¶12 This digression, into which we were led by the examination of the manifestations of individualism in the religious domain, does not seem to us useless, for it shows that the evil, in this respect, is even more serious and more widespread than one might think at first sight; and, on the other hand, it does not take us far from the question we were considering, and to which our last remark even directly attaches itself, for it is still individualism that everywhere introduces the spirit of discussion.1 It is very difficult to make our contemporaries understand that there are things which, by their very nature, cannot be discussed; modern man, instead of seeking to rise to the truth, pretends to bring it down to his own level;2 and this is doubtless why so many, when one speaks to them of ‘traditional sciences’ or even of pure metaphysics, imagine that it is only a matter of ‘profane science’ and ‘philosophy’. In the domain of individual opinions, one can always discuss, because one does not go beyond the rational order, and because, appealing to no superior principle, one easily arrives at finding more or less valid arguments to sustain the ‘for’ and the ‘against’; one can even, in many cases, push discussion indefinitely without arriving at any solution, and this is how almost all modern philosophy is made up only of equivocations and badly posed questions. Far from clarifying questions as is ordinarily supposed, discussion, most often, scarcely does more than displace them, if not further obscure them; and the most habitual result is that each one, in striving to convince his adversary, attaches himself more than ever to his own opinion and encloses himself within it in a manner still more exclusive than before. In all this, at bottom, it is not a matter of arriving at the knowledge of truth, but of being right despite everything,3 or at least of persuading oneself of it, if one cannot persuade others, which one will regret all the more because there is always mixed into it that need for ‘proselytism’4 which is still one of the most characteristic elements of the Western spirit. Sometimes, individualism, in the most ordinary and lowest sense of the word, manifests itself in an even more apparent way: thus, do we not see at every moment people who want to judge a man’s work by what they know of his private life,5 as if there could be any relation whatever between these two things? From the same tendency, joined to the mania for detail,6 derive also, let us note in passing, the interest attached to the least particularities of the existence of ‘great men’, and the illusion of explaining everything they did by a sort of ‘psycho-physiological’ analysis; all this is very significant for anyone who wants to realise what contemporary mentality truly is.
←
→

Summary

Guénon argues that the spirit of discussion, introduced everywhere by individualism, makes it very difficult for modern people to understand that some things cannot be discussed. Modern man tries to bring truth down to his own level instead of rising to it, which is why many mistake traditional sciences and pure metaphysics for profane science and philosophy. In the domain of individual opinions, discussion never reaches a solution because it appeals to no superior principle, and almost all modern philosophy consists only of equivocations and badly posed questions. Discussion usually obscures issues rather than clarifying them, and each person becomes more attached to his own opinion rather than seeking truth. Individualism also appears in judging a man’s work by his private life, in the mania for biographical details of ‘great men’, and in pseudo‑scientific psycho‑physiological explanations—all of which reveal the true nature of contemporary mentality.

General notes

  1. esprit de discussion — Rendered as ‘spirit of discussion’. Guénon opposes the ‘spirit of discussion’ to the ‘spirit of intellection’. Discussion belongs to the domain of opinion (doxa) and discursive reason, where several contradictory theses can be sustained indefinitely for want of a transcendent criterion. Intellection, on the contrary, is a direct and certain grasp of truth by pure intellect, which leaves room neither for doubt nor for controversy. The generalised substitution of discussion for intellection is, in Guénon’s eyes, a characteristic mark of modern individualism, for it presupposes the autonomy of each individual as a sovereign judge, without recognition of any superior authority that could settle debates. ↩︎
  2. prétend la faire descendre à son niveau — Rendered as ‘pretends to bring it down to his own level’. Guénon here formulates the fundamental inversion of the modern attitude with respect to the traditional attitude. In a traditional civilisation, man recognises a transcendent truth that surpasses him, and he seeks to rise towards it by intellectual and spiritual ascesis. Modern man, on the contrary, wishes to bring truth down to his own measure: he judges the divine by the yardstick of his limited understanding, refuses any superior authority, and demands that reality bend to his subjective categories. It is this ‘reduction’ that engenders all the modern deformations of religion, philosophy, and science. ↩︎
  3. avoir raison malgré tout — Rendered as ‘being right despite everything’. Guénon here points to the psychology underlying modern discussion: the goal is not objectivity or the disinterested search for truth, but the will to defeat the other and to bolster one’s own ego. ‘Being right’ becomes a personal satisfaction, a triumph of individual opinion over that of another. This attitude, typical of individualism, radically contradicts the traditional spirit, where one seeks above all to efface oneself before the truth (intellectual humility) and to receive teaching from a qualified authority rather than to impose one’s own point of view. ↩︎
  4. prosélytisme — Rendered as ‘proselytism’. Guénon uses the term ‘proselytism’ in a pejorative sense to designate the modern obsession with converting the other to one’s own opinion, whether in religious, political, or philosophical matters. This need to convince at all costs proceeds from individualism: each person considers his own vision as the only valid one and wants to impose it on others, instead of recognising that truth has no need to be defended by human means and that spiritual competence is a matter of inner qualification, not propaganda. Guénon opposes to this proselytism the discretion and non-proselytism of Eastern traditions. ↩︎
  5. juger l’œuvre d’un homme d’après ce qu’ils savent de sa vie privée — Rendered as ‘judge a man’s work by what they know of his private life’. Guénon here denounces the modern tendency to reduce intellectual or artistic work to the psychological biography of its author. This approach, typical of modern ‘biographical’ or ‘psychoanalytic’ criticism, confuses the order of creation (which can transcend the personal weaknesses of the craftsman) with the order of private life (which falls under individual contingency). From a traditional perspective, the value of a doctrine or a work in no way depends on the morality or daily life of the one who transmits it, but on its conformity to truth. To judge the work by the man is to substitute moral or psychological judgment for properly intellectual judgment. ↩︎
  6. manie du détail — Rendered as ‘mania for detail’. Guénon characterises by this expression the excess of analysis and specialisation proper to modern science and scholarship. The ‘mania for detail’ consists of attaching oneself to the most minute factual particularities, to the detriment of synthesis and the understanding of principles. This tendency, arising from individualism, fragments reality into a multiplicity of independent fragments and loses sight of the transcendent unity of things. It manifests itself as much in historiography (accumulation of insignificant details) as in the natural sciences or literary criticism. ↩︎