Seite 23 [23]
OCR
What can I know (if trust in knowledge has been lost)? | 21 man can reach the perfection of his nature is necessarily a closed society, the distinction of the human race into a number of independent groups is according to nature.” All historians are aware of this: the development of culture goes together with the deepening of differences — as the distinctive character of individual communities evolves — and it is not unity, but the differences which explain the spread of the great cultural achievements, the ever livelier dialogue of competing civilisations. The above-quoted Huxley, however, was a biologist, the typical representative of the belief in progress based purely on the foundations of natural science. Similarly to many other modern thinkers, when he talks about development, he blithely employs the concept of development used in evolutionary biology for changes occurring in society. He does not take into account the decisive role of the units of population (cultures) below the level of the species. While natural selection works with individuals capable of reproduction and singular variants, cultural development works with communities, with members that understand each other, form common norms and pass on their knowledge as advice to succeeding generations. The process bears not even a passing resemblance to the biological mechanism of successful mutations becoming widespread. Communities themselves are nothing other than a continuous and regular effort to create a mutual meaning that can be shared with companions. They are the creation of communication, a kind of spiritual reality. It seems that Huxley, in common with many other modern thinkers, viewed scientific progress as the direct continuation of biological evolution and that he confused the social individual, the ethical subject, with the individual of the species homo sapiens. Following the successful expansion of Western civilisation, two mutually contradictory convictions took root among enlightened minds. They proclaimed the universality of humanity and the superiority of European civilisation with equally genuine enthusiasm. The gentler souls explained the subjugation of their fellow human beings with their civilising mission, while the more practically minded found justifications in social Darwinism which (groundlessly) appealed to Darwin. ‘The historical necessity of the progress of the absolute spirit and the mission of the Christian peoples was also mentioned. In the ideology of progress all this forms a unity (or becomes mixed together). If we remove the 3 Leo Strauss: Natural Right and History. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1953, p.150-151.
