Philosophy and nationalism
| raw | skeny ◆ přednáška, anglicky, vznik: 9. 5. 1992 ◆ poznámka: Přednáška na symposiu „Universality and Particularism“ v Lovani 9. 5. 1992
- in: Tijdschrift voor Filosofie 55, 1993, č. 1, str. 1–12
Strojový, zatím neredigovaný přepis
====================
Scan266.jpg
====================
Národ - 41 [CE] A:\LEUVEN-2.TXT Philosophy and Nationalism Nationalisms represent an important class of modern ideologies or of modern mythologisms. I am using the word "mythologism" to make it possible to discern two different ways in which relations between MYTHOS and LOGOS could arise and establish themselves. Mythologies arose on the basis of some myths which started to strengthen their position and capacities within a changing world of myth. We may speak about myth as an originally integrated space or realm of a meaningful world where conscious life was possible. After a considerable time, none of the various myths was able to safeguard the necessary minimal unity or integrity of this mythical world, so that step by step more and more elements or components of human life, and especially of the world of things, became in a way conscious but insufficiently integrated into the world of myth. In this way people's thinking, their lives and their world were split in two. The unbearable schizophrenia this situation developed had to be overcome in an acceptable way. Such a way was to give both the realm of myth as well as the emancipated or simply different realm of profane activities, events and things a new common basis, i.e. LOGOS or more precisely the so called conceptual way of thinking. This was possible only through an ever further reaching "logicization", even of mythical meanings and structures. Myths made more and more logical became mythologies and, through further interventions of rationality, became philosophy and science. Certain relics of mythical ways of thinking and even of some mythical or even magical relations or structures were preserved and may be discovered in modern societies and even in their intellectual life today. Ladislav Hejdanek But we should observe as a quite different thing any remythologization or even remythization of already logicized phenomena. As a consequence of the long-term development of the European culture and mind, especially because of the process of secularization on the one hand, and because of the failure of the traditional metaphysics on the other, a new phenomenon arose, namely "the European nihilism" (as Nietzsche called it). The otherwise completely correct view that the so called "highest values" are "no things" has been understood in a wrong way, that they are, so to say, "nothing". And than, the most influential shock has come when - as a regrettable consequence of industrialization masses of people, especially, but not only, those from the country, have become, in many ways, deracinated (déraciné) and have lost not only their environment, but even their actual identity. Only a small part of them could be brought back again to religion; the vast majority was already resistent to any religious apology for the state of their world. On the other hand, they became very sensible towards new ways of possible identification with other sorts of social communities. In this way, they were prepared for indoctrination through various new concepts, projects and ideologies; for instance, by socialist movements and trade unions, through high ideas of a new patriotism or, last but not least, through identifying themselves with their "nation", of course felt and understood in a new way, opened by some philosophers (like Herder and others) who reinterpreted this relatively ancient word. So we have to throw more light on this fundamental change in which new phenomena arose which I call mythologisms (or better logonythisms). In history, we can discern three main concepts of a "nation". Apart from the very beginning in ancient times where nation simply meant "native people", we can distinguish two essentially different meanings of the word "nation". According to the first, originally "western" meaning, the nation is a mass of people governed by a governor or a government and integrated into one state, of course mostly by use of power and violence. Already, in relatively old period of the Roman Empire, it was possible for an Egyptian or a Jew, etc. to be born in a Roman-Egyptian, a Roman-Germanic or a Roman-Jewish family and so to be Roman by birth (as, e.g., was the apostle Paul), or to be rich enough to become a Roman citizen by purchasing this privilege, of course at a great expense, for oneself and for one's family members. In this way it was possible for a Greek, a Jew or a German to I * Paper of a conference at the Symposium on Universality and Particularism, organized on May 9, 1992 by the Wijsgerig Gezelschap te Leuven (Leuven Philosophical Association). Professor L. HEJDANEK (1927) obtained his doctorate with a dissertation on the concept of truth and its ontological presuppositions. From 1968 till 1970 he held a position at the Philosophical Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences and was re-appointed in 1989. Before, and during the intervening years, he was excluded from an academic career. For a while he became the spokesman of Charta 77. In '70's and '80's, Hejdánek was the key figure in the organization that staged the Prague living room lectures in philosophy. 41
Scan266.jpg
====================
Národ - 41 [CE] A:\LEUVEN-2.TXT Philosophy and Nationalism Nationalisms represent an important class of modern ideologies or of modern mythologisms. I am using the word "mythologism" to make it possible to discern two different ways in which relations between MYTHOS and LOGOS could arise and establish themselves. Mythologies arose on the basis of some myths which started to strengthen their position and capacities within a changing world of myth. We may speak about myth as an originally integrated space or realm of a meaningful world where conscious life was possible. After a considerable time, none of the various myths was able to safeguard the necessary minimal unity or integrity of this mythical world, so that step by step more and more elements or components of human life, and especially of the world of things, became in a way conscious but insufficiently integrated into the world of myth. In this way people's thinking, their lives and their world were split in two. The unbearable schizophrenia this situation developed had to be overcome in an acceptable way. Such a way was to give both the realm of myth as well as the emancipated or simply different realm of profane activities, events and things a new common basis, i.e. LOGOS or more precisely the so called conceptual way of thinking. This was possible only through an ever further reaching "logicization", even of mythical meanings and structures. Myths made more and more logical became mythologies and, through further interventions of rationality, became philosophy and science. Certain relics of mythical ways of thinking and even of some mythical or even magical relations or structures were preserved and may be discovered in modern societies and even in their intellectual life today. Ladislav Hejdanek But we should observe as a quite different thing any remythologization or even remythization of already logicized phenomena. As a consequence of the long-term development of the European culture and mind, especially because of the process of secularization on the one hand, and because of the failure of the traditional metaphysics on the other, a new phenomenon arose, namely "the European nihilism" (as Nietzsche called it). The otherwise completely correct view that the so called "highest values" are "no things" has been understood in a wrong way, that they are, so to say, "nothing". And than, the most influential shock has come when - as a regrettable consequence of industrialization masses of people, especially, but not only, those from the country, have become, in many ways, deracinated (déraciné) and have lost not only their environment, but even their actual identity. Only a small part of them could be brought back again to religion; the vast majority was already resistent to any religious apology for the state of their world. On the other hand, they became very sensible towards new ways of possible identification with other sorts of social communities. In this way, they were prepared for indoctrination through various new concepts, projects and ideologies; for instance, by socialist movements and trade unions, through high ideas of a new patriotism or, last but not least, through identifying themselves with their "nation", of course felt and understood in a new way, opened by some philosophers (like Herder and others) who reinterpreted this relatively ancient word. So we have to throw more light on this fundamental change in which new phenomena arose which I call mythologisms (or better logonythisms). In history, we can discern three main concepts of a "nation". Apart from the very beginning in ancient times where nation simply meant "native people", we can distinguish two essentially different meanings of the word "nation". According to the first, originally "western" meaning, the nation is a mass of people governed by a governor or a government and integrated into one state, of course mostly by use of power and violence. Already, in relatively old period of the Roman Empire, it was possible for an Egyptian or a Jew, etc. to be born in a Roman-Egyptian, a Roman-Germanic or a Roman-Jewish family and so to be Roman by birth (as, e.g., was the apostle Paul), or to be rich enough to become a Roman citizen by purchasing this privilege, of course at a great expense, for oneself and for one's family members. In this way it was possible for a Greek, a Jew or a German to I * Paper of a conference at the Symposium on Universality and Particularism, organized on May 9, 1992 by the Wijsgerig Gezelschap te Leuven (Leuven Philosophical Association). Professor L. HEJDANEK (1927) obtained his doctorate with a dissertation on the concept of truth and its ontological presuppositions. From 1968 till 1970 he held a position at the Philosophical Institute of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences and was re-appointed in 1989. Before, and during the intervening years, he was excluded from an academic career. For a while he became the spokesman of Charta 77. In '70's and '80's, Hejdánek was the key figure in the organization that staged the Prague living room lectures in philosophy. 41
====================
Scan267.jpg
====================
Národ - 42 be or to become a Roman. We can see a partly similar situation in the United States of our times. Not only immigrant Englishmen, but also German, Irish, Italian, Russian, Chinese people etc., can gain and have the same nationality, namely American. To be an American represented and even actually represents much more than to be an inhabitant or even a citizen of the state Virginia or Louisiana, or more than being of a German, Irish or English etc., origin. In this sense we meet what we can call a political conception of a nation and of nationality, as well as a phenomenon of a so called political nation. You will most probably know Friedrich Schiller's play Wilhelm Tell where the birth of the Swiss nation is presented in a dramatic form. There we hear at a certain moment the declaration: "We wish to be one single people (or nation) of brothers" ("Wir wollen sein ein einig Volk von Brüdern"). Of course, the Swiss nation is a special case, because it arouse consciously as an "Eidgenossenschaft", based on an idea, on a common project accepted by free individuals and small groups of people of different languages and different origin. Most of the big western national states were founded from above and by the use of power and violence, even if they were also inspired by the same idea of a unity of tribally different people. Herder especially, who is largely co-responsible for the spread of the tribal or also organic idea of nation (sometimes also called a "cultural* one), criticized the western type of national states because of their unnatural origin and because of their being founded on violence. On the other hand, there is another way of conceiving nation, namely a nationalist one. We are only able to speak precisely about nationalism from the second half of the eighteenth century onwards, even if its roots are much older and its period of incubation much longer. A certain difficulty arises out of the fact that there are profoundly different forms of nationalism and even more ways in which they are intepreted and evaluated in various contexts and from differing points of view. We can simplify our problem by limiting ourselves to only some of its aspects and by at least partly excluding some others which we are not interested in. So we shall not discuss, e.g. the details of the rise and history of the modern idea of a nation, nor various trends and effects of nationalist movements in politics, even if it could be very interesting to ask, e.g., why sometimes and under certain conditions nationalism is narrowly connected with liberation movements and a liberal political orientation, wheras in other cases it reveals extremely conservative and even reactionary qualities. It can be left- as well as right-oriented, it can be expressly democratic, but also antidemocratic. It can mean will to more freedom, but it can also suppress minorities as well as struggle against the others" and especially against foreigners as against enemies. So it could seem to be possible to understand a nation as a naturally given super-organism, or also as a collective personality (Johannet, "personnalité collective"), the behaviour of which depends on different occasions, on necessities, on historical development, on traditions and traditional forms of acting and reacting, as well as on feelings and reflected feelings of the so called national identity. But it could also be possible to understand it in a Hegelian way as a spiritual principle or as a manifestation of the "objective spirit", as he calls it, "objektiver Geist" (but we find it also in Renan, Treitschke and others). Though there are such profound differences which were produced by different ways of social and political development under different conditions, the original basis of the nationalist ideologies is a certain quasi- or pseudo-naturalist approach to nation. "Natio" originally means "birth", so nationality is something already given to every man in the moment of his being born. In this sense, everybody obtains his own nationality by birth, FYSEI. Nobody among the scientists accepts this hypothesis, or better, this ideological construction, but it still lives on - illegitimately - in modern societies. Social psychology can make us understand how individual men and families tend to form smaller. or bigger groups, tribes and societies of tribes, not only because of material and social needs. rationally conceived but almost instinctively, and that means: with a necessary reverse side of cautiousness, suspicion or even hate in regard to "the others". But it does not make clear why such very large groups as nations should represent an integrated whole of all smaller groups and not only a mutually interacting aggregation of them. There is no real continuity between family, small groups of families, tribe and coexisting and collaborating groups of tribes on one side, and a so called "nation", not based on political grounds, on the other. Such a "nation" is only supposed and "felt", it is nothing really or even naturally given, but primarily a hypostatical, mythologistical or ideological construction. No nation in this nationalistic sense grew up naturally (FYSEI), no nation is founded on primary feelings; all feelings of the so called national identity are only emotive reactions to such ideological constructions, pressed on the real variety within a society. They are what we can call "abstract feelings". We could actually adopt the meaning of Huxley and Hadddon (1940) that a nation is a "society united by a common error as to its origins and a common 42
Scan267.jpg
====================
Národ - 42 be or to become a Roman. We can see a partly similar situation in the United States of our times. Not only immigrant Englishmen, but also German, Irish, Italian, Russian, Chinese people etc., can gain and have the same nationality, namely American. To be an American represented and even actually represents much more than to be an inhabitant or even a citizen of the state Virginia or Louisiana, or more than being of a German, Irish or English etc., origin. In this sense we meet what we can call a political conception of a nation and of nationality, as well as a phenomenon of a so called political nation. You will most probably know Friedrich Schiller's play Wilhelm Tell where the birth of the Swiss nation is presented in a dramatic form. There we hear at a certain moment the declaration: "We wish to be one single people (or nation) of brothers" ("Wir wollen sein ein einig Volk von Brüdern"). Of course, the Swiss nation is a special case, because it arouse consciously as an "Eidgenossenschaft", based on an idea, on a common project accepted by free individuals and small groups of people of different languages and different origin. Most of the big western national states were founded from above and by the use of power and violence, even if they were also inspired by the same idea of a unity of tribally different people. Herder especially, who is largely co-responsible for the spread of the tribal or also organic idea of nation (sometimes also called a "cultural* one), criticized the western type of national states because of their unnatural origin and because of their being founded on violence. On the other hand, there is another way of conceiving nation, namely a nationalist one. We are only able to speak precisely about nationalism from the second half of the eighteenth century onwards, even if its roots are much older and its period of incubation much longer. A certain difficulty arises out of the fact that there are profoundly different forms of nationalism and even more ways in which they are intepreted and evaluated in various contexts and from differing points of view. We can simplify our problem by limiting ourselves to only some of its aspects and by at least partly excluding some others which we are not interested in. So we shall not discuss, e.g. the details of the rise and history of the modern idea of a nation, nor various trends and effects of nationalist movements in politics, even if it could be very interesting to ask, e.g., why sometimes and under certain conditions nationalism is narrowly connected with liberation movements and a liberal political orientation, wheras in other cases it reveals extremely conservative and even reactionary qualities. It can be left- as well as right-oriented, it can be expressly democratic, but also antidemocratic. It can mean will to more freedom, but it can also suppress minorities as well as struggle against the others" and especially against foreigners as against enemies. So it could seem to be possible to understand a nation as a naturally given super-organism, or also as a collective personality (Johannet, "personnalité collective"), the behaviour of which depends on different occasions, on necessities, on historical development, on traditions and traditional forms of acting and reacting, as well as on feelings and reflected feelings of the so called national identity. But it could also be possible to understand it in a Hegelian way as a spiritual principle or as a manifestation of the "objective spirit", as he calls it, "objektiver Geist" (but we find it also in Renan, Treitschke and others). Though there are such profound differences which were produced by different ways of social and political development under different conditions, the original basis of the nationalist ideologies is a certain quasi- or pseudo-naturalist approach to nation. "Natio" originally means "birth", so nationality is something already given to every man in the moment of his being born. In this sense, everybody obtains his own nationality by birth, FYSEI. Nobody among the scientists accepts this hypothesis, or better, this ideological construction, but it still lives on - illegitimately - in modern societies. Social psychology can make us understand how individual men and families tend to form smaller. or bigger groups, tribes and societies of tribes, not only because of material and social needs. rationally conceived but almost instinctively, and that means: with a necessary reverse side of cautiousness, suspicion or even hate in regard to "the others". But it does not make clear why such very large groups as nations should represent an integrated whole of all smaller groups and not only a mutually interacting aggregation of them. There is no real continuity between family, small groups of families, tribe and coexisting and collaborating groups of tribes on one side, and a so called "nation", not based on political grounds, on the other. Such a "nation" is only supposed and "felt", it is nothing really or even naturally given, but primarily a hypostatical, mythologistical or ideological construction. No nation in this nationalistic sense grew up naturally (FYSEI), no nation is founded on primary feelings; all feelings of the so called national identity are only emotive reactions to such ideological constructions, pressed on the real variety within a society. They are what we can call "abstract feelings". We could actually adopt the meaning of Huxley and Hadddon (1940) that a nation is a "society united by a common error as to its origins and a common 42
====================
Scan268.jpg
====================
Národ 1 43 faults and errors in an ideology, but only in theory, as it remains unable to convince the ideologically thinking masses. Their reasons for accepting such an ideology are completely different from the theoretical ones. For an ideology, the objectifying intentions are of no prior interest, whereas theories and theoretical thinking are not concerned with any non-object-oriented intentions. From the ideological point of view, any theory is of second rate interest only, because it has nothing to do with real situations. and real social and political events, but with mere logical constructions. Ideologies respond like old myths to basic needs of men. If they do not, they simply collapse and disappear. Human needs are never purely subjective; they are real. Ideologies do not respond to these needs by speaking of them, but by speaking about quite different things, often in an inaccurate way, or even in away completely wrong from a theoretical viewpoint. If we accept these two conceptions, namely of a nationalist idea of nation and of modern ideologies, we shall understand two very important things. First, nationalist ideologies need not be true to have influence, and they cannot be deprived of their influence by being criticized from the scientific or theoretical point of view. Second, even if "nations" in the nationalist sense are mere ideological constructs or hypostases, the fact that masses of people do identify themselves with their nation makes these originally hypostatic nations into social and historical realities. Here, we may ask: why do people identify themselves with such hypostatical constructs? Again, we can repeat that it is a relic of ancient times, based on mythical orientation of archaic men to the so called archetypes. But it is only a theoretical, a conceptual comment. The problem is that the masses of people are not, or not yet, interested in theoretical thinking. It is necessary to find a socially and politically efficatious approach to them as well as a passable and viable way for them how to overcome national ideologies they share. Obviously, this cannot be done by denying the importance or even the reality of nations but by offering an even more appealing though at the same time, even theoretically more acceptable approach to them. I have no definite solution, of course. But I can mention two points based on two examples, one known from the history of the prophetical tradition of ancient Izrael, the second from the last two centuries of Czech history. The most important contribution of ancient Israel was, in my view, the invention of the so called anti-archetypes. Mythical archetypes are to be imitated, and more: one should identify oneself with them. But if you want to identify yourself with an anti-archetype, you find it impossible, because you are referred back to yourself. If you want to imitate Abraham (actually Abram) and leave "your country and your kindred and your father's house" and go to an unknown country, then you cannot do precisely the same, because Canaan was unknown to Abraham, but not to you. If you want to do the same, you have to go to a new country which is unknown to you. If we should apply this invention to our problem we have to be oriented not backwards, to a nation already given, but forwards, to a nation in becoming, not to a nation which is, but to a nation which should be and to how it should be. Our loyalty should be aimed towards the coming future, not to the given past, and especially not to any falsely assumed past. The second example shows a more concrete solution of this problem in a situation of the Czech political scene in the last two decades of the 19th century. The Czech "nation" nearly ceased to exist, the Czech language was nearly forgotten, only country people spoke in a very reduced, very primitive Czech. Since the end of the 18th century, a national renaissance was begun by intellectuals like Dobrovský, who published the first modern Czech grammer in German, of course -, or like Jungmann, who published the first modern dictionary where Czech terms were interpreted in German. Towards the end of the 19th century, some people started posing questions as to whether the preservation of a separate Czech nation with a special Czech language was worth fighting for. In 1886, one author, signed "H.G.", published an article in the fortnihtly periodical "Čas" in which he asked: would it not be culturally better to join an advanced, powerful and civilized nation instead? Masaryk, who was one of the chief inspirators and contributors of that journal, was suspected of the authorship of the mentioned article, and he and his collaborators were viewed as "national nihilists". Actually, the author of the article, entitled "Our Two Questions", was H. G. Schauer. Masaryk himself was far more a realist. He accepted the new situation where more and more people were able not only to speak but even to write and read in Czech and where a new nationalist ideology of the Czech nation had arisen according to the romantic ideas of the German philosopher Herder, but he never accepted nationalism as such. For him, the question is whether or not the political, cultural and spiritual life of the nation is well oriented. It is so, according to him, only if it is good enough to be seen as appropriate to every other nation in the world. He formulated a slogan: the Czech question is a world question; i.e. it must have an importance and value for the whole world or it is no question at all. If we take no account of ideological constructs and take earnestly only real things, then we have to aknowledge not only very different traditions within one nation but also the fact of 43
Scan268.jpg
====================
Národ 1 43 faults and errors in an ideology, but only in theory, as it remains unable to convince the ideologically thinking masses. Their reasons for accepting such an ideology are completely different from the theoretical ones. For an ideology, the objectifying intentions are of no prior interest, whereas theories and theoretical thinking are not concerned with any non-object-oriented intentions. From the ideological point of view, any theory is of second rate interest only, because it has nothing to do with real situations. and real social and political events, but with mere logical constructions. Ideologies respond like old myths to basic needs of men. If they do not, they simply collapse and disappear. Human needs are never purely subjective; they are real. Ideologies do not respond to these needs by speaking of them, but by speaking about quite different things, often in an inaccurate way, or even in away completely wrong from a theoretical viewpoint. If we accept these two conceptions, namely of a nationalist idea of nation and of modern ideologies, we shall understand two very important things. First, nationalist ideologies need not be true to have influence, and they cannot be deprived of their influence by being criticized from the scientific or theoretical point of view. Second, even if "nations" in the nationalist sense are mere ideological constructs or hypostases, the fact that masses of people do identify themselves with their nation makes these originally hypostatic nations into social and historical realities. Here, we may ask: why do people identify themselves with such hypostatical constructs? Again, we can repeat that it is a relic of ancient times, based on mythical orientation of archaic men to the so called archetypes. But it is only a theoretical, a conceptual comment. The problem is that the masses of people are not, or not yet, interested in theoretical thinking. It is necessary to find a socially and politically efficatious approach to them as well as a passable and viable way for them how to overcome national ideologies they share. Obviously, this cannot be done by denying the importance or even the reality of nations but by offering an even more appealing though at the same time, even theoretically more acceptable approach to them. I have no definite solution, of course. But I can mention two points based on two examples, one known from the history of the prophetical tradition of ancient Izrael, the second from the last two centuries of Czech history. The most important contribution of ancient Israel was, in my view, the invention of the so called anti-archetypes. Mythical archetypes are to be imitated, and more: one should identify oneself with them. But if you want to identify yourself with an anti-archetype, you find it impossible, because you are referred back to yourself. If you want to imitate Abraham (actually Abram) and leave "your country and your kindred and your father's house" and go to an unknown country, then you cannot do precisely the same, because Canaan was unknown to Abraham, but not to you. If you want to do the same, you have to go to a new country which is unknown to you. If we should apply this invention to our problem we have to be oriented not backwards, to a nation already given, but forwards, to a nation in becoming, not to a nation which is, but to a nation which should be and to how it should be. Our loyalty should be aimed towards the coming future, not to the given past, and especially not to any falsely assumed past. The second example shows a more concrete solution of this problem in a situation of the Czech political scene in the last two decades of the 19th century. The Czech "nation" nearly ceased to exist, the Czech language was nearly forgotten, only country people spoke in a very reduced, very primitive Czech. Since the end of the 18th century, a national renaissance was begun by intellectuals like Dobrovský, who published the first modern Czech grammer in German, of course -, or like Jungmann, who published the first modern dictionary where Czech terms were interpreted in German. Towards the end of the 19th century, some people started posing questions as to whether the preservation of a separate Czech nation with a special Czech language was worth fighting for. In 1886, one author, signed "H.G.", published an article in the fortnihtly periodical "Čas" in which he asked: would it not be culturally better to join an advanced, powerful and civilized nation instead? Masaryk, who was one of the chief inspirators and contributors of that journal, was suspected of the authorship of the mentioned article, and he and his collaborators were viewed as "national nihilists". Actually, the author of the article, entitled "Our Two Questions", was H. G. Schauer. Masaryk himself was far more a realist. He accepted the new situation where more and more people were able not only to speak but even to write and read in Czech and where a new nationalist ideology of the Czech nation had arisen according to the romantic ideas of the German philosopher Herder, but he never accepted nationalism as such. For him, the question is whether or not the political, cultural and spiritual life of the nation is well oriented. It is so, according to him, only if it is good enough to be seen as appropriate to every other nation in the world. He formulated a slogan: the Czech question is a world question; i.e. it must have an importance and value for the whole world or it is no question at all. If we take no account of ideological constructs and take earnestly only real things, then we have to aknowledge not only very different traditions within one nation but also the fact of 43
====================
Scan277.jpg
====================
NRUNE [3] Národ - 9 Philosophy and Nationalism Leuven, 8.-10.5.1992 [Lomastery] Nationalisms represent an important type of modern ideologies or of modern mythologisms. I am using the word "mythologism" to make possible to discern two different ways how relations between MYTHOS and LOGOS could arise and be established. Mythologies arise on the basis of some nyths which start to strengthen their positions and abilities in a changing world of myth. Ve may speak about myth as about an originally integrated space or realm of a meaningful world where conscious life vas possible. After a considerably long time, anyone of the various myths became unable to safeguard the necessary least unity or integrity of this mythical world, so that step by step more and more elements or components of components of human life and especially of the world of things became in a way conscious but not integrated enough into the world of myth. So the men s thinking, their lifes as well as their world became cleft.. The unbearable schizophreny which was developped by the new situation had to be overcome in an acceptable way by introducing both the realm of myth as well as the emancipated or simply different realm of profane activities, events and things on to a new conmon basis, i.e. to the basis of LOGOS or more precisely of the so called conceptual way of thinking. This was possible only through an farther reaching "logisation" even even of mythical meanings as well as of mythical structures. Myths made more and more logical became mythologies and, through farther interventions of rationality, philosophy and science. Certain relics of mythical ways of thinking and even of some mythical or even nagical vere preserved and may be discovered in modern societies and even in structures their intellectual life till today. we should observe as a quite different and relations But as a consequence of the long-term development of the European culture *thing any and mind, especially because of the process of secularization on the one hand, reyhologsand because of the failure of the traditional metaphysics on the other, a new on, or eve Nietzsche). The othervise completely correct view that the so called "highest Ohce al arose, namely "the European nihilism" (called so according to remythicatin of ever phenomenon dy logisized mea. values" are "no things" has been understood in a wrong way that they are so to say "nothing". And than, the most influential shock has come when come when - as a regrettable consequence of industrialization - masses of people, especially coming from the country, but not only them, country, but not only then, became deracinated (déraciné) in many ways and have lost not only not only their environment, but even their actual identity. Only a small part of them could be brought back again to religion; the vast majority was already reistent against any religious apology of the. state of their world. On the other hand, they bacame very sensible towards nev ways of a possible identification with other sorts of social communities. So they were prepared for beeing indoctrinated through various new concepts, projects and ideologies, for instance in socialist movements or trade unions, through high ideas of a new patriotism or, last not least, through identifying themselves with their "nation", of course felt and understood in a new way, opened by some philosophers (like Herder and others) who reinterpreted this relatively ancient vord. So ve have to throw more light on this fundamental changex in which new arose which I In the history, ve can from the very beginning in ancient times where nation meant simply "native people", we can distinguish two essentially different meanings of the word "nation". According the first one, originally the "western" one, the nation is a mass of people governed by a governor or a government and integrated into one state, of course mostly under use of violence. In relatively old times of the Roman Empire, already, it was possible to an Egyptiantor to a Jev etc. to Ha German, be born in a Roman-Egyptian or a Roman-Jewish family and so to be Roman by birth (like apostle Paulus, e.g.), or to be rich enough and to become a Roman citizen by purchasing this privilege for oneself and for one's family members, of course by paying a lot of money for it, in those times. So it was possible for a Greek, Jew or a German to be or to become a Roman. Ve can see Silar situation in the United States of our times. Not only inmigrated Englishmen, better discern three main concepts of a "nation". Apart logomythius
Scan277.jpg
====================
NRUNE [3] Národ - 9 Philosophy and Nationalism Leuven, 8.-10.5.1992 [Lomastery] Nationalisms represent an important type of modern ideologies or of modern mythologisms. I am using the word "mythologism" to make possible to discern two different ways how relations between MYTHOS and LOGOS could arise and be established. Mythologies arise on the basis of some nyths which start to strengthen their positions and abilities in a changing world of myth. Ve may speak about myth as about an originally integrated space or realm of a meaningful world where conscious life vas possible. After a considerably long time, anyone of the various myths became unable to safeguard the necessary least unity or integrity of this mythical world, so that step by step more and more elements or components of components of human life and especially of the world of things became in a way conscious but not integrated enough into the world of myth. So the men s thinking, their lifes as well as their world became cleft.. The unbearable schizophreny which was developped by the new situation had to be overcome in an acceptable way by introducing both the realm of myth as well as the emancipated or simply different realm of profane activities, events and things on to a new conmon basis, i.e. to the basis of LOGOS or more precisely of the so called conceptual way of thinking. This was possible only through an farther reaching "logisation" even even of mythical meanings as well as of mythical structures. Myths made more and more logical became mythologies and, through farther interventions of rationality, philosophy and science. Certain relics of mythical ways of thinking and even of some mythical or even nagical vere preserved and may be discovered in modern societies and even in structures their intellectual life till today. we should observe as a quite different and relations But as a consequence of the long-term development of the European culture *thing any and mind, especially because of the process of secularization on the one hand, reyhologsand because of the failure of the traditional metaphysics on the other, a new on, or eve Nietzsche). The othervise completely correct view that the so called "highest Ohce al arose, namely "the European nihilism" (called so according to remythicatin of ever phenomenon dy logisized mea. values" are "no things" has been understood in a wrong way that they are so to say "nothing". And than, the most influential shock has come when come when - as a regrettable consequence of industrialization - masses of people, especially coming from the country, but not only them, country, but not only then, became deracinated (déraciné) in many ways and have lost not only not only their environment, but even their actual identity. Only a small part of them could be brought back again to religion; the vast majority was already reistent against any religious apology of the. state of their world. On the other hand, they bacame very sensible towards nev ways of a possible identification with other sorts of social communities. So they were prepared for beeing indoctrinated through various new concepts, projects and ideologies, for instance in socialist movements or trade unions, through high ideas of a new patriotism or, last not least, through identifying themselves with their "nation", of course felt and understood in a new way, opened by some philosophers (like Herder and others) who reinterpreted this relatively ancient vord. So ve have to throw more light on this fundamental changex in which new arose which I In the history, ve can from the very beginning in ancient times where nation meant simply "native people", we can distinguish two essentially different meanings of the word "nation". According the first one, originally the "western" one, the nation is a mass of people governed by a governor or a government and integrated into one state, of course mostly under use of violence. In relatively old times of the Roman Empire, already, it was possible to an Egyptiantor to a Jev etc. to Ha German, be born in a Roman-Egyptian or a Roman-Jewish family and so to be Roman by birth (like apostle Paulus, e.g.), or to be rich enough and to become a Roman citizen by purchasing this privilege for oneself and for one's family members, of course by paying a lot of money for it, in those times. So it was possible for a Greek, Jew or a German to be or to become a Roman. Ve can see Silar situation in the United States of our times. Not only inmigrated Englishmen, better discern three main concepts of a "nation". Apart logomythius
====================
Scan278.jpg
====================
Národ - 10 but also German, Irish, Italian, Russian, Chinese people etc. can gain and have the same nationality, namely American. To be an American represented and even actually represents much more than to be an inhabitant or even a citizen. of the state Virginia or Louisiana, or than to be of a German, Irish or English etc. origin. In this sense we meet what we can call a political conception of a nation and a nation and of nationality as well as a phenomenon of a SO called political nation. You most probably will know Friedrich Schiller's play Wilhelm Tell where the birth of the Swiss nation is presented in a dramatic form. There we hear in a moment a declaration: "We vish to be one single people (or nation) of brothers" ("Wir wollen sein ein einig Volk von Brüdern"). Of course, the Swiss nation is a special case, because it arouse consciously as an "Eidgenossenchaft", based on an idea, on a common project accepted by free individuals and small groups of people of different languages and different origin. Most of the big western national states were founded from above and under use of power and violence, even if they were also inspired by the same idea of a unity of tribally different people. Especially Herder, who is largely corresponsible for the spread of the tribal or also organic idea of nation (sometimes called also a "cultural" one), criticised the vestern type. of national states because of their unnatural origin and because of their being founded on violence. On the other hand, there is another way of conceiving nation, namely a nationalist one. About nationalism, we can precisely speak since the second half of the eighteenth century only, even if its roots are much older and its period difficulty arises out of the fact that of nationalism and even more ways hov in various contexts and from differing of incubation much longer. A certain there are profoundly different forms they are intepreted and evaluated points of view. Ve can simplify our problem by limitting ourselves to only. some of its aspects and by at least partly excluding some others which we are not interested in. So we shall not discuss e.g. the details of the rise and history of the modern idea of a nation, nor various trends and effects of nationalist movements in politics, even if it could be very interesting to ask e.g., why sometimes and under certain conditions nationalism is narrowly connected with liberation movements and liberal political orientation, wheras in other cases it reveals extremely conservative and even reactionnary qualities. It can be left- as well as right-oriented, it can be expressedly democratic, but also antidemocratic. It can mean vill to more freedom, but it can also suppress minorities as well as struggle against "the others" and especially against foreigners as against enemies. So it could seem to be possible to understand a nation as a naturally given super-organism, or also. as a collective personality (Johannet, "personnalité collective"), the behaviour of which depends on different occasions, on necessities, on historical development, on traditions and traditional forms of acting and reacting, as well as on feelings and reflected feelings of the so called national identity. But it was also possible to understand it in a Hegelian way as a spiritual principle or as a manifestation of the "objective spirit", as he calls it, "objektiver Geist" (but we find it also in Renan, Treitschke and others more). Though there are such profound differences which were produced by different ways of social and vays of social and political development under different conditions, the original basis of the nationalist ideologies is a certain quasi- or pseudo-naturalist approach to nation. nation. "Natio" originally means "birth", so nationality is something given to every man is something given to every man in the moment of his being born, already. In this sense, everybody obtains his own nationality by birth, FYSEI. Nobody among the scientists accepts this hypothesis or better ideological construction, but it is still living living illegitimely in modern societies. Social psychology can make us understand how individual men and families tend to form smaller or bigger groups, tribes and societies of tribes not only because of material and social needs rationally conceived but nearly instinctively, and it means: with a necessary backside of a cautiousness, 10
Scan278.jpg
====================
Národ - 10 but also German, Irish, Italian, Russian, Chinese people etc. can gain and have the same nationality, namely American. To be an American represented and even actually represents much more than to be an inhabitant or even a citizen. of the state Virginia or Louisiana, or than to be of a German, Irish or English etc. origin. In this sense we meet what we can call a political conception of a nation and a nation and of nationality as well as a phenomenon of a SO called political nation. You most probably will know Friedrich Schiller's play Wilhelm Tell where the birth of the Swiss nation is presented in a dramatic form. There we hear in a moment a declaration: "We vish to be one single people (or nation) of brothers" ("Wir wollen sein ein einig Volk von Brüdern"). Of course, the Swiss nation is a special case, because it arouse consciously as an "Eidgenossenchaft", based on an idea, on a common project accepted by free individuals and small groups of people of different languages and different origin. Most of the big western national states were founded from above and under use of power and violence, even if they were also inspired by the same idea of a unity of tribally different people. Especially Herder, who is largely corresponsible for the spread of the tribal or also organic idea of nation (sometimes called also a "cultural" one), criticised the vestern type. of national states because of their unnatural origin and because of their being founded on violence. On the other hand, there is another way of conceiving nation, namely a nationalist one. About nationalism, we can precisely speak since the second half of the eighteenth century only, even if its roots are much older and its period difficulty arises out of the fact that of nationalism and even more ways hov in various contexts and from differing of incubation much longer. A certain there are profoundly different forms they are intepreted and evaluated points of view. Ve can simplify our problem by limitting ourselves to only. some of its aspects and by at least partly excluding some others which we are not interested in. So we shall not discuss e.g. the details of the rise and history of the modern idea of a nation, nor various trends and effects of nationalist movements in politics, even if it could be very interesting to ask e.g., why sometimes and under certain conditions nationalism is narrowly connected with liberation movements and liberal political orientation, wheras in other cases it reveals extremely conservative and even reactionnary qualities. It can be left- as well as right-oriented, it can be expressedly democratic, but also antidemocratic. It can mean vill to more freedom, but it can also suppress minorities as well as struggle against "the others" and especially against foreigners as against enemies. So it could seem to be possible to understand a nation as a naturally given super-organism, or also. as a collective personality (Johannet, "personnalité collective"), the behaviour of which depends on different occasions, on necessities, on historical development, on traditions and traditional forms of acting and reacting, as well as on feelings and reflected feelings of the so called national identity. But it was also possible to understand it in a Hegelian way as a spiritual principle or as a manifestation of the "objective spirit", as he calls it, "objektiver Geist" (but we find it also in Renan, Treitschke and others more). Though there are such profound differences which were produced by different ways of social and vays of social and political development under different conditions, the original basis of the nationalist ideologies is a certain quasi- or pseudo-naturalist approach to nation. nation. "Natio" originally means "birth", so nationality is something given to every man is something given to every man in the moment of his being born, already. In this sense, everybody obtains his own nationality by birth, FYSEI. Nobody among the scientists accepts this hypothesis or better ideological construction, but it is still living living illegitimely in modern societies. Social psychology can make us understand how individual men and families tend to form smaller or bigger groups, tribes and societies of tribes not only because of material and social needs rationally conceived but nearly instinctively, and it means: with a necessary backside of a cautiousness, 10
====================
Scan279.jpg
====================
C Národ - 11 suspicion or even hate in regard to "the others". But it doesn't make clear, why any of such very large groups like nations should represent an integrated whole of all smaller groups and not only a mutually interacting aggregation of them. There is no real continuity between family, small group of families, tribe and coexisting and collaborating groups of tribes on one side, and a so called "nation" not based on political grounds on the other. Such a "nation" is only supposed and "felt", it is nothing really or even naturally given, but primarily a hypostatical, mythologistical or ideological construction. No nation in this nationalistic sense grew up naturally (FYSEI), no nation is founded on primary feelings; all feelings of the so called national identity are only emotive reactions to such ideological constructions, pressed on the real variety within a society. They are what we can call "abstract feelings". We could actually adopt the meaning of Huxley and Hadddon (1940) that a nation is a "society united by a common error as to its origins and a common aversion to its neighbours", but at the same time ve know very well that nations and nationalities really exist and that they influencing the present, and probably at least even the future history of the world. That's a really estonishing fact. It was necessary to develop some ideas, some new conceptions to make possible their large acceptance by masses of people who lost their roots and their identity. And such deracinated people changed or helped to change those ideas into ideology powerful enough to found real nations in a quite new sense, nations which never existed before but which began to become real and existent. The reality of modern nations is an important proof of the possible immense influence of ideas, right or wrong. Nationalism became something liek a surrogate or substitute of religion, an "Ersatz-religion". Even if ve know very well and acknowledge such a historical. origin of nations, and even if ve most skeptical about thoughts on "national character", nations and national feelings are something real, they are matter of fact. represent a a powerful force for a more or less longer time May be, nations are based on errors and abstract sentiments: may be, their history is to a very high degree falsely remembered and interpreted, sometimes founded on mistakes, sometimes on prejudices on prejudices or even frauds. But they exist. We have only to think over the possibility of improving their state, not to neglect them or simply to deny their right to existence. And ve have to do even something more than that: we have to understand why people identify themselves with their nation, and then to offer them another, an acceptable way to react in their situation. There remains only one profound question is it really possible to improve not only the given conditions, but the nation itself? Is a nation something which could or even should be improved? Do actually exist some criteria according which we could be able to evaluate the way a nation is going on? Are such criteria something special for every individual nation, or are they something which all nations should share and respect in common? Some authors are doubting if the idea of nation and nationality is able to be understood and interpreted as a positive ingredient within the next development of any civic society and of the mankind as a whole. Too many Too many of the catastrophes of the last century were narrowly connected with national and nationalistic quarrels and antagonisms. Tody, ve see terrible events e.g. in Yougoslavia or in some parts of the former Soviet impire. Does there exist any possibility of improving the role of nations and nationalisms in the coming future of our world? It obviously vill depend on our evaluation of the ideological or mythologistical origin and "nature" of newly established modern nations and nationalims. But how should we understand ideologies? Ideological thinking and speaking is indirectly adequate to certain group interests, but it is not the quite right in what it directly is thinking and speaking of, or, on contrary, it is apparently all right is apparently all right in what it openly expresses, but it is profoundly false in its indirect, not openly expressed intentions and connotations. We have to discern two kinds of conscious intentions, namely those ones oriented to things, to object-like realities, and then the much much gerous fand dan 11 modern
Scan279.jpg
====================
C Národ - 11 suspicion or even hate in regard to "the others". But it doesn't make clear, why any of such very large groups like nations should represent an integrated whole of all smaller groups and not only a mutually interacting aggregation of them. There is no real continuity between family, small group of families, tribe and coexisting and collaborating groups of tribes on one side, and a so called "nation" not based on political grounds on the other. Such a "nation" is only supposed and "felt", it is nothing really or even naturally given, but primarily a hypostatical, mythologistical or ideological construction. No nation in this nationalistic sense grew up naturally (FYSEI), no nation is founded on primary feelings; all feelings of the so called national identity are only emotive reactions to such ideological constructions, pressed on the real variety within a society. They are what we can call "abstract feelings". We could actually adopt the meaning of Huxley and Hadddon (1940) that a nation is a "society united by a common error as to its origins and a common aversion to its neighbours", but at the same time ve know very well that nations and nationalities really exist and that they influencing the present, and probably at least even the future history of the world. That's a really estonishing fact. It was necessary to develop some ideas, some new conceptions to make possible their large acceptance by masses of people who lost their roots and their identity. And such deracinated people changed or helped to change those ideas into ideology powerful enough to found real nations in a quite new sense, nations which never existed before but which began to become real and existent. The reality of modern nations is an important proof of the possible immense influence of ideas, right or wrong. Nationalism became something liek a surrogate or substitute of religion, an "Ersatz-religion". Even if ve know very well and acknowledge such a historical. origin of nations, and even if ve most skeptical about thoughts on "national character", nations and national feelings are something real, they are matter of fact. represent a a powerful force for a more or less longer time May be, nations are based on errors and abstract sentiments: may be, their history is to a very high degree falsely remembered and interpreted, sometimes founded on mistakes, sometimes on prejudices on prejudices or even frauds. But they exist. We have only to think over the possibility of improving their state, not to neglect them or simply to deny their right to existence. And ve have to do even something more than that: we have to understand why people identify themselves with their nation, and then to offer them another, an acceptable way to react in their situation. There remains only one profound question is it really possible to improve not only the given conditions, but the nation itself? Is a nation something which could or even should be improved? Do actually exist some criteria according which we could be able to evaluate the way a nation is going on? Are such criteria something special for every individual nation, or are they something which all nations should share and respect in common? Some authors are doubting if the idea of nation and nationality is able to be understood and interpreted as a positive ingredient within the next development of any civic society and of the mankind as a whole. Too many Too many of the catastrophes of the last century were narrowly connected with national and nationalistic quarrels and antagonisms. Tody, ve see terrible events e.g. in Yougoslavia or in some parts of the former Soviet impire. Does there exist any possibility of improving the role of nations and nationalisms in the coming future of our world? It obviously vill depend on our evaluation of the ideological or mythologistical origin and "nature" of newly established modern nations and nationalims. But how should we understand ideologies? Ideological thinking and speaking is indirectly adequate to certain group interests, but it is not the quite right in what it directly is thinking and speaking of, or, on contrary, it is apparently all right is apparently all right in what it openly expresses, but it is profoundly false in its indirect, not openly expressed intentions and connotations. We have to discern two kinds of conscious intentions, namely those ones oriented to things, to object-like realities, and then the much much gerous fand dan 11 modern
====================
Scan280.jpg
====================
Národ 1 12 older ones oriented to situations, activities and events. The latter ones old mythical thinking and represent today a remnant of old myths, i.e. of behaving. After the famous invention of concepts and of conceptual thinking and after their being developed through old Greek philosophers, the myth remained unable to react with its own means to conceptual arguments. The only possibility has been found in a certain aceptance of LOGOS, as we have seen, already, but under a predominance of the MYTHOS. So in hellenism, we find many nythologies and even philosophical myths using notions and concepts, but not using them corectly. It seems to me very probable that the philosophical thinking could stop to exist in these old times, already. But these new myths. represented a deep danger not only to philosophy and philosophers, but also for Christians, who first regarded with suspicion every philosophy, but who aknowledged very soon that the only method of resistence efficient enough is to adopt the best possible philosophy to shield oneself from philosophical myths, especially from gnosis. Plato vas something like "babtized" and became the first Christian philosopher, though ante Christo. Later the same has been done with Aristotle. So, philosophy was saved for the folloving times. And it was this overliving of philosophy which made possible the rise of ideologies after the start of the so called modernity. Even ideologies have their older roots, of course. Christian heretical movements often developed modes of thinking which were very similar to modern ideologies. But there are some reasons why to speak about ideologies after the break down of old feudal societies only, as well as after the decline of the strong church control of the ways of men's thinking and expressing their thoughts. So, ideological thinking is based on the "false consciousness", but in a sense slightly different from the Marx' or Feuerbach's one. An ideology is - or better: must be adequate to some nass interests, but needn't be adequate to subjects it directly and simply refers to. Ve can even legitimely criticise such a form of thinking, therefore, but without any real influence The real importance of on its relevance for its believers. an ideology does not consist in its being theoretically correct, but in fulf in fulfilling its ideological role. Any critical theory is able to disclose various faults and errrors in an ideology, but only in theory, while it remains unable to convince the ideologically thinking masses. Their reasons why they accepted such an ideology are completely different from the theoretical ones. For an are of ideology, the objectifying intentions of no prior interest, whereas care of any non-object-orientedtheories and theoretical thinking don't intentions. From the ideological point of view, any theory is of second rate interest, only, because it has nothing to do with real situations and real social and political events, but with mere logical constructions. Ideologies respond - like old myths to basic to basic needs of men. If they don't do it, they simply fall and disappear. And human needs are never purely subjective; they are real. But ideologies don't respond to them by speaking of them, but by speaking of quite different things, and often by speaking not correctly enough of them, or even by being completely wrong from a theoretical point of view. If ve accept these tvo conceptions, namely of a nationalist idea nation and of of modern ideologies, we shall understand two very important things. First, nationalist ideologies need not be true to have influence, and the by being criticised from they cannot be deprived of their influence scientific or theoretical point of view. And, second, even if "nations" in the nationalist sense are mere ideological constructs or hypostases, the fact that of people do identify themselves with their nations makes these originally hypostatic nations to social and historical realities. Here, we may ask: why do people identify themselves with such hypostatical constructs? Again, we can repeat that it is a relic of ancient times based on mythical orientation of archaic men to men to the so called archaetypes. But it is only is that the masses of people a theoretical, a conceptual comment. The problem are not or not yet interested in theoretical thinking. It is necessary to find them as well as a passable a socially and politically efficatious approach to and viable vay for then how to overcome national ideologies they share. 12 of Voriginally
Scan280.jpg
====================
Národ 1 12 older ones oriented to situations, activities and events. The latter ones old mythical thinking and represent today a remnant of old myths, i.e. of behaving. After the famous invention of concepts and of conceptual thinking and after their being developed through old Greek philosophers, the myth remained unable to react with its own means to conceptual arguments. The only possibility has been found in a certain aceptance of LOGOS, as we have seen, already, but under a predominance of the MYTHOS. So in hellenism, we find many nythologies and even philosophical myths using notions and concepts, but not using them corectly. It seems to me very probable that the philosophical thinking could stop to exist in these old times, already. But these new myths. represented a deep danger not only to philosophy and philosophers, but also for Christians, who first regarded with suspicion every philosophy, but who aknowledged very soon that the only method of resistence efficient enough is to adopt the best possible philosophy to shield oneself from philosophical myths, especially from gnosis. Plato vas something like "babtized" and became the first Christian philosopher, though ante Christo. Later the same has been done with Aristotle. So, philosophy was saved for the folloving times. And it was this overliving of philosophy which made possible the rise of ideologies after the start of the so called modernity. Even ideologies have their older roots, of course. Christian heretical movements often developed modes of thinking which were very similar to modern ideologies. But there are some reasons why to speak about ideologies after the break down of old feudal societies only, as well as after the decline of the strong church control of the ways of men's thinking and expressing their thoughts. So, ideological thinking is based on the "false consciousness", but in a sense slightly different from the Marx' or Feuerbach's one. An ideology is - or better: must be adequate to some nass interests, but needn't be adequate to subjects it directly and simply refers to. Ve can even legitimely criticise such a form of thinking, therefore, but without any real influence The real importance of on its relevance for its believers. an ideology does not consist in its being theoretically correct, but in fulf in fulfilling its ideological role. Any critical theory is able to disclose various faults and errrors in an ideology, but only in theory, while it remains unable to convince the ideologically thinking masses. Their reasons why they accepted such an ideology are completely different from the theoretical ones. For an are of ideology, the objectifying intentions of no prior interest, whereas care of any non-object-orientedtheories and theoretical thinking don't intentions. From the ideological point of view, any theory is of second rate interest, only, because it has nothing to do with real situations and real social and political events, but with mere logical constructions. Ideologies respond - like old myths to basic to basic needs of men. If they don't do it, they simply fall and disappear. And human needs are never purely subjective; they are real. But ideologies don't respond to them by speaking of them, but by speaking of quite different things, and often by speaking not correctly enough of them, or even by being completely wrong from a theoretical point of view. If ve accept these tvo conceptions, namely of a nationalist idea nation and of of modern ideologies, we shall understand two very important things. First, nationalist ideologies need not be true to have influence, and the by being criticised from they cannot be deprived of their influence scientific or theoretical point of view. And, second, even if "nations" in the nationalist sense are mere ideological constructs or hypostases, the fact that of people do identify themselves with their nations makes these originally hypostatic nations to social and historical realities. Here, we may ask: why do people identify themselves with such hypostatical constructs? Again, we can repeat that it is a relic of ancient times based on mythical orientation of archaic men to men to the so called archaetypes. But it is only is that the masses of people a theoretical, a conceptual comment. The problem are not or not yet interested in theoretical thinking. It is necessary to find them as well as a passable a socially and politically efficatious approach to and viable vay for then how to overcome national ideologies they share. 12 of Voriginally
====================
Scan281.jpg
====================
C Národ - 13 Obviously, it is not possible to do so by denying the importance or even the reality of nations but by offering an even more appealing but, at the same time,ore acceptable approach to them. I have no definit solution, of course. But I can mention two points based on two examples, one known from the history Izrael, the second one from the Czech of the prophetical tradition of ancient history of the last two centuries. vas The most important contribution of the old Izrael, in my view, was the invention of the so called anti-archaetypes. Mythical archaetypes vere to be imitated, and more: one should identify oneself with them. But if you want to identify yourself with an anti-archaetype, you find it impossible, because you. are referred back to yourself. If you want to initate Abraham (actually Abram) and leave "your country and your kindred and your father's house" and go to an unknown country, then you cannot do precisely the same, because Canaan unknown to Abrahan, but not to you. If you want to do the same, you have to go to a new country which is unknown to you. If we should apply this invention to our problem ve have to be oriented not backwards, to a nation already given, but onvards, to a nation in becoming, not to a nation which is but to a nation which should be and how it should be. Our loyalty should be aimed to the coming future, not to the given past, and especially not to any falsly assumed past. The second example shows a more concrete solution of this problem in a situation of the Czech political scene in the last two decades of the XIX. century. The Czech "nation" nearly stopped existing, the Czech language was nearly forgotten, only country people spoke in a very reduced, very primitive Czech. Since the end of the XVIII. century, a national XVIII. century, a national renaissance has been started by intellectuals like Dobrovský who published the first new Czech granner in German, of course, or like Jungmann who published the first new dictionary where Czech terms were interpreted in German. Towards the end of the following XIX. century, some people started posing questions of whether the preservation of a separate Czech nation with a special Czech language was vorth fighting for. One author, signed "H.G.", published in the fortnihtly periodical "Čas" in 1886 an article where he article where he asked: would it not be better culturally to join an advanced, powerful and civilized nation instead? Masaryk who was one vas one of the chief inspirators and contributors of that journal vas suspected of authorship of the mentioned article, and he and his collaborators vere observed as "national nihilists". Actually, the author of the article entitled "Our two questions" was H. G. Schauer. Masaryk himself was far more a realist. He accepted the new situation where more and more people were able not only to speak but even to write and read in Czech and where a nationalist ideology of the Czech nation arose according to the romantic ideas accepted nationalism as such. of the German philosopher Herder, but he never For him, the question is if the political, cultural and spiritual life of the nation is well oriented, and it is so, according to him, only if it is good enough to be observed as appropriate to every other nation in the world. He formulated a slogan: the Czech question is a vorld question; i.e. it must have an importance and value for the whole world or it is no question at all. ney If we don't count any ideological constructs and take earnestly only real things, then we have to aknowledge not only very different traditions within one single nation but also the fact of the commonly shared language. During the first weeks after the political change in our country, striking students. invited various people for speaking with them in their schools and faculties. At one occasion like that I was suprised being asked what I am thinking over the meaningfulness of our national existence. I didn't want to support any form of nationalism, and so I replied by an understatement: the meaning of existence of a Czech nation consists in making the Czech language able to go on living and so to anable at least some philosophers to think in Czech and differences out of Czech. (I spoke to students of philosophy.) There are between languages who are very are very advantegous for philosophical thinking, and languages who have neutral or even negative impact on its way and quality. So I am decidedly against any nationalist conception of nations, but at the same 43 Feren theoretically
Scan281.jpg
====================
C Národ - 13 Obviously, it is not possible to do so by denying the importance or even the reality of nations but by offering an even more appealing but, at the same time,ore acceptable approach to them. I have no definit solution, of course. But I can mention two points based on two examples, one known from the history Izrael, the second one from the Czech of the prophetical tradition of ancient history of the last two centuries. vas The most important contribution of the old Izrael, in my view, was the invention of the so called anti-archaetypes. Mythical archaetypes vere to be imitated, and more: one should identify oneself with them. But if you want to identify yourself with an anti-archaetype, you find it impossible, because you. are referred back to yourself. If you want to initate Abraham (actually Abram) and leave "your country and your kindred and your father's house" and go to an unknown country, then you cannot do precisely the same, because Canaan unknown to Abrahan, but not to you. If you want to do the same, you have to go to a new country which is unknown to you. If we should apply this invention to our problem ve have to be oriented not backwards, to a nation already given, but onvards, to a nation in becoming, not to a nation which is but to a nation which should be and how it should be. Our loyalty should be aimed to the coming future, not to the given past, and especially not to any falsly assumed past. The second example shows a more concrete solution of this problem in a situation of the Czech political scene in the last two decades of the XIX. century. The Czech "nation" nearly stopped existing, the Czech language was nearly forgotten, only country people spoke in a very reduced, very primitive Czech. Since the end of the XVIII. century, a national XVIII. century, a national renaissance has been started by intellectuals like Dobrovský who published the first new Czech granner in German, of course, or like Jungmann who published the first new dictionary where Czech terms were interpreted in German. Towards the end of the following XIX. century, some people started posing questions of whether the preservation of a separate Czech nation with a special Czech language was vorth fighting for. One author, signed "H.G.", published in the fortnihtly periodical "Čas" in 1886 an article where he article where he asked: would it not be better culturally to join an advanced, powerful and civilized nation instead? Masaryk who was one vas one of the chief inspirators and contributors of that journal vas suspected of authorship of the mentioned article, and he and his collaborators vere observed as "national nihilists". Actually, the author of the article entitled "Our two questions" was H. G. Schauer. Masaryk himself was far more a realist. He accepted the new situation where more and more people were able not only to speak but even to write and read in Czech and where a nationalist ideology of the Czech nation arose according to the romantic ideas accepted nationalism as such. of the German philosopher Herder, but he never For him, the question is if the political, cultural and spiritual life of the nation is well oriented, and it is so, according to him, only if it is good enough to be observed as appropriate to every other nation in the world. He formulated a slogan: the Czech question is a vorld question; i.e. it must have an importance and value for the whole world or it is no question at all. ney If we don't count any ideological constructs and take earnestly only real things, then we have to aknowledge not only very different traditions within one single nation but also the fact of the commonly shared language. During the first weeks after the political change in our country, striking students. invited various people for speaking with them in their schools and faculties. At one occasion like that I was suprised being asked what I am thinking over the meaningfulness of our national existence. I didn't want to support any form of nationalism, and so I replied by an understatement: the meaning of existence of a Czech nation consists in making the Czech language able to go on living and so to anable at least some philosophers to think in Czech and differences out of Czech. (I spoke to students of philosophy.) There are between languages who are very are very advantegous for philosophical thinking, and languages who have neutral or even negative impact on its way and quality. So I am decidedly against any nationalist conception of nations, but at the same 43 Feren theoretically
====================
Scan282.jpg
====================
Národ 14 time I am convinced that different languages should be cared for, protected, cultivated or, at least, conservated even in the future existence of probably an intermixture of all possible peoples, "nations" and races. I should prefer to understand "nation" in the political way, but it probably will take time to reach this goal. So it remains only to underline the plurality of cultural and spiritual traditions within every single nation. Nowhere only one single. national tradition exists. Languages are of first rate imporâtnce for the mankind, in my view. All other differences remain on historical grounds, too, and have nothing to do with any "natural" qualities of masses of people, or they are purely individual or contigent. I am not able to accept the idea of national states (i.e. nationalistic states) in any form. Ve have only two possibilities: 1) to interpret nation in the originally western meaning, and so to conceive it as a state which gives i.e. its members, the same possibilities to all citizens; or 2) to let it dissolve in various cultural and spiritual, religious and philosophical etc. traditions united by by a common language, only. Nations as ideological constructs seem to have no longer future in the next millenium. But not because ideologies vill die but because the level of all sorts of thinking be unmasked, but it is vill be must be higher. Ideologies have to not. possible among people, only, vho are able to be critical and who are interested not to be critical in special directions. It may seem to be more a European than a global vision, I am afraid. But ve should remember, at least, two important points. First, nationalism is originally a European invention, based on ideas of some European philosophers. So it is a duty, a moral and spiritual obligation of European philosophers of today and tomorrow not only to unmask the repellent and dangerous face of any nationalism, but to make their possible to reinterprete the conception of a nation in a way acceptable for men who should become loyal to their broader And European nation than to any "nation" conceived in a nationalistic vay. secondly, European philosophers of today should realize the considerable spiritual and cultural power of ideas and conceptions, may they be right or wrong, and so they should accept their part of the responsibility in the face of the coming future. It would be right and profitable, I am convinced, if we could accept an idea of a new vocation of Europe and Europeans not only in front of their own future, but in front of the future of all men living on this planet now and who will live here in next centuries. In a similar way as Masaryk expressed his conviction that the "Czech question" is to be understood Xperhaps as a world question, the European ideafshould be comprehensible, plausible and even acceptable and sympathetic to any inhabitant of our every farther day wont this name smaller planet. a European There is possibly nothing more dangerous for our world than we must not nationalism. But if ve don t vant. any European nationalism, i.e. even compromise ourselves with of intra-European, more any form in a particular nationalism of our bigger or smaller "nations" understood nationalistic way. We need deep understanding for a plurality of cultural and spiritual traditions, but such traditions have to be accepted on the basis of but never moral, conceptual and spiritual decision, by birth. Nationalism provokes in any true philosopher a vill to rethink and reinterprete this powerful but dangereous idea in a critical, reasonable way and so to respond to one of the most important challenges and tasks of our times. 14 (Ladislav Hejdánek, Prague)
Scan282.jpg
====================
Národ 14 time I am convinced that different languages should be cared for, protected, cultivated or, at least, conservated even in the future existence of probably an intermixture of all possible peoples, "nations" and races. I should prefer to understand "nation" in the political way, but it probably will take time to reach this goal. So it remains only to underline the plurality of cultural and spiritual traditions within every single nation. Nowhere only one single. national tradition exists. Languages are of first rate imporâtnce for the mankind, in my view. All other differences remain on historical grounds, too, and have nothing to do with any "natural" qualities of masses of people, or they are purely individual or contigent. I am not able to accept the idea of national states (i.e. nationalistic states) in any form. Ve have only two possibilities: 1) to interpret nation in the originally western meaning, and so to conceive it as a state which gives i.e. its members, the same possibilities to all citizens; or 2) to let it dissolve in various cultural and spiritual, religious and philosophical etc. traditions united by by a common language, only. Nations as ideological constructs seem to have no longer future in the next millenium. But not because ideologies vill die but because the level of all sorts of thinking be unmasked, but it is vill be must be higher. Ideologies have to not. possible among people, only, vho are able to be critical and who are interested not to be critical in special directions. It may seem to be more a European than a global vision, I am afraid. But ve should remember, at least, two important points. First, nationalism is originally a European invention, based on ideas of some European philosophers. So it is a duty, a moral and spiritual obligation of European philosophers of today and tomorrow not only to unmask the repellent and dangerous face of any nationalism, but to make their possible to reinterprete the conception of a nation in a way acceptable for men who should become loyal to their broader And European nation than to any "nation" conceived in a nationalistic vay. secondly, European philosophers of today should realize the considerable spiritual and cultural power of ideas and conceptions, may they be right or wrong, and so they should accept their part of the responsibility in the face of the coming future. It would be right and profitable, I am convinced, if we could accept an idea of a new vocation of Europe and Europeans not only in front of their own future, but in front of the future of all men living on this planet now and who will live here in next centuries. In a similar way as Masaryk expressed his conviction that the "Czech question" is to be understood Xperhaps as a world question, the European ideafshould be comprehensible, plausible and even acceptable and sympathetic to any inhabitant of our every farther day wont this name smaller planet. a European There is possibly nothing more dangerous for our world than we must not nationalism. But if ve don t vant. any European nationalism, i.e. even compromise ourselves with of intra-European, more any form in a particular nationalism of our bigger or smaller "nations" understood nationalistic way. We need deep understanding for a plurality of cultural and spiritual traditions, but such traditions have to be accepted on the basis of but never moral, conceptual and spiritual decision, by birth. Nationalism provokes in any true philosopher a vill to rethink and reinterprete this powerful but dangereous idea in a critical, reasonable way and so to respond to one of the most important challenges and tasks of our times. 14 (Ladislav Hejdánek, Prague)