Non-Classical Philosophy in The West

Crisis of Classical Philosophy in Western Europe (Causes and Manifestations)

The overarching theme of modern European philosophy has been the exaltation of reason and the establishment of the idea of the limitless potential of human knowledge. The appeal to "reason" invigorated critics of traditional society and fostered a belief that human beings, as rational entities, could organize social life on rational foundations. Philosophical systems from the classical period exhibit optimism and faith in achieving freedom based on scientific progress, technological advancements, and the successes of enlightenment. Rationalism emerged as the dominant paradigm in philosophy from the 17th century until the mid-19th century, often referred to as classical philosophy.

However, by the mid-19th century, challenges to the very foundations of classical philosophy began to surface and grow. The initial assaults on rationalist concepts were spearheaded by Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) and Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855).

Schopenhauer expressed a vehement (if not brutal) protest against the Hegelian mode of thought (historicism, progressivism, rationalism). Here are some examples of his critiques of the classics: "Fichte does not deserve to take his place among true philosophers" (referring to disinterested seekers of truth). He emphasized that under Hegel's influence, philosophy "degenerates into genuine fraud," and that "such a loathsome and dull charlatan, such a rare master of nonsense as Hegel has been proclaimed the greatest philosopher in Germany"; "the most disgusting tedium hangs over the empty collection of words from this wretched windbag."

In his own teaching, Schopenhauer locates the essence of philosophy not in consciousness but in will. The will is unconscious, while intellect is something secondary, a direct manifestation of will. Human life is suffering. Life does not cover the costs incurred by it, yet we are, by our very nature, the will to live, and thus we are compelled to live, whether this is good or bad. Schopenhauer’s ultimate conclusion is a rejection of the will to live.

Kierkegaard also critiques Hegel for his cult of reason and primarily for panlogism. In place of Hegel's assertion that "All that is real is rational," Kierkegaard would posit the inverse thesis: all that is real is irrational, and what is rational is not real. Hegel's doctrine is rejected for its neglect of the life problems and experiences of real, concrete individuals, for excluding unique human situations from this sphere of philosophy. In contrast to Hegelian dialectics, Kierkegaard proposes his existential dialectic, a dialectic of feelings and passions.

The views of Schopenhauer and Kierkegaard signaled profound shifts in the character of philosophical inquiry. This new style eventually became dominant. Philosophers such as Friedrich Nietzsche, Georg Simmel, and Henri Bergson shared a distrust of reason and rationalist systems, which were unable to orient individuals within the world because they omitted essential dimensions of human life. Previously, humanistic ideas were associated with a cult of knowledge and the elevation of reason; now, forms of irrationalist humanism emerged that appealed to the subconscious.

In contrast to Kierkegaard, Nietzsche (1844-1900) was an adversary of Christianity. In his view, Christianity symbolizes a decline in the vitality of life, cowardice, and the weariness of the soul; it propagates nihilism and the general disintegration of Western culture. The reevaluation of values proclaimed by Nietzsche requires the rejection, above all, of moral values, the concepts of "good and evil," and "conscience," which hold absolute significance within the Christian worldview.

Any morality is predicated on the premise of conscious self-determination. However, this premise reveals its inadequacy since the nature of human action is irrational. Human behavior is governed by instinct and is determined by will. From Nietzsche's perspective, life is an aristocratic affair, constructed on the inequality and antagonism of the weak and the strong. Life is the "will to power." The embodiment of a new hierarchy of values is the "Übermensch."

What can explain the irrationalist motives in European philosophy that have since persisted and occasionally even intensified? The literature offers various explanations, but it seems to us that the 19th century marks a qualitative change in the position of the individual within society. This pertains to the definitive uprooting of traditional societal roots under the influence of capitalist relations, wherein individuals find themselves alone with their life situations. Rationalism may prevail when the average person, "excluded" from the situation and uninvolved in emotions and passions, can calmly observe and comprehend the unfolding of events. Thus, irrationalism serves as a reaction to profound shifts (captivating the masses) within society, a philosophical reflection of the economic and cultural realities of 19th and 20th century Europe.

However, the anti-classical (irrationalist) movement was not singular. At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th centuries, currents emerged that called for a return to the great thinkers of the classical tradition, albeit with a non-traditional reading of the classics from contemporary perspectives. Anglo-American neo-Hegelianism arose with figures such as Josiah Royce (1855-1916), Francis Bradley (1846-1924), Bernard Bosanquet (1848-1923), and Robin George Collingwood (1889-1943); alongside Italian Hegelianism, represented by Benedetto Croce (1866-1952), Giovanni Gentile (1875-1944) (one of the ideologues of fascism, an apologist for a totalitarian state that supposedly embodies moral spirit), among others.

In 1865, Otto Liebmann (1840-1912) urged a "return to Kant" in his work "Kant and His Epigones." Following this, neo-Kantian schools emerged—Marburg and Freiburg (Baden). Representatives of the former, such as Hermann Cohen (1842-1918), Paul Natorp (1851-1924), and Ernst Cassirer (1874-1945), interpret Kant's "thing-in-itself" as a mathematical limit that the process of knowledge approaches (asymptotically) but never actually reaches. Representatives of the Baden school, including Wilhelm Windelband (1848-1915) and Heinrich Rickert (1863-1936), interpret Kant’s distinction between the world of natural and free causality as purely "epistemological," which reduces to differentiating between specific methods of knowledge.

Thus, starting from the mid-19th century, Western philosophical thought fractured. A crisis of the classical style of philosophy emerged, manifesting as a dilemma: rationalism versus irrationalism. An opposition between scientism and anthropologism also became evident. The scientistic direction developed through positivism, neopositivism, post-positivism, and structuralism; whereas the anthropological path embraced the philosophy of life, existentialism, and personalism.