¶13 But let us return for a moment to the introduction of habits of discussion into domains where they have no place, and let us say this clearly: the ‘apologetic’ attitude1 is, in itself, an extremely weak attitude, because it is purely ‘defensive’, in the legal sense of the word; it is not for nothing that it is designated by a term derived from ‘apology’, whose proper meaning is a lawyer’s pleading, and which, in a language such as English, has even come to commonly take the sense of ‘excuse’; the preponderant importance given to ‘apologetics’ is therefore the incontestable mark of a retreat of the religious spirit. This weakness is accentuated still more when ‘apologetics’ degenerates, as we were saying earlier, into discussions that are wholly ‘profane’ in method and point of view, where religion is placed on the same level as the most contingent and most hypothetical philosophical, scientific or pseudo-scientific theories, and where, in order to appear ‘conciliatory’, one goes so far as to admit to a certain extent conceptions that were invented only to ruin all religion; those who act thus provide the proof themselves that they are perfectly unconscious of the true character of the doctrine of which they believe themselves to be the more or less authorised representatives. Those who are qualified to speak in the name of a traditional doctrine do not have to discuss with ‘profane’ people nor to engage in ‘polemics’; they have only to expound the doctrine as it is, for those who can understand it, and, at the same time, to denounce error wherever it is found, to make it appear as such by projecting upon it the light of true knowledge; their role is not to enter into a struggle and thereby compromise the doctrine, but to pass the judgment that they have the right to pass if they indeed possess the principles that must infallibly inspire them. The domain of struggle is that of action, that is to say, the individual and temporal domain; the ‘unmoved mover’2 produces and directs motion without being drawn into it; knowledge illuminates action without participating in its vicissitudes; the spiritual guides the temporal without mixing with it; and thus each thing remains in its order, in the rank that belongs to it in the universal hierarchy; but, in the modern world, where can one still find the notion of a true hierarchy?3 Nothing and no one is any longer in the place where it should normally be; men no longer recognise any effective authority in the spiritual order, any legitimate power in the temporal order; ‘profane’ people presume to discuss sacred things, to contest their character and even their very existence; it is the inferior that judges the superior, ignorance that imposes limits upon wisdom, error that takes precedence over truth, the human that substitutes itself for the divine, the earth that prevails over heaven, the individual who makes himself the measure of all things and pretends to dictate to the universe laws drawn entirely from his own relative and fallible reason. ‘Woe unto you, blind guides’,4 it is said in the Gospel; today, indeed, one sees everywhere only the blind leading other blind, and who, if they are not stopped in time, will lead them fatally into the abyss where they will perish with them.
←
⤒

Summary

Guénon criticises the ‘apologetic’ attitude as extremely weak because it is purely defensive, marking a retreat of the religious spirit. This weakness worsens when apologetics degenerates into profane discussions where religion is placed on the same level as contingent theories, and where one admits conceptions invented to ruin religion—proving that such defenders are unconscious of their own doctrine’s true character. Those qualified to speak for a traditional doctrine should not discuss or engage in polemics, but simply expound the doctrine, denounce error, and pass judgment using true knowledge, without compromising the doctrine in struggle. The domain of struggle is that of individual and temporal action; the unmoved mover directs motion without being drawn into it, knowledge illuminates action without participating in it, and the spiritual guides the temporal without mixing with it—each thing remains in its proper hierarchical order. In the modern world, however, no true hierarchy remains: the inferior judges the superior, ignorance limits wisdom, error prevails over truth, and the individual makes himself the measure of all things. ‘Woe unto you, blind guides’: today the blind lead the blind toward the abyss.

General notes

  1. apologétique — Rendered as ‘apologetic attitude’. Apologetics designates the theological discipline that aims to defend the Christian faith against objections from profane reason or other religions. Guénon radically criticises its approach: instead of relying on the proper authority of doctrine and on direct intellection, apologetics accepts to place itself on the adversary’s ground (discursive reason, historical criticism, etc.), thereby implicitly recognising the legitimacy of that ground. For Guénon, a true traditional doctrine does not have to ‘justify’ itself before profane instances; it imposes itself by its intrinsic coherence upon those who are capable of understanding it, without having to discuss with those who are incapable of it for lack of spiritual qualification. ↩︎
  2. moteur immobile — Rendered as ‘unmoved mover’. Guénon borrows this expression from Aristotle (ὃ οὐ κινούμενον κινεῖ, the ‘pure act’ of Book Λ of the Metaphysics), but gives it a general metaphysical and hierarchical import. The ‘unmoved mover’ represents the first Principle, purely spiritual and transcendent, which imparts motion to all reality without itself participating in that motion. In the domain of knowledge, this means that pure intellect (direct metaphysical intuition) moves reason and action without being affected by their vicissitudes. Guénon applies this principle to the relation between the spiritual and the temporal: spiritual authority directs temporal power without mingling in its struggles, remaining in its own order. ↩︎
  3. véritable hiérarchie — Rendered as ‘true hierarchy’. Guénon means by ‘hierarchy’ not a mere social or administrative ladder, but the ontological and cosmic order founded on the subordination of the lower degrees of reality to the higher degrees, up to the supreme Principle. A ‘true hierarchy’ implies that each thing occupies the place that belongs to it according to its nature, and that the inferior recognises the superiority of that which transcends it. The modern world, by abolishing all recognition of transcendence (through individualism, democratic levelling, the rejection of spiritual authority), has destroyed this hierarchy, producing a confusion where the inferior usurps the place of the superior. ↩︎
  4. Malheur à vous, guides aveugles — Rendered as ‘Woe unto you, blind guides’. Guénon here cites several passages from the Synoptic Gospels where Jesus denounces the hypocrisy and spiritual blindness of the Pharisees and scribes. The closest formulations are found in Matthew 23:16 (‘Woe unto you, blind guides’), Matthew 23:24 (‘blind guides’), and Matthew 15:14 (‘Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch’). Guénon applies this Gospel saying to the modern era, where the ‘guides’ (intellectuals, religious leaders, philosophers, scientists) have become blind for lack of transcendent principles and lead their disciples into the same fall. ↩︎