It seems that the days of the uneasy truce between religion and philosophy may be coming to an end - and despite those who attempt to release the tension with their faith in a negative theology, like Derrida and those others, who have become pious again worshipping around the ass of infinity.
Indeed, such a truce seems to have been constructed on the model of Kant’s admission, in the preface to his Religion within the Limits of Reason Alone, in which he stated that he was merely speaking as a private individual. Such a confession of course arose due to the crackdown in the previous year on his writings.
However, it would be wrong to think that such a separation of spheres of jurisdiction - the Kantian ’solution’ - created the possibility of an intellectual life characterised by harmony. In fact, the Church still thinks it can ban books, and scientists continue to write pointless books about the ‘God Delusion’.
But, where does philosophy fit into all of this, assuming, with the increasing irrelevancy of Analytic philosophy, that it is not merely the handmaiden of science (or religion), but seeks to articulate a self-interpretation of existence which is perhaps contrary and even critical of the established dogmas of science and religion?
But, are philosophers allowed to criticise religion, which is after all based on ‘faith’? Moreover, if philosophers must step back and keep to their own domain, what of theologians, priests and popes? Should they not equally keep to their own domain of relevance and jurisdiction?
It does seem that this uneasy separation was in place for quite some time, as the work of Nietzsche, for instance, was never banned by the Church. Indeed, it could be suggested that he had gone so far beyond the pale that it was not even worth banning his work. Instead, it would be consigned to silence.
But, that silence has been broken, and we should ask why Pope Benedict XVI made such a pointed criticism of Nietzsche in his first encyclical, ‘Deus est Caritas’ or ‘God is Love’.
This criticism has more recently been repeated by Capuchin Fr. Raniero Cantalamessa, the official preacher for the Vatican. Disregarding the specifics of the criticism for now, the question is ‘why now?’ Why does the pope or his preacher think that anyone will take their opinion seriously about Nietzsche? Moreover, by which authority do they claim to enter into the discussion of philosophy, and without subjecting their own presuppositions to the scrutiny that is appropriate to philosophy (as opposed to theology)?
The specific criticisms are illuminating however. The pope criticises Nietzsche’s charge that christianity poisoned eros and created vice. He moreover criticises Nietzsche’s disdain for pity in favour of christian ‘compassion and love’. He also criticises ‘modern society’ and not christianity for the poisoning of eros. The preacher for the papacy, moreover, criticises Nietzsche’s doctrine of the ‘will to power’, connecting it with the lust for power that typifies our world.
Of course, these criticisms of Nietzsche can be easily met on interpretive grounds alone, but can also be enhanced by considering the historicity of Christianity and its alleged ‘compassion and love’. Perhaps, we should call in Giordano Bruno to testify at this point. At the same time, we should not merely dismiss the pope and his preacher, but should consider their charges in turn and respond to each.
First, that Christianity poisoned eros and created vice. Nietzsche is not saying, as the pope suggests, that Christianity destroyed eros, but perverted sexual love with its nihilistic orientation to an otherworldly hope. We do not have to look very far to see that the suppression of sexuality has led to dishonesty and vice, simply due to the Christan assertion of its own truth and the demonisation of sensuality in the alleged name of dignity. Indeed, as Bataille reminds us in Theory of Religion, the connection between eros and the sacred is longstanding and is perhaps all we have left after the ‘death of God’. And, even if the current writer is not advocating their return (and neither was Nietzsche), to criticise temple ‘prostitutes’ as if they were ‘prostitutes’ in the modern, post-Christian sense, is a breathtaking case of misinformation. (Bataille has a chapter on the distinction between ‘temple prostitutes’ and prostitutes in the modern sense in his illuminating work, Eroticism).
It would be well to reflect on Nietzsche’s Genealogy of Morals here in connection with The Birth of Tragedy in light of his disclosure of the suppression of the Dionysian in late tragedy, a suppression he claims was the pre-figuration of Christianity, or ‘Platonism for the people’. We should also look at the Anti-Christ and Nietzsche’s other relevant texts in order to transcend the sensationalist and one sided assertions of the pope (who quotes one aphorism and moreover gives a spurious interpretation of it). And, we should consider The Gay Science and Thus Spoke Zarathustra in order to more seriously reflect upon the meaning of the ‘death of God’.
Secondly, it is always easy to attack Nietzsche’s criticism of pity through the facile claim that the notion of Christian charity or alms is what it says it is. Indeed, this is a serious problem for the pope’s analysis since he simply assumes, in the most un-philosophical manner, that his ideology is correct. Indeed, Nietzsche claims that ‘christian charity’ is problematic for it not only abides egoism at its core, but it also establishes negative relationships of dependency characterised by shame and ressentiment. The pope simply does not address Nietzsche’s criticisms in an adequate manner. And, if he is not going to adhere to the criteria of philosophical discourse, he should think twice about stepping into the agon.
Moreover, it is not adequate to simply blame ‘modern society’ for the poisoning of eros, as this process of perversion pre-dates the modern period. It really has nothing to do with ’sex’.
With respect to the criticism by the papal preacher of Nietzsche’s conception of a will-to-power, we could again simply respond on an interpretive level. But, what does he in fact say - that Nietzsche’s notion is connected with war, corporate domination, the Holocaust, etc. demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of Nietzsche. The preacher disregards Nietzsche’s attacks on the state, on capitalism, on religious persecution, on science, on anti-semitism, etc., and his call for his readers to find their own way - all of this is missing in his account. (Whose pope after all was involved in the Holocaust? And, whose Church did Hilter use as a model for his Nazi party?)
Of course, we could just ignore these interventions, dismissing it as the opinions of a novice. Yet, due to the fact that these men hold positions of extreme power in the intellectual domain, their reckless forays into the domain of philosophy should be challenged, and the challenge should include the necessity that they subject their own ideology to philosophical examination.
Until that occurs, we can only say: Deus est etiam mortuus, God is still dead...
http://jamesaire.wordpress.com