We humans we have a natural interest in our further development. Which is why this understanding of development has something of an automatic quality to it: it develops by itself and as a matter of course. We don't pay attention to it. However, that this interest in our further development can be jeopardised or become ill is something we don't even think about. Unfortunately it does seem as if this interest in our development has sickened. We can diagnose an illness in the centre of mankind and, consequently, also in the centre of society. Warning phenomena ranging from the loss of social norms of the common good, to a disintegration of the understanding of democracy as the basis of these norms, make this picture clear. Expectations of progress dominate in parliaments, but these have the opposite effect: insecurity, climate change, social inequality, migration, fears of artificial intelligence, etc. The core issue should be a debate on ethical issues (lost entirely) and a discussion on how we want to live in the future. For example, do we want to live in a society of "I-entrepreneurs" or one in which people gain certainty and security from a strong social centre? At least until the middle of the 19th century, scientific and technological progress was always inextricably linked to human progress.

This centre is comparable to the centre of a balance and its two scales. The equilibrium, the social balance, absorbs the drifting apart of social currents and compensates by preventing certain population groups from falling off. This could show the strength of democracy.

Do we really want the enduring ideals of the true, the good and the beautiful to mutate? The true has become the feasible, the useful the good and the beautiful is only recognised through profit. Do we really want this? Is this what social progress looks like?

How should we imagine the "centre" of the human being? Where does this centre come from and how do we obtain this power of the core? It will surprise you that we can develop this centre exclusively from the power of art. A surprise because art is not involved in social discourse anywhere.

But we must remember that art is anchored in the reference field of nature (matter) and spirit. Spirit is a self-creative life principle in mankind and always points to its origin (the wells) in order to renew itself as a position of the centre. Thus the centre (= the artistic power of mankind) is the mediator between the ideal and the real. The power of art is the form-giver for everything. When Aristotle explains everything that has become is always a unity of matter and form, then the will to form cannot be separated from the will to art. We confront nature's will to form with our will to art. What has grown is contrasted with what has been artificially created.

To avoid any misunderstanding: this is about the POWER of form, about the power of art and by no means about works of art! These can be created, but they don't have to be. Because art is free. Forms, however, must be created. Without them, it is impossible for people to live together in harmony.

We know all this from the culture of antiquity and the emergence of humanism as a literary form in the 14th century under the leadership of the Italian poet and historian Francesco Petrarca (1304 -1374). 

Fransceco Petrarca 
Drawing by Altichiero da Zevio about 1370 to 1380

He coined the phrase: "A little art, a lot of books, that is the fool's sacrilegious game."

 Image Source: Wikipedia.org

I would also like to mention the philosopher Pico della Mirandola (1463 - 1494) and his "Oration on the Dignity of Man", which he never actually delivered, but did write down.

Pico della Mirandola: “Oration on the Dignity of Man” 

"Man is placed in the centre between all created things as the connecting link of all creaturely nature."

He lets God speak to people:

"Not heavenly, not earthly, have We created you. For you are to be your own master craftsman and sculptor and mould yourself from the material that suits you."

Image Source: Wikipeidia.org

Mankind, as the central being of all creation, awakens to his own dignity and freedom of will. Self-creatively, he gives himself his own form in freedom.

A debate on ethics, which hardly anyone conducts seriously today, should be a debate on humanism instead of the constant debate on democracy. My question: in view of the lost image of the human being, how should a democratic debate be conducted at all? Perhaps everyone against everyone in complete freedom?

Nowhere else are we so close to ourselves as in art. That's why we need to reopen access to this power within and teach others about it.

If everything is changing culturally at an ever-increasing pace, humanism must remain. We must address the question of how we can properly educate our children for the future? The cognitive bias of our education system (in reality it is almost all about training) marginalises artistic education. There must be a balance between sensuality and the ability to make judgements. Only from this ability to balance, as previously explained using the example of Libra, can self-determination and "I”-strong personalities emerge. In a society in which perceptual disorders increase daily, in which hardly anyone can really listen and look, art remains the only and final training ground.

We must find our way out of the crisis in science and art. We need to work out future opportunities from this crisis. From the Greeks we learnt that "crisis", from " krínein ", means separation, the state that urges us to make a decision. It does not mark an end, but is a metamorphosis, an opportunity for something new in the middle between the old, which is passing away, and the new, which we can’t yet recognise.

I would like to refer to the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900) and quote from his work "The Birth of Tragedy out of the Spirit of Music." 

"... for only as an aesthetic phenomenon (i.e. external perception of form and perception of what this form does to me internally) is existence and the world eternally justified... and to transform these existential experiences into phenomena of art. The peculiar ability to transform existential experiences into phenomena of art creates a new, above all independent perspective on the forms of religion and science as forms of art from the perspective, the point of view of art."

How could it come to this, that the creative forces of art and its forms of expression are no longer involved in shaping society? Why have people lost confidence in science? Why do people tend to fear the dangerous, dark side of science?

The paradox of modern science is that it achieved its great successes in the advancement of knowledge with a renunciation of knowledge. In this context, the preference to deal primarily with questions that can be decided unambiguously and are conducive to intersubjective understanding plays a role. In doing so, one accepts only those questions that are unambiguous or only those about which an unambiguous, methodologically controllable understanding is possible are permitted at all.

However, the real problems and the associated questions facing people today are precisely those questions that cannot be clearly decided.

This unnatural behaviour, which has the effect of violent repression, results in something like a society that has become pathological, as I mentioned at the beginning. We must not close our eyes to it!

A clear characteristic of such a disease affecting the whole of society is the loss of the ability to recognise realities, as well as loss of will to allow one's actions to be determined by the recognition of realities. All arguments and theories determined by reality are then either rejected as ideological: "Who says it's really like that?" or those who present them are accused of irrationality and maybe threatened. Different interests are polarised. What was once capable of community breaks into parts and, having lost the common cause, i.e. giving up the perception of the other, only wants to pursue its own selfish interests and push them through in a very controversial way. This dilemma is played out precisely where it shouldn’t take place: in the sciences, which have lost their unifying bond. Instead, ideological programmes are constructed that appear to be universally valid and salutary for the general public. However, these programmes represent blatant, above all particular interests based on economics and the pursuit of power.

Our democratic order does not seem to stand in the way of suchbehaviour. The intended liberal framework is thwarted and exploited against its purpose and logic in the form of the formation of functionaries and factions that only tolerate closed thinking in closed systems. Polarisation and politicisation undermine "the self-image of the individual with regard to society." This is precisely the central problem today!

Under these conditions, what is the significance of science for the industrialised world?

The answer is: the sciences have been made the decisive productive force for the development of society. You can interpret this concept from economics however you like; I believe that economics has emerged as the actual determinant of the sciences.

For the sciences have taken on a vastness in their form of existence in which everything that exists is represented. They determine world civilisation like never before: economy, industry, politics, education and, above all, the public media. The sciences have long since left their traditional position – a special area of work organised according to the division of labour. They no longer work from a critical distance to society, but aim for applause achieved by striving for success. Today, they seem to want to provide the basic constituent forms for all social activity, namely in the form of techniques! Industrial technologies provide the model, as it were, for the technology of social organisations through to human technologies, which significantly shape society's self-image.

One twist that has gone unnoticed in this process: science, which has flown out of its traditional location, the university, in the form of project research and total scientification of life, is now itself threatened by a wave piling up from the very technologies it made possible. These technologies are no longer scientifically shaped, but organised according to the principles of industrial production processes and are developing overwhelming power.

By intentionally or unintentionally dovetailing research with the economy and politics in this way, science is increasingly developing economically, i.e. it is focussing on success and growth. No longer controllable, at the mercy of the economy's inherent momentum, the sciences are forming superstructures, which the "producers", still the scientists, watch powerlessly. The university as a machine! The paradox is that this problem of powerlessness is not seen as a result of failure, but as the success of science. As mentioned at the beginning, the sciences have reached peaks of knowledge at the expense of a simultaneous loss of knowledge! You could say we have everything in abundance today, but the main thing is missing: I, myself, the human factor, is not included. Since science has become the decisive power, as we can see daily, it has itself become a political issue, one that is at the forefront. The independence of research and teaching has long since been reduced to absurdity (third-party funding!). The "organised cultivation of science" propagated in the economic understanding has become an unavoidable fact today.

It is understandable that the university itself may not be the driving force behind this process, but it is also not very honest. It comes across as a sleepy, entangled entity, where everyone seems to be against everyone else, just a competitive economy knows and likes to see. However, a kind of awakening process must be set in motion for the unprecedented danger and threat to the meaning and character of science. Responsibility must be taken, because nothing can be destroyed as quickly as science and art. You don't have to look far to other countries, or the recent past.

However, the ideologisation and strong pragmatic functionalisation that seems so threatening, especially from the natural sciences, is also due to the fact that, for similar reasons, something like a degeneration of the theoretical capacity of the sciences has occurred. The degeneration of the theoretical capacity of the sciences, followed by a change in our relationship to science and technological society as a whole, is another reason for this.

The emerging question of the meaning and goal of science is - this may sound surprising - not a scientific question, just as the question of the human being and the data for determining the priorities for research cannot be answered by science alone.  If the former is a philosophical-artistic question, the latter is a political question. Who makes the connections?

We have to realise the battle for the criteria of scientificity of the sciences, which has become political everywhere, is creating an increasingly noticeable unease in the experience of science. Although the sciences are noticing a steady and clear decline in acceptance by society, as well as the fact that the media, as the answerers of existential questions, are now taking the spotlight away from science, i.e. the impact and mode of action, they do not seem to be able to put a stop to this. Why is this?

A brief look back at the development of science under the aspect of crisis shows the following: If for Plato the "scientific" path was always also or only the path to truth, which could free mankind from the cave and the appearance of shackled existence, Immanuel Kant argued in favour of an exact science. For Kant its enlightened essence guaranteed a continuous progression in the development of mankind, offering a useful equivalent to a seemingly vacillating metaphysics. However, and this is decisive for Kant and often overlooked today, he assumed the limitations of scientifically exact knowledge by no means coincide with those of thought. Thought, through the necessity of reason, grows and points far beyond the knowledge of the sciences.

Friedrich Nietzsche foresaw the destruction of the world by science, whose unrestrained propaganda of progress produced the spread of barbarism.

Friedrich Nietzsche: "The problem of science cannot be found on the ground of science."

From "The Birth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Music."

Image Source: Wikipedia.org

He recognised: "that the demand for the ideal of the objective striving for knowledge kills the subjective living power of feeling, wanting and interpreting in people."

"But now science, spurred on by its powerful delusion, rushes inexorably to its limits, at which its optimism, hidden in the essence of logic, fails... As logic curls around on itself at these limits and finally bites its own tail – that is when  a new form of knowledge breaks through, the tragic knowledge that, in order to be endured, art is required as protection and remedy."

For him, the ideal of objective knowledge was probably only possible on the foundation of a morality that had its supporting ground and sanctifying (=sanctified) principle in Christianity. Although he affirmed the negative metaphysical function of modern science, he radically rejected its claim to be able to replace it. For him, science had the meaning of placing man entirely out of himself, solely out of himself and freed from the will of the gods, to either negate himself by subordinating himself to the principle of modern science, or to accept the abolition of that sense which appears objective as a challenge. This in order to bring forth from himself a figure in transition from ordinary man to the "meant" man (=superhuman), through which he first incorporates meaning into a world empty of content, i.e. meaningless. Only such a free and self-generated meaning could justify the meaning of creation. He formulated the artistic creative process [again], as had others before him. Consequently, he wrote the "Birth of Tragedy".

Conclusion:
If the sciences emerged and were founded as metaphysical, ethical or political transcendental interpretations from the bosom of philosophical reason, then today, in view of the established crisis of the sciences, their salvation must be brought about in a connection to art. With the help of art, the "other" could be rediscovered, which was lost due to the one-sidedness of knowledge in science. With this demand for art and, above all, with his reference to the creative powers of art as an unavoidable form of human expression, especially for the formation of general relationships to life, Nietzsche follows on from the thinking of Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph Schelling, who ascribes a truth function to art. For Schelling, this function of truth does not arise from the fact that art observes itself, is allowed to observe itself (I will come to this at the end with regard to contemporary artistic creation), but that it is able to reveal the true nature of the world. According to Schelling, the structure of the world consisting of the elements of nature and history possesses in art the "KEYSTONE" (literally) that creates cohesion and reveals the principle of cohesion. Art is the general organon - also of philosophy, because art is older than philosophy, and also the keystone of the whole vault. His view is reminiscent of the cross-ribbed vault of Gothic church buildings, in the centre of which there is a "keystone" which, from a structural point of view, is not a mere junction or cohesion in the sense of a termination of vault ribs, but a carrier and at the same time also a transmitter of lines of force and forces. At the moment, i.e. at the moment of their arrival, the static forces are transferred directly to the next keystone and from there immediately to the next one. The vault is not characterised by static stability, but a moving flow of forces. Hence the effect of a musical body of sound in Gothic cathedral architecture. If it, the keystone, you could also call it the "ringing stone", is the place of cohesion, it is itself carried by the whole of the building: in accordance with the Christian principle: "Each bears the burden of the other!" To this we could add for the present day: "... achieving social balance and justice!" (Martin Rabe).

Until Nietzsche, art was hardly given the chance to participate in social processes. This attitude has become increasingly prevalent to the present day, where the creative power of art no longer plays any role at all and is barely even mentioned. In high level discussions there is talk of relationships between humanities and natural science. But there is no mention of art, which is situated between the two.

I mentioned before that I wanted return to the fact that the truth function of art does not arise from art looking at itself or dealing with itself. Then it loses this claim. However, this is precisely what contemporary art is primarily concerned with! In other words, people are primarily preoccupioed with themselves, and if still somewhat appropriate, the narcissistic behaviour takes place in the purely artificial (artists, gallery owners and museums among themselves). This does not help, because art is also experiencing a crisis of identity, i.e. it has also given up on people, or better explained the other way round, people have given up on art, e.g. to the economy in the form of art marketing.

Who or what helps?

I mentioned what I consider important points in this regard at the beginning of this essay. For example the debate on humanism. I would also like to highlight the education (not training!) of people today. They are well informed but rarely have secure knowledge, and especially our so-called digital progress. Quite a few people harbour fears rather than trust. Fears regarding the loss of a necessary ability to perceive what is real: What is true and what is not true? What can I believe? What is permanent?

The increasing dependence on virtual information means our independent and self-creative ability to recognise our world is almost completely lost. This is accompanied by the loss of elementary experiences vital to human life.

What are elementary experiences?

I would like to answer this question from the perspective of art and less from the perspective of philosophy, from which Rudolf Carnap (1891 - 1970) coined this term. Elementary experiences develop less from technical theories of the natural sciences or philosophical concepts. They develop from the soul, the amazement and curiosity of mankind before creation. Elementary experiences describe the indivisible moment (instant) that we grasp something with all our senses simultaneously. This is aided by a freshness of the senses and our own free “play” instinct. We can then apply our artistic power at any point of our human totality (wholeness). However, the sources of artistic power dry up when we are no longer capable of elementary experiences, when we are blind to the world and characterised by fear and thus loosing our basic trust in creation. Then we no longer have anything human at all.

Now I can literally hear your protests and criticism - we live in the 21st century, not the 14th century! We need modern solutions! It doesn't help anyone to say that everything was better in the past! Of course not everything was better in the past. That would be stupid traditionalism, which naturally I reject. What I am in favour of, however, is putting an end to the lack of history that we are literally afflicted with. This results in the loss of cultural identity for each individual. Because history tells us why we are the way we are, that we could have been different and why we didn't become so. It allows us to develop ideas for the future from there. From tradition we take what seems valuable to us in order to relate it to what is important today. This combination creates living tradition and not traditionalism.

Our schools and universities must convey this with a profound education and knowledge programme. Only in this way can they show that there are counter-worlds, indeed counter-values, to the prevailing pure purpose-benefit thinking. There is a basic universal need for something other than the everyday. If schools still see it as their task to educate responsible citizens, then they must provide knowledge that allows us to understand interrelationships. This can only be learnt through education and can hardly be achieved in goal-oriented advanced courses focussing on specialised know-how. The scientisation of schools, as well as our social life as a whole, is certainly one of the biggest mistakes of cultural and educational policy. Not only have imagination, play and creativity been forgotten, but also the possibility of gaining knowledge through the unforeseeable and the pure pleasure and joy of knowledge. The problem of how difficult it generally is to acquire reliable knowledge was also ignored. What kind of knowledge is it that I can "download"? Is the knowledge of antiquity the same as our knowledge today?

The canon of cultural values needs to be constantly reworked. This canon is alive when its goods keep swirling through us anew, when they stand at odds with the familiar, when they open our eyes, when they direct our gaze to worlds other than the one we so brashly describe with catchy updates in our everyday lives. The four pillars of culture: education, knowledge, history and tradition are in danger of collapsing, if they haven’t already. In art, there is a centuries-old tradition of continuing to work on themes that have always been good in order to experience them anew and not to complicate them. This artistic process is much older than the modernist search for originality and invention. The original is then reflects back in a new dimension and helps to create identity. We can also learn to marvel at what was once possible in education and culture and how marvellously far we have come today.

Tradition as something always new, as the present time - this may be criticised and rejected. However, once cultural goods have disappeared or been abolished, they can never be restored. We cannot live from hand to mouth and, as if spellbound, only perceive a perspective that appears to provide direction but has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with education and culture and is called competitiveness. It is no longer possible to deny competitiveness is the guiding principle today. But we need real counter-worlds in order to curb one-sidedness and resulting imbalance in our culture. That would be a forward-looking motif!

The German philosopher Dieter Henrich (1927 - 2022) noted in his book "Sterbliche Gedanken" (Mortal Thoughts) in 2015: "I have observed with great approval that young people are setting up philosophical meeting places and magazines. One example of this for a good while was the "Blaue Reiter". It was a philosophical magazine that was supported and produced by very young people at the time and not by professionals. They have a freshness and directness of questioning that does you good. So I am confident. I have to say, as far as Germany is concerned, I'm rather depressed. Philosophy usually takes on great forms in connection with a cultural upswing that you can't recognise here (in Germany)."

Henrich, who pointed out the drying up of cultural responsibility from education and tradition very early on in over 200 publications, did not succeed with his enlightenment like many other admonishers. Why was this, or why was it not better?

Finally, I would like to come back to the humanism I have repeatedly called for and explain that it has evolved among scholars over several centuries since its inception. In Germany, it was the philosopher Friedrich Emmanuel Niethammer, in his 1808 publication "Der Streit des Philanthropinismus und Humanismus in der Theorie des Erziehungs-Unterrichts unserer Zeit" (The Controversy between Philanthropinism and Humanism in the Theory of the Education of Our Time), who first gave it the name of an attitude of mind centred on forms of dignity for each individual human being, a life without violence and freedom of expression. In it, he defends antiquity-orientated education against a purely practical and technical education at secondary schools. Practical benefits should not be the sole focus. And it is precisely this demand that we are faced with again today: only the useful should be good? Incidentally, a little known fact is that the writer, painter and educationalist Aldalbert Stifter (1805 - 1868) expressed the same view in his "Pedagogical Writings".

Henrich gives us a verse by the poet Friedrich Hölderlin (1770 - 1843) in the book mentioned here:

                REMEMBER

                It is not good,

                To be free of mortal thoughts.

                But good

                Is a conversation and to say

                Opinion of the heart.

Henrich: "You can't be completely sure of your deepest convictions on your own. You have to express them in intimate dialogue with another person."

A small child learning to speak only says "you" at first and for a very long time, before finding the "I" for itself much later.

© Martin Rabe & Sibylle Laubscher