creatures assume to be responsible for nature. Human beings are conscious of being a part of nature (though they cannot be reduced to nature); and the transcendent God, by means of Incarnation (central Christian claim of most radical humanism) becomes a part of his own work. Nature is the human basis in the way to supernaturality, and the way is history, i. e., freedom through time.

The world is entirely the fruit of a will, of a wise and personal will. It is a personalised work having an aim, a project. All men and women can discover to be masters in this volitive and personalised reality: they have the dignity, the will and the intelligence of a person. Such is the origin of the Volitionist perspective (different from the Voluntarist one), united to the best Intellectualist tradition of the Ancient Greeks (different from the Rationalist one). As a whole, this is a Personalist view of reality and human dignity, and an overcoming of anthropomorphism and impersonalism.

Denaturalism is the third world view and is represented by Secularism, which is different from secularisation or secularity. Nevertheless “secularity” and “laicity” are usually mistaken for “Secularism” and “Laicism”. Secularists or Laicists are not simple upholders of the independence of the State from Church interference. Their original impulse is not even a clear delimitation of the autonomy of religion, politics, science and civil ethics. Supernaturalist reason fully agrees with that. Secularism consists not only in a “theophobia” or systematic opposition to any religious philosophy and particularly to Christians (although it is a pseudo-religion as it is clear in authors like Comte or Feuerbach), but also in a chasm regarding the rational or intellectualist Hellenic-Christian tradition. Not only did transcendent faith be a victim of Secularism, but also reason, the Greek theoretical “logos”, which since Enlightenment remained generally reduced to a pragmatic or instrumentalist rationality. The Illuminist “godess Reason” was rather a rhetoric figure with little contents except for drastic self-criticism and self-confinement and for a demanding social efficiency.

Secularism is supposed to be against Supernaturalism and is often regarded as a sort of paganism or neopaganism, but is also opposed to Naturalism and to nature. This is why Secularism is Denaturalism: a theoretical and practical reduction or denial of the importance or even of the reality of nature in many fields. Key theoretical examples are the so-called “naturalist fallacy” of Hume and Kant and the “pure law” theory of Kelsen. As a wide practical example we see everywhere the massive and unprecedented destruction of nature through technology and a way of living produced by secularist values. The usual militant ecologism claims for respect for nature in general, but shares the ideology of annulling the specific dignity of human nature, like the animalist movement voiced by Peter Singer.

The central Christian idea of Incarnation implies a balanced secularisation of God, an actual balanced union between the natural and the supernatural; surprisingly, the most transcendental God, becomes secular, and the supernatural joins the natural, in harmony and without confusion. Between the extremes of Sacralism (among Naturalists) and Secularism (among Denaturalists), Christianity or Supernaturalism represents a balance consisting in a simultaneous deep sense of both secularity and sacrality. That is why we cannot confuse secularisation (of a Christian origin) and Secularism or Laicism (Antichristian and opposed to every religion).

Secularism is visible since the XVIII century and tries to push aside, in different ways and grades, religious communities, especially Christian communities. The term “Laicism” implies rather the political, legal, economical and media dimensions (power dimensions) of this social exclusion, while “Secularism” points out the deepest levels of cultural dimensions: art, philosophy and ethics, celebrations, etc... Secularisms are arbitrary mixtures of Naturalist, Christian and even Antinatural elements. Secularists go back in some aspects to Ancient naturalism or paganism, but in general they have a proud, mechanical and denaturalised view of mankind and reality. They deny a real supernatural perspective, although they may play about with some spiritualistic beliefs, as well as with a naturalist way of life.

In spite of its rhetoric of “modernity” and “scientificity”, Secularism represents a merely instrumental rationality, but is irrational at bottom. Secularism uses science, but is not scientific. As it is clear in areas like Bioethics, it tries to impose an Antihumanism and a loss of all respect for nature. Never before was it necessary to demand such a respect for nature, because never before nature, both general and human nature, was so harshly attacked. Secularism rejects nature as well as the supernatural, and represents therefore a denaturalisation. Its innermost tenet is a self-deification of human beings (those well-off and powerful) and an instrumentalization of big numbers of people.

Due to their Christian origin Secularists have brought, on the one hand, Intellectualism to the extreme of Rationalism, which is today Empirism or merely instrumental Rationalism; and, on the other hand, Volitionism to the extreme of Voluntarism.

We need to introduce all those basic distinctions in our speech about our cultural identity. If we do not know ourselves, we will not be able to understand others or to be understood by others: dialogue would be impossible. However, scholars and professional politicians are still using as a dogma the meaningless term “Western” referred to the Hellenic-Christian (mainly Euro-american) civilization, which synthesizes the best of Naturalism (Intellectualism) and of Supernaturalism (Volitionism). Most of us are not Greek, but we must know that Greece is in the basic source of our civilisation. Similarly many people in Europe, Australia or America are no longer Christians, but we all should be aware of the central relevance of Christian values and ideas in our world views. Even Denaturalism, being a whole alternative to Hellenic-Christian civilization, can only be understood on the basis of Christianity, where it was born. Now the three world views coexist and their dialogue is difficult, but we need it for our living together.

[1]) By “interepochal dialogue” I mean the deep communication or empathy between people of very distant times or historical circumstances. There are epoch-making events creating general situations which are difficult to understand for people of different epochs. History’s goal is to overcome those difficulties, by understanding past times and their different mentalities. But this historical approach can be exclusively seen in an unidirectional way. Instead, as it is very desirable mutual and real communication and understanding between diverse contemporary cultures, we also propose a very desirable dialogue between people of different epochs, an interepochal dialogue. Even though is not possible in a literal sense to have a dialogue with deceased people, we can experience a real closeness to people of the past and an exchange of feelings and ideas. We can feel that we understand what they really meant and that they understood our views by anticipating our own perspectives and ideas. In the same way we experience closeness to very different cultures, even without a physical contact or a concrete feedback.

[2]) A distinction between secular world views or philosophies and religions is done in our culture on the basis of the Jewish-Christian differentiation of what is, on the one hand, a global supernatural revelation turned into human concepts and words, and, on the other hand, mere human thinking about the fundamentals of everything. Since Occam (XIV) this key distinction was becoming increasingly emphasised and since Enlightenment (XVIII), and its implicit or explicit Denaturalism, such a subtle differentiation became a severe separation and opposition. As an example of this typical Naturalist indistinction let us recall what Sue Hamilton writes in “Indian Philosophy” (Oxford, 2001, p. 1): “What Westerners call religion and philosophy are combined in India in peoples attempts to understand the meaning and structure of life -in the broadest sense. This is comparable more with the approach of Socrates than with religion as faith in revelation and philosophy as an academic discipline”. Of course, because Socrates, all Greece’s and all India’s world views (philosophy and religion combined) are Naturalist.

[3]) “Nature” is the Anglicized form of the Latin “natura” which comes from the Latin verb “nascor” (I am born) and more precisely from the its past participle “natus-a-um” (a form derived from a putative supine “natum”).