فایرابند
And if there is a temporary shortage of scientists the situation may always be remedied by various kinds of incentives. Of course, scientists will not play any predominant role in the society I envisage. They will be more than balanced by magicians, or priests, or astrologers. SUch a situation isupbearable for many people, old and young, right and left. Almost all of you have the firm belief that at least some kind of truth has been found, that it must be preserved, and that the method of teaching I advocate and the form of society I defend will dilute it and make it finally disappear. You have this firm belief; many of you may even have reaons. But what you have to consider is that the qbsence of good contrary reasons is due to a historical accident; it does not lie in the nature of things. Build up the kind of society I recommend and the views you now despise (without knowing them, to be sure) will return in such splendour that you will have to work hard to maintain your own position and will perhaps be entirely unable to do so. You do not ‘believe me? Then look at history. Scientific astronomy was firmly founded on Ptolemy and Aristotle, two of the greatest minds in the history of Western Thought. Who upset their well argued, empirically adequate and precisely formulated system,? Philolaos the mad and antediluviaft Pythagorean., How was it that Philolaos could stage such a comeback? Because he found an able defender:Coparnicus. ‘Of course, you may follow your intuitions as I am following mine.
But remember that your intuitions are the result of your ‘scientific’training where by science I also mean the science of Karl Marx.’ My training, or, rather, my non-training, is that of a journalist who is interested in strange and bizarre events.
Finally, is, it not utterly irresponsible, in the present world situation, with millions of people starving, others enslaved, downtrodden, in abject misery of body and mind, to think luxurious thoughts such as these? Is not freedom of choice a luxury under such circumstances? Is not the flippancy and the humour I want to see combined with the freedom of choice a luxury under such circumstances?
Must we not give up all self indulgence and act? Join together, and act? That is the- most important objection which today is raised against an approach such as the one recommended by me. It has tremendous appeal, it has the appeal of unselfish dedication. Unselfish dedication – to what? Let us see! We are supposed to give up our selfish inclinations and dedicate ourselyesto the liberation of e the oppressed. And selfish inclinations are what?
They are our wish for maximum liberty of thought in the society in which we live now, maximum liberty not only of an abstractkind, but expressed in appropriate institutions and methods of teaching. This wish for concrete intellectual and Rhysical liberty in our own surroundings is to be put aside, for the time being. This assumes, first, that we do not need this liberty for our task. It assumes that we can carry out our task with a mind that is firMly closed to some alternatives. It assumes that the correct way of liberating others has already been found and that all that is needed is to carry it out. I am sorry, I cannot accept such doctrinaire self-assurance in such extremely important matters. Does this mean that we cannot act at all?
It does not. But it means that while acting we have to try to realise as much of the freedom I have recommended so that our actions may be corrected in the light of the ideas we get while increasing OUr freedom. This will slow us down, no doubt, but are we supposed to charge ahead simply because some people tell us that they have found an explanation for all the misery and an excellent way out of it?Also we want to liberate people not to make them succumb to a new kind of slavery, but to make them realise their own wishes, however different these wishes may be from our own. Self-righteous and narrowminded liberators cannot do this. As arule they soon impose a slavery that is worse, because more systematic, than the very sloppy slavery they have removed. And as regards humour and flippancy the answer should be obvious. Why would anyone want to liberate anyone else?SUrely not because of some abstract advantage ‘of liberty but be~ause liberty is the best way to free development and thus to happiness. We want to liberate people so that they can smile. Shall we be able to do this if we ourselves have forgotten how to smile and are frowning on those who still remember? Shall we then not spread another disease, comparable to the one we want to remove, the disease of puritanicalselfrighteousness? Do not object that dedication and humour do not go tog~ther – Socrates is an excellent example to the contrary. The hardest task needs the lightest hand or else its completion will not lead to freedom but to a tyranny much worse than the one it
