¶2 It is quite significant that the very word ‘materialism’ dates only from the 18th century;1 it was invented by the philosopher Berkeley, who used it to designate any theory that admits the real existence of matter;2 it is hardly necessary to say that this is not what is in question here, where this existence is not at issue. A little later, the same word took a more restricted sense, the one it has kept ever since: it characterised a conception according to which nothing exists other than matter and what proceeds from it;3 and it is worth noting the novelty of such a conception, the fact that it is essentially a product of the modern mind, and therefore that it corresponds at least to one part of the tendencies that are proper to it. But it is above all in another acceptation, much broader and yet very clear, that we intend to speak here of ‘materialism’:4 what this word then represents is a whole state of mind, of which the conception we have just defined is only one manifestation among many others, and which is, in itself, independent of any philosophical theory. This state of mind is that which consists in giving, more or less consciously, preponderance to things of the material order and to the preoccupations that relate to them,5 whether these preoccupations still retain a certain speculative appearance or whether they are purely practical; and one cannot seriously contest that this is indeed the mentality of the vast majority of our contemporaries. All ‘profane’ science6 that has developed over the last centuries is only the study of the sensible world, it is enclosed therein exclusively, and its methods are applicable only to this single domain; now these methods are proclaimed ‘scientific’ to the exclusion of all others, which amounts to denying every science that does not relate to material things. Among those who think thus, and even among those who have devoted themselves specially to the sciences in question, there are nevertheless many who would refuse to declare themselves ‘materialist’ and to adhere to the philosophical theory that bears this name; there are even some who willingly make a profession of religious faith whose sincerity is not in doubt7; but their ‘scientific’ attitude does not differ sensibly from that of avowed materialists. It has often been discussed, from the religious point of view, the question whether modern science should be denounced as atheist or as materialist, and, most often, it has been very badly posed; it is quite certain that this science does not expressly profess atheism or materialism, that it confines itself to wilfully ignoring certain things without pronouncing on them by a formal negation as some philosophers do;8 one cannot therefore, as far as it is concerned, speak except of a materialism of fact, of what we would willingly call a practical materialism;9 but the evil is perhaps only the graver for that, because it is deeper and more extensive. A philosophical attitude can be something very superficial, even among ‘professional’ philosophers; moreover, there are minds that would recoil before negation, but which accommodate themselves to a complete indifference;10 and this is what is most formidable, for, to deny a thing, one still has to think of it, however little, whereas here one ends by no longer thinking of it in any way. When one sees an exclusively material science presenting itself as the only possible science, when men are accustomed to admit as an indisputable truth that there can be no valid knowledge outside of it, when all the education that is given to them tends to inculcate in them the superstition of this science, which is properly called ‘scientism’,11 how could these men not be practically materialists, that is to say not have all their preoccupations turned towards matter?
←
→

Summary

Guénon notes that the word ‘materialism’ dates only from the 18th century, when Berkeley coined it to refer to any theory admitting the real existence of matter, though this is not the sense intended here. Later it took a narrower meaning, characterising the view that nothing exists except matter and its products, which is a novel product of the modern mind. He instead uses the term in a much broader sense to denote a state of mind that gives preponderance to material things and concerns, whether speculative or practical, which is the mentality of the vast majority of modern people. All profane science is confined to the study of the sensible world, and its methods are proclaimed the only scientific ones, thereby denying any knowledge not relating to material things. Many who refuse to call themselves materialists or who profess religious faith nevertheless share the same practical attitude, and this practical materialism, based on indifference rather than formal negation, may be even more serious. When an exclusively material science is presented as the only possible knowledge and education inculcates its superstition, people cannot help being practically materialists, with all their preoccupations turned towards matter.

General notes

  1. « matérialisme » (origine du mot) — Rendered as ‘materialism (origin of the word)’. Guénon underlines the relative novelty of the term, which appears for the first time with the Irish philosopher George Berkeley (1685-1753). Berkeley, an idealist, used this word pejoratively to designate any theory affirming the independent reality of matter. ↩︎
  2. Berkeley inventeur du terme — Rendered as ‘Berkeley, inventor of the term’. Berkeley, an Anglican bishop, maintained that the existence of things consists in their perception (esse est percipi). He called ‘materialism’ the opposite doctrine, which he refuted. Guénon notes that this original acceptation (admitting matter as an independent reality) is not what he means here. ↩︎
  3. matérialisme philosophique (sens restreint) — Rendered as ‘philosophical materialism (restricted sense)’. Guénon designates here the properly metaphysical doctrine of materialism: the affirmation that matter is the only substance, that spirit, consciousness and thought are only epiphenomena or products of material organisation. This doctrine appears in the 18th century with La Mettrie (Man a Machine, 1748), Diderot and d’Holbach. ↩︎
  4. matérialisme pratique ou d’état d’esprit (sens large) — Rendered as ‘practical materialism or state of mind (broad sense)’. Guénon introduces his crucial distinction: materialism is not only a philosophical doctrine, but a general state of mind that gives preponderance to material concerns, independently of any theoretical adherence to materialism. It is this broad acceptation that makes it possible to characterise the whole of modern civilisation. ↩︎
  5. prépondérance aux choses de l’ordre matériel — Rendered as ‘preponderance to things of the material order’. Guénon defines materialism as a fundamental orientation of attention and value: everything material (wealth, comfort, technique, production, consumption) becomes the supreme end, while spiritual realities are relegated to the background or ignored. This orientation can be unconscious. ↩︎
  6. science « profane » — Rendered as ‘“profane” science’. Guénon opposes sacred or traditional science (which studies metaphysical principles and spiritual realities) to modern profane science, which limits itself to the study of the sensible and material world. The quotation marks indicate that this science, although it claims to be universal, is in reality only a partial and inferior knowledge. ↩︎
  7. sincérité religieuse des scientifiques modernes — Rendered as ‘religious sincerity of modern scientists’. Guénon recognises that many scientists are sincerely believers. He does not doubt their personal faith, but he shows that their scientific practice (its methods, its presuppositions, its exclusive domain) is materially identical to that of an atheist. Private belief does not affect the materialist nature of their science. ↩︎
  8. ignorer de parti pris plutôt que nier formellement — Rendered as ‘wilfully ignoring rather than formally denying’. Guénon distinguishes two attitudes: explicit negation (proper to materialist philosophers) and methodical ignorance (proper to scientists). Methodical ignorance is more dangerous because it does not provoke refutation; it simply excludes the spiritual from the field of legitimate knowledge. ↩︎
  9. matérialisme pratique ou de fait — Rendered as ‘practical or factual materialism’. Guénon coins this expression to designate a materialism that is not professed as a doctrine but which is embodied in actions, methods and orientations of life. ‘Practical materialism’ is more insidious than theoretical materialism because it does not need to be formulated in order to act. ↩︎
  10. indifférence, attitude plus redoutable que la négation — Rendered as ‘indifference, an attitude more formidable than negation’. Guénon states a profound psychological principle: to deny still requires one to think about what one denies, if only to reject it. Indifference, on the contrary, is a total forgetting that no longer even maintains the memory of what has been lost. Religious and spiritual indifference is the ultimate stage of practical materialism. ↩︎
  11. « scientisme » — Rendered as ‘scientism’. Guénon uses this term to designate the belief (irrational, therefore superstitious) that empirical science is the only valid form of knowledge and can resolve all human problems. Scientism is the religion of the modern era, a superstition disguised as rationality. ↩︎

Guénon’s footnotes

  • and therefore that it corresponds at least to one part of the tendencies that are proper to it — There existed, prior to the 18th century, “mechanist” theories from Greek atomism to Cartesian physics; but one must not confuse “mechanism” and “materialism”, despite certain affinities that may have created a kind of de facto solidarity between them since the appearance of “materialism” proper.