¶8 We were saying above that one of the characters of the present epoch is the exploitation of everything that had been neglected until then as being of only too secondary an importance for men to devote their activity to it, and which was nonetheless to be developed also before the end of this cycle, since these things had their place among the possibilities that were called to manifestation therein; this case is precisely, in particular, that of the experimental sciences that have seen the light of day in the last few centuries.1 There are even certain modern sciences that represent, in the most literal sense, ‘residues’ of ancient sciences, today misunderstood: it is the most inferior part of the latter which, isolating itself and detaching itself from everything else in a period of decadence, has become crudely materialised, and has then served as a point of departure for a quite different development, in a direction conforming to modern tendencies, so as to result in the constitution of sciences that really have nothing more in common with those that preceded them.2 Thus, for example, it is false to say, as is usually done, that astrology and alchemy have become respectively modern astronomy and chemistry, although there is in this opinion a certain part of truth from a simply historical point of view, a part of truth that is exactly that which we have just indicated: if the latter sciences do indeed proceed from the former in a certain sense, it is not by ‘evolution’ or ‘progress’ as is claimed, but on the contrary by degenerescence; and this still calls for a few explanations.3
←
→

Summary

Guénon states that one characteristic of the present epoch is the exploitation of what was previously neglected as too secondary, yet which had to be developed before the end of the cycle, including the experimental sciences that have emerged in recent centuries. He observes that certain modern sciences are literally ‘residues’ of ancient sciences, where the most inferior part isolated itself during a period of decadence, became crudely materialised, and then served as a starting point for a different development in a direction conforming to modern tendencies, resulting in sciences that have nothing in common with their predecessors. Guénon illustrates this with astrology and alchemy, arguing that it is false to say they became modern astronomy and chemistry through evolution or progress; rather, it is a matter of degenerescence, though there is a partial historical truth to the connection, which he says requires further explanation.

General notes

  1. possibilités à manifester — Rendered as ‘possibilities to be manifested’. Guénon recalls the cyclic doctrine of possibilities. Each cosmic cycle (Manvantara, Yuga) contains a certain set of virtualities that must be actualised (manifested) in the course of the cycle. The experimental sciences are potentialities of the Kali Yuga; they were not absent from earlier cycles (where the emphasis was on other developments), but they had to be actualised in our age, even if this actualisation is an ‘inferior’ (material) manifestation. Guénon does not deny that modernity ‘discovers’ certain things; he only maintains that these discoveries are degenerate residues of traditional knowledge. ↩︎
  2. résidus / matérialisation — Rendered as ‘residues / materialisation’. Guénon describes a process of intellectual decadence. A complete traditional science comprises several levels: metaphysical (principle), speculative (symbolic), practical (technical). In a period of decadence, access to the higher levels is lost, and only the lowest, ‘inferior’ part subsists, which then becomes autonomous and ‘materialises’ (loses its spiritual signification to retain only its empirical aspect). This residual part then serves as a point of departure for modern sciences. Thus, astrology (complete science) ‘degenerated’ into astronomy (the science of the material movements of the stars); alchemy into chemistry; the sacred science of numbers into quantitative mathematics, etc. ↩︎
  3. dégénérescence — Rendered as ‘degenerescence’. Guénon radically opposes two interpretations of the same historical fact. The ‘legend of progress’ (modern) sees in astronomy an ‘improvement’ of astrology: one has abandoned superstitions for positive science. Guénon reverses this perspective: astronomy is an impoverishment, a ‘degenerescence’ (loss of metaphysical meaning). The movement is not from the inferior to the superior, but from the superior to the inferior. Astrology contained astronomy (as an inferior level), but the inverse is not true. Modern science is not a progress, but a fall. ‘This still calls for a few explanations’ announces a more detailed discussion of the relation between traditional sciences and their modern residues. ↩︎