Lev Shestov and Democratization of Thought - Essay Example

 Lev Shestov and Democratization of Thought The philosophy of the Russian philosopher Lev Shestov has been instrumental in the creation of theoretical frameworks for the modern world. An insightful analysis of the existence of the human species as well as the individual is intensely explored in the works of Shestov, using the theoretical frameworks and models that were offered by both the existentialist theorists of the nineteenth century as well as the socialist theories that had gained a great amount of momentum in the nineteenth century. Shestov displays a great amount of variety in his work and also borrows from the philosophy of the east in order to challenge the views that are established and belong to great thinkers. Through such a move, Shestov achieves a revolutionary approach that serves to challenge the existing order of things as they are in the society and in the universe. The complexities of such viewpoints are expressed in several works that he wrote. This paper shall seek to analyse an excerpt from the essay, “The Force of Argument”, which seeks to establish a dialogue between himself and the German philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer, whose views Shestov was not in agreement with at all (Shestov 97). Using several points of view from different schools of thought, Shestov is able to provide a refutation of the argument that Schopenhauer presents and is also able to give his own argument a place in a continuity of history by anticipating its own modification by a later theorist, in the same way that he was modifying the theories of Arthur Schopenhauer. Shestov criticizes the assumptions that Schopenhauer takes for granted while formulating his analyses of the condition of man. The distinction between the individual man and the collective is clearly laid out by Schopenhauer in his philosophy. The beginning and the end of man is taken as a given that cannot be refuted is also a basis for any future argument that Schopenhauer makes; which is to say, that it forms the bedrock of his later discourses. Shestov’s challenge is aimed at a challenge of the very basic assumptions that are taken for granted by philosophers like Schopenhauer. The excerpt from “The Force of Argument” makes it clear that the immortality of the soul can be defined in many ways. A man who is dead is considered to be dead as an individual merely because of the demise of the earthly identity of his body. Shestov does not consider this to be a legitimate ending; neither does he think that this constitutes a definite ending to a person’s existence. Casting off the body that we see in this planet and the identity that is assumed on the earth, the soul may move to another planet and assume another identity clothing it with another covering. This may lead one to think that the ending of a person is not an ending but a continuation of the existence of a soul that was always present. The immortality of the soul is taken as a reference point even in this argument that Shestov provides as a refutation of an argument that he feels gives excessive importance to reference points, given by Schopenhauer. The absence of reference points and the immortality of the soul are aspects also of Christianity. However, the soul assuming new bodies in different planets after the death of one body is a definite influence of eastern philosophy, especially Hinduism, which believes in the transmigration of souls from one body to the other following death. It is a Eurocentric view that Schopenhauer takes when he expounds his philosophy; it is this narrow view that is sought to be altered when Shestov offers his refutation of the arguments that are provided by Schopenhauer. The casting off of the body as if it were a skin that could be cast off in the way that snakes shed their skin is something that is present in the philosophies of eastern religions and civilizations. The finality and the argument of the end arise when only one life is present for each man or woman. By incorporating eastern philosophies into the matrix of the arguments that discuss the aspects of the human soul, Shestov makes it clear that one of the important points of his agenda was to democratize the influences of philosophy and include within his theories as many theories as he could possibly do so. Shestov’s argument moves away from the established rhetoric and theories of Christianity and embraces new worldviews that had long been ignored while formulating broad frameworks for human beings to follow as their universal ideals. It is an impulse that is directed by feelings of equality that impel Shestov to argue the way he does in the excerpt that has been provided. It is thus that in the work of Shestov, the number of reference points are increased and also scattered. The range and variety of the works and philosophies that Shestov takes up and incorporates into his argument is mind-boggling and also makes the reader think about the rich history of philosophy that exists in the east, history that has been erased by the colonial powers of the eighteenth and the nineteenth centuries in Europe. The struggle for power has had a great impact upon the kind of philosophy that has come out of specific ages. The subjugation of the east was also marked by a refusal to notice the philosophy of the east. It is thus that the interest that Shestov feels in the eastern philosophies is accompanied by a great revival of interests in the philosophy of the east by certain philosophers of the west who had become dissatisfied with the artificial lives that they had to lead as prisoners of the philosophy of the west and had started looking to other parts of the world for alternative worldviews that would, they thought probably enable them to lead fuller and more enjoyable lives. The concept of the tyrannical god that would give only one chance to prove one’s worth could be replaced by the more mercifully disinterested gods of the Hindu pantheon of gods. Religions like Buddhism and Jainism advocated the use of non-violence during one’s lifetime. These tenets of the eastern religions helped Shestov in formulating his opinions regarding the arguments that are used by him to refute the arguments of Schopenhauer, who largely, when he refers to religion as a social institution, refers to Christianity. In a Christian framework where there is a strict and neat distinction between the man and the flock that contains him. It is this culture that separates the individual and his society that is critiqued to a great extent by the arguments that are set forth by Shestov. Shestov’s arguments are also accompanied by tinges of socialism that seek to unite the man and the community. In such a framework, the man retains his individuality but he is unable to not be a part of his community of men. The tinge of socialism that is present in the works of Shestov is evident when he critiques the vast gulf that exists between members of different classes and the perceived distance between members of either class. He invokes the seemingly absurd dream of the peasant becoming a landlord. Shestov, in principle, seems to agree with the conditions that are laid down by the socialist ideas that were in wide circulation during that time. Whether he did so or not at a practical level is unknown to us; however his views that are expressed in the given excerpt point to his insistence on a socialist society as the desired model of a society. This s different from Schopenhauer’s relatively less political tracts that remarked on the conditions of man that he felt were universal, on the basis of the observation of the European man and his ways and methods of living. The neglect of other modes of being and also of other cultures that existed in other parts of the world is evident in the works of Schopenhauer. This is exactly the aspect of his work that Shestov sets out to criticize and does so with a fair degree of success. It is significant that there is no finality to the arguments that are provided by Shestov by the end of the excerpt. The argument that he provides is open ended and exists at a more interactive level than the works of Schopenhauer. This is greatly owing to the clause that he leaves in his work that allows the existence of other points of view. The compromise that he effects is one that comes through the acceptance of other perspectives and challenges that may prove him wrong. His willingness to accept the incorrectness of any aspect of his work and theory is owing to a recognition of an ongoing historical process of philosophical debates that allow for changes in existing ideas and theories. The ideas of Shestov bring a new dimension to one’s understanding of the theory of Schopenhauer. It does not completely discredit it but adds itself as a modification, a part of a process of change in the field of philosophy. Works Cited Shestov, Lev. “Force of Argument”. Penultimate Words: And other Essays. New York: Books for Libraries Press, 1966. Print. p 97 Read More