Read some philosophy every day, because of wisdom, freedom, and happiness.
Today, it's time to talk about the mission of scholars.
When it comes to this subject, I am in a special position. Gentlemen, all of you, or most of you, have chosen science as the profession of your life, and so have I; you must have done all your power in order to be able to be considered a scholar with dignity, and I have done so and I still do. As a scholar, I should talk to people who are new scholars about the mission of scholars. I should study the subject in depth and solve it to the best of my ability; I should expound the truth without error. When I find the mission of this class to be honorable, noble, and prominent before all other classes, can I prescribe this mission without violating the spirit of modesty, without belittling other classes, without giving a strong impression of pretentiousness? But I speak as a philosopher, and philosophers have an obligation to prescribe every concept strictly. The concept of the mission of the scholar happens to be involved in the philosophical system, can I object? I will never go against the known truth. The known truth is always the truth, and modesty belongs to the truth, and if the truth is violated, modesty becomes a false modesty. First of all, you must study our subject calmly, as if it had nothing to do with us, and study it as a concept from a world completely alien to us. You have to make our proof more precise. Let us not forget that I would like to state with equal great force at the right time the fact that every class is indispensable; that every class is worthy of our respect; that it is not the class itself that gives honor to the individual, but that it is the class itself that holds the post of the class well; that each class is more respected only if it is faithful to its duties and fulfills its mission satisfactorily; and that is why scholars have reason to be the most humble people, for the goals before them are often distant. For he should attain a very lofty ideal realm, which he usually approaches only after a long road.
"People have all kinds of intentions and talents, and everyone's mission is to use all their talents as much as possible. In particular, man has the intention of yearning for society, which gives man new and special upbringing, and education in the service of society, which enables him to be rehabilitated very easily. In this matter, it is absolutely impossible to presuppose that he shall develop all his talents in the state of nature, either completely directly or indirectly through the development of society. The former provision is difficult and does not lead to social progress; therefore, every individual has the right to choose for himself a certain sector of general development in society, leaving the other sectors to the other members of society, and counting on them to enable him to share in the virtues of their upbringing, and in the same way that he can enable them to share in his own upbringing. This is the origin and legal basis for the differentiation of the various strata of society."
That is the conclusion of several of the lectures I have given so far. The comprehensive measurement of man's total talents and needs (not his purely artificial needs) is the basis for dividing the different strata according to the perfectly possible conception of pure reason. A special class can contribute to the cultivation of any talent, or to the satisfaction of any need that is innate and based on human instincts. Let's put this question into later study, so that we can study the problem that interests us most now.
If one raises the question of the perfection of the society established according to the above principles — that any society is built without any leadership and by the help of man's natural intentions, and is established completely spontaneously, as we have seen in the study of the origins of society — I say that if anyone raises this question, it is necessary to examine the following question before answering it: In a real society, is the development and satisfaction of all needs, that is, the equal development and satisfaction of all needs, guaranteed? If there is a guarantee, then the society as a society is perfect; this does not mean that the society has attained its goal, which is impossible, according to our above examination, but that it may be established in such a way that it must be getting closer and closer to its own goal. If this is not guaranteed, then this society, although it can move along the path of civilization by chance, is unreliable, because it can also go backwards due to misfortune.
If all the talents of the guarantor are to be developed equally, it is first necessary to have knowledge of all the talents of man, to have a science of all the intentions and needs of man, and to have a comprehensive assessment of the whole nature of man. But this complete knowledge of the whole man is itself based on a talent that should be developed, for man always has the intention to seek knowledge, especially to know what he desperately needs to do. But the development of this talent requires all the time and all the strength of man; if there is a common need for a special class to satisfy, then this demand is the same demand that requires all the time and all the strength of man.
But knowledge of man's talents and needs, and not of the science of developing and satisfying them, will not only become an extremely sad and frustrating knowledge, but at the same time an empty and useless knowledge. Whoever points out to me my flaws, without at the same time indicating how I can remedy them, is very unfriendly to me; He seemed to prefer to put me in a state of ignorance like an animal! In short, that knowledge will not become the knowledge which society demands, and for that knowledge society must have a special class that possesses it, for that knowledge does not aim at the perfection of the races, nor does it rely on this perfection to achieve its proper goal of unity. Therefore, the knowledge of that demand must be unified at the same time with the knowledge of the means, and can only be satisfied by virtue of these means needs; and this knowledge naturally belongs to the same class, for one knowledge cannot be complete without another, still less can it be useful and vivid. The first kind of knowledge is based on the principles of pure reason and is therefore philosophical; the second is partly empirical and therefore historically philosophical (not only historical, for I should associate the aim which can only be philosophically understood with the object given by experience, so that it is possible to regard the latter as a means of attaining the former). Such knowledge should be beneficial to society; therefore, it is not only a matter of knowing in general what talents man himself has and by what means he can develop them; such knowledge may remain completely futile. This knowledge should also go a step further in order to truly deliver the desired benefits. We must know at what particular stage of cultural development the society in which we live in is in a certain epoch, from which stage this society can rise to which particular stage, and which means society should use for this purpose. It is now true that we can deduce the course of human development from rational grounds before the emergence of any particular experience, premised on general experience, and can give rough indication of the individual stages which human beings should go through in order to attain a certain level of development; but on a rational basis alone we cannot in any way point to the stage in which mankind is actually in a given epoch. To do this, we must inquire about experience, we must study the events of past times with a philosophical eye, we must turn our gaze to what is happening around us, and at the same time observe our contemporaries. Therefore, this latter part of the knowledge necessary for society is purely historical.
The combination of these three kinds of knowledge— which, if not combined, is of no avail — constitute what we call learning, or at least a special kind of learning; and whoever dedicates himself to acquiring it is called a scholar.
Not everyone should possess all of human knowledge in these three kinds of knowledge; this is mostly impossible, precisely because it is impossible, and if it were to do so, it would be impossible to achieve anything, and it would waste the life of a member of society, which may be good for society, and gain nothing for himself. Each person can draw out for himself a few parts of the above aspects, but everyone should study his own parts in the following three aspects: philosophy, philosophy of history, and pure history. I am only today to give a cursory hint of the ideas which I will elaborate further at another time, so that at least my arguments may be used at present to convince one that the study of a profound philosophy, as long as it is profound, will in no way make the acquisition of empirical knowledge superfluous, but on the contrary can convincingly prove that empirical knowledge is indispensable. The purpose of acquiring all this knowledge is as described above, that is, to guarantee the equal, sustained and progressive development of all human resources through the help of this knowledge. From this arises the real mission of the scholarly class: to pay close attention to and often to promote the actual process of human development in general. Gentlemen, I am restraining myself in order not to let my feelings focus on the noble ideas that are being presented for the time being. The road to calm research is not over. But I should still point out, in passing, what those who want to hinder the free development of science can really do. I say "I can do it" because how can I know if there is such a personage? The whole development of mankind depends directly on the development of science. Whoever hinders the development of science hinders the development of mankind. And who is holding back human development? In what image will he appear in front of his own time and future generations? With a tone higher than the voices of a thousand people, he made a deafening appeal to his world and to future generations with action: At least while I am still alive, the people around me should not become wiser and better, because in their rough development process, no matter how much I resist, at least I will be dragged forward, and this is what I hate; I do not want to become more civilized, I do not want to become more noble; darkness and lying are my natural hobbies, and I am willing to exert my last strength not to give up this hobby. Human beings can give up everything; without touching the true dignity of human beings, they can deprive them of everything, but they cannot deprive them of the possibility of perfection. These enemies of mankind are sinisterly, more slyly than the kind of hostility that the Bible describes to us, thinking, searching in the most sacred depths for a breakthrough in their assault on mankind in order to nip it in the bud; this is a place they have finally found. Human beings involuntarily dislike their own image. - Now let's go back to our research.
Science itself is a branch of human development; if the whole talent of man should be further developed, so should each branch of science be further developed. Thus every scholar, and every man who has chosen a particular class, instinctively demands the further development of science, especially the part of science which they have chosen. This desire is inherent in the scholar, and it is also possessed by every person who is engaged in the profession, but the desire of the scholar is much greater. He should carefully observe the progress made by other strata and promote the progress of other strata, and does he not want to make progress himself? His progress determines the progress of all other fields of human development; he should always be ahead of them in order to open the way for them, to study it, to guide them along it; is he willing to fall behind? If he falls behind, he is no longer who he should be; because he cannot be anyone else, he will be nothing. I'm not saying that every scholar should make real progress in his discipline; what if he can't do that? I mean, he should do his best to develop his discipline; he should not rest, and he should not think that he has done his duty until he has failed to make progress in his discipline. As long as he is alive, he can keep pushing the discipline forward; if he encounters death before he reaches his goal, then even if he is liberated from his duties to this phenomenal world, then his serious wish is fulfilled. It has a special meaning for the scholar if it makes sense to all, that is, that the scholar should forget what he has just done and always think about what he should do. Whoever fails to broaden his horizons of activity with every step he takes will stop.
The mission of a scholar is mainly to serve society, because he is a scholar, so he can truly exist through society and exist for society more than any class. Therefore, the scholar has a special responsibility to give priority to the full development of his own social talents, sensitivities and imparting skills. If the scholar has naturally acquired the necessary empirical knowledge, he will have a particularly developed sensitivity. He should be familiar with the knowledge of his own discipline that already preceded him. He can only learn this knowledge by imparting it—either verbally or in writing—but he cannot develop it by thinking on purely rational grounds. He should maintain this sensitivity by constantly studying new things, and try to prevent the tendency to be completely closed to the opinions and methods of narration of others, which is frequent and sometimes in the presence of eminent independent thinkers. Every effort has been made to prevent this tendency because no one can have such a high degree of learning that he never has to learn new things, never to study something very necessary at times; and there are very few who are so ignorant that he cannot teach a scholar a little that the latter does not know. Imparting skills is always necessary for a scholar, because he acquires knowledge not for himself, but for society. He should have trained this skill from an early age, always maintaining the effect of this skill. As for what means to use, we will study it at the appropriate time.
It is time for scholars to put the knowledge they have acquired for the benefit of society to the benefit of society. He should give people a sense of real need and introduce them to the means to meet those needs. But this does not mean that, in order to find something truly reliable, he should go with them in the in-depth study that he must personally carry out. If so, he should have made all men into great scholars like he himself might have become. But this is impossible and inappropriate. Other fields must also be studied; for this reason there are other strata; and if these people should also devote their time to academic research, then scholars will soon cease to be scholars. How exactly can and how can scholars disseminate their knowledge? Society cannot exist without believing in the honesty and talents of others, and therefore this trust is deeply etched in our hearts; and the trust we possess by the special favor bestowed by nature alone will never reach the level we can achieve when we desperately need the honesty and talents of others. When a scholar gains the trust he deserves, he can count on that trust in his honesty and talents. In addition, all people have a sense of truth, of course, it is not enough to have a sense of truth, it must also be clarified, tested and clarified, and this is the task of the scholar. It is not enough for the non-scholar to give him all the truths necessary for him; but if this sense of truth is not forged— and this situation is often caused by those who call themselves scholars — then his acknowledgment of the truth, even if without deep evidence, is often sufficient, after the guidance of others. Scholars can also count on this sense of truth. Thus, as far as the concept of the scholar that we have elucidated so far is concerned, in terms of the mission of the scholar, the scholar is the teacher of mankind.
But he must not only make people generally aware of their needs and the means to meet them, but he must, in particular, indicate to them at all times the needs that arise under the present particular conditions and the specific means to achieve the goals they face. He sees not only the present, but also the future; he sees not only the present foothold, but also where humanity should go now, if it wants to hold on to its ultimate goal without deviating or retreating. He cannot expect man to come to it at once as soon as he catches a glimpse of it; man cannot jump over his own path. Scholars should only care that humanity does not pause and regress. In this sense, the scholar is the nurturer of mankind. Here I would like to make it clear that the scholar, as in all his affairs, is governed by a moral law which shows self-consistency. Scholars influence society, and society is based on the concept of freedom; society and each of its members are free; scholars can only influence society by moral means. The scholar will not be tempted to force people to accept his convictions by coercion, by physical strength; such folly is dismissed in our time; but he should not lead them into a lost path. Moreover, it is also a fault for him to do so, and the duties of any kind of person should be higher than that of scholars; therefore, it is also a fault for society to do so. Every individual in society must act according to free choice, according to the convictions which he considers to be the most sufficient; he must regard himself as a goal in every action of his own, and he should be regarded as such a goal by every member of society. Whoever is deceived is used as a mere means.
Improving the moral customs of mankind as a whole is the ultimate goal of every human being, not only of society as a whole, but also of all the work of scholars in society. It is the duty of a scholar to always set this ultimate goal, which he must first think of when he does everything in society. But whoever is not a good man cannot successfully devote himself to the work of improving the moral customs of mankind. We must not only teach by words, but also by example, and the persuasive power of teaching by example is much greater; anyone who lives in society who can have a good example is attributed to society, because the power of example is produced by our social life. The scholar should be ahead of the other classes in all cultural aspects, and how many times more effort must he spend to do this! If he falls behind in the primary and highest aspects of all culture, how can he be the kind of example he should be after all? How could he imagine that others were following his doctrines, and that he was in front of others and that every act of his life was contrary to his doctrine? (The christian founder's instructions to his disciples are actually fully applicable to scholars: You are all the best; if the best have lost their power, what is the use to inspire them?) If the people who are out of the ordinary are corrupt, where else can we find moral goodness? Therefore, from this last aspect, the scholar should be the most morally competent man of his time, and he should represent the highest level of moral development that his time can attain.
Gentlemen, this is our common mission, this is our common destiny. Fortunately, scholars are also bound to do what people as human beings, for their common mission, because of their special mission—not to spend their time and energy on other things, but on things that people used to cherish time and energy to do, and to do what is a pleasant rest after work for others as work, as the only daily labor in their own lives. It is a thought that makes one's body good and spiritually noble, and it is the kind of thought that every one of you who has lived up to your mission will have. It is my duty to take on the indoctrination of my time and of future generations: from my work comes the path of future generations and the history of the world of peoples. These peoples will change in the future. My mission is to argue for the truth; my life and my destiny are insignificant; but the impact of my life is infinitely great. I am a devotee of truth; I serve it; I must do everything for it, speak and do, and endure suffering. If I am persecuted and hated for the truth, if I die in my duty for the truth, what is so special about me doing so? Isn't what I'm doing exactly what I'm supposed to be doing?
Gentlemen, I know that I have just said too much: I also know very well that an age of despair and lack of nerves cannot bear this expression of feelings and feelings; it calls everything it cannot climb in a hesitant and ashamed cry of ecstasy, it takes fear away from a picture that can only see one's own insensitivity and humility, and that all powerful and noble things affect it as much as any touch on a completely paralyzed man. I know all of this, but I also know where I'm talking now. I say to young people that their age has enabled them to guard against this utter insensitivity, and I want at the same time to instill in them in the depths of their souls a moral doctrine of a great husband that will prevent them from this insensitivity until in the future. I confess with complete frankness that I am going from the place where Providence has arranged for me to go, to make some contribution, to spread to all quarters in the Place where the German language is spoken, a way of thinking of a great husband, a strong feeling of nobility and dignity, a fiery zeal to accomplish my mission without fear of any hardship, and to continue to do so as long as I can. Therefore, when you leave this place and scatter everywhere, no matter where you live, I will one day hear that you are great husbands, and that the chosen ones of these great husbands are the truth; they are faithful to the truth to the death; even if the whole world abandons her, they will adopt her; if anyone slanders her and slanders her, they will protect her openly; for her they will happily endure the hatred that the great men have cunningly hidden. The senseless smiles of stupid people and the gestures of pity by short-sighted people shrugging their shoulders. In the past, I have said what I have already said with this purpose, and in the future I will say everything I will say among you with this ultimate purpose.
This article is from: "On the Mission of Scholars"