Science vs. Wisdom

    

Just as power, depersonalizing and socializing, has become gold, capital; likewise, wisdom, depersonalizing and socializing, has become “concept,” “rationality.” And this is the second root of the European evil.

Both Western philosophy and positive science, in their essence, are fundamentally socialist, democratic, and anti-hierarchical. They present as “true” only what can be universally recognized and accepted by anyone with a certain level of education, regardless of their individual life experiences. Like the “majority” rule in political democracy, they assume equality and apply the standards of quantity and number, rather than recognizing qualities, unique attributes, or the privilege of exceptional qualities.

It is useless to proclaim individualist or even relativist doctrines when, in the very way of proclaiming them, which is the conceptual manner of profane philosophy, one demonstrates adherence to these democratic, impersonal, universalist presuppositions that lie at the base of that very philosophy. The path is entirely different — those same presuppositions must be contested first if one does not want to commit the same absurdity of an imperialism that, instead of imposing itself through the hierarchy from above, as mentioned, sought its justification in popular recognition. Here one begins to realize the nature of the enemy we have to fight, how frightfully the very “culture,” not just the “society” of Europeans, is an active democratism — and what renunciations they must demand of themselves to regain health.

Just as money is a reality indifferent to the quality of the individuals who possess it, so is the “knowledge” of Europeans. More precisely: driven by a will for equality, an anti-hierarchical intolerance, and therefore a socialist concern, European knowledge has necessarily focused on something where the effectiveness of individual differences and the condition, for knowledge, of active individual differentiation, is minimized. Hence, it refers either to physical experience, which is roughly the same for all humans as animals (positive science), or to the world of abstraction and verbal conventions (philosophy and rationalism).

The push for socializing and universalizing knowledge has inevitably led to its abstraction, creating an unbridgeable gap between knowledge and life, between knowing and being, and between thought and “metaphysical reality.” This is why, in the West, thought often becomes a creator of unrealities, of “reified” words, and of empty logical frameworks when it is not reduced to merely transcribing the most external, general, and uniform aspects of material things. This intellectual sport becomes even more ridiculous when done sincerely.

From this stems all the unreality of the modern spirit: separated from life, man today is almost a shadow moving among schemes, programs, and intellectual superstructures incapable of mastering reality and life itself, while becoming increasingly dependent on a science that adds abstractions to abstractions, enslaved as it is by phenomenal laws that are observed but not understood, all exhausting themselves in mechanical exteriority without any of the resulting possibilities also holding value for the inner being of man.

Given the limitations of the present discussion, we certainly cannot delve deeply into the matter here. However, one should not think that it is unrelated to the problem of the empire: as we pose it, the problem of the empire is the problem par excellence, relative to which particular problems cannot separate themselves and constitute a domain of their own. The particularism, the mutual indifference of the various forms of human activity — here politics, there science, here practice, there religion, and so on — is another already noted aspect of European decadence and an unequivocal symptom of its inorganic nature.

The foundations of the imperial hierarchy must rest on knowledge: “The wise must govern,” as Plato already said — and this is a central, absolute, definitive point in any rational order of things. But nothing would be more ridiculous than to identify such knowledge with any positive science or philosophical speculation: instead, it coincides with what we initially referred to, using a traditional expression common to both classical Western and Eastern traditions, as wisdom. And wisdom is something as aristocratic, individual, effective, substantial, organic, and qualitative as the knowledge of the “civilized” is democratic, social, universalist, abstract, and quantitative. Here again, there are two worlds, two perspectives, two different visions to be placed against each other without dilution.

According to wisdom, knowing does not mean “thinking,” but being the thing known: living it, realizing it. One does not truly know a thing unless one can transform one’s consciousness into it. Hence, what results from direct and individual experience alone will count as “knowledge.” Contrary to modern mentality — which labels what immediately appears to the individual as a “phenomenon,” a “subjective” appearance, and posits something else behind it, which is merely thought or supposed (the “thing-in-itself” of philosophers, the “absolute” of profane religion, the “matter” or “ether” or “energy” of science) as the “true reality” — wisdom is an absolute positivism that calls real only what can be grasped through direct experience, and considers everything else unreal, abstract, and illusory.

From this perspective, one might argue that all knowledge is reduced to finite and contingent things perceived by the physical senses. And indeed, this is the case for the vast majority of people, who can only truly understand this finitude and contingency, which remains as such despite all pseudo-scientific explanations. However, we assert the possibility of experiencing forms of knowledge beyond the sensory experience of ordinary people — experiences that are not “given,” not normal, yet achievable through certain active processes of inner transformation. These transcendent experiences are as direct, concrete, and individual as sensory experiences, but they perceive reality beyond the contingent, space-temporal aspects inherent in all sensory perception. While science attempts to transcend these aspects, it often does so by reducing true knowledge — vision, living individual evidence — to mere probabilities, incomprehensible “uniformities,” and abstract explanatory principles.

The meaning of all this might not be immediately clear to everyone, and that is natural. However, it is essential to understand that our focus is solely on experience; that for us, there is no distinction between finite reality and absolute reality, but rather a finite and absolute way of experiencing reality. There is a finite perspective or an absolute perspective. The entire so-called “problem of knowledge” is thus contained within the interiority of man, depending not on “culture” but on his ability to identify freely with different forms of experience along a hierarchy. This hierarchy culminates in a state of perfect identity, spiritual vision, and full realization of the unity between the self and the thing, achieving a state of power and absolute clarity regarding the thing itself. When this state is reached, further questioning becomes unnecessary, and all reasoning, much more talking, is rendered superfluous.

Such is, in very brief lines, the sense of that wisdom which constitutes the core of metaphysical teaching and the spiritual science of the East, and which was equally known to the West, both in the ancient mystery schools (where the initiation rite precisely operated the transformation of consciousness necessary for “knowing” and “seeing” metaphysically) and in other more well-known currents, such as the Alexandrian, Neoplatonic, and Pythagorean traditions, as well as in Hermetic, Gnostic, Theosophical, Illuminist, and Kabbalistic traditions that persisted even in the post-Christian period.

The key point is that sacred and sapiential science, unlike ordinary science, is not about “knowing” but about “being.” It cannot be taught through books or universities or conveyed in words. To acquire it, one must transform oneself, transcending common life into a higher existence. This type of knowledge precisely measures the quality and reality of individual life, becoming an inviolable privilege and integral part of it, rather than being a mere concept or notion that can be stored in the mind without any personal transformation or inner change.

Hence, the natural aristocracy of wisdom and its decisive non-popularization and non-communicability. Europeans often confuse “communicability” with understanding, assuming that what can be spoken can also be understood equally by all. They fail to see that while this may apply to intellectual abstractions and conventions based on sensory experiences assumed to be more or less equal for everyone, this uniformity breaks down when qualitative differences reassert themselves. In such cases, discursive communicability is no longer a valid criterion.

Wisdom, founded on the evidence of experiences beyond those of common men, leaves only one path open: to attempt, through a free and creative act, to reach the same level as the one imparting the teaching, thereby knowing through experience what the other knows or says with a word, which otherwise would remain just a word. Against the socialization, depersonalization, and conceptualization of knowledge, against the democratic inclination to “popularize” and dilute the superior for the benefit of the inferior so that the greatest number can participate without changing and ceasing to be inferior, we unyieldingly oppose the contrary attitude: there must be hierarchies within knowledge itself. There must be many truths separated by deep, vast, impassable chasms, corresponding exactly to various qualities of life and power, to many distinct individualities. There must be an aristocracy of knowledge, and the “universality” understood as communicable, democratic, and uniform must cease to be a criterion. We must not lower ourselves to them; rather, they must elevate themselves to us, dignifying themselves and genuinely ascending according to their abilities along the hierarchy of beings, if they wish to partake in the higher and metaphysical forms, which serve as criteria unto themselves and to the inferior and physical ones.

Thus, wisdom also results in freedom, openness, and breadth. At the core of socialized knowledge, there is always a “must,” a hidden, intolerant moral imposition. What is deemed “scientific” or “philosophical” truth must be universally recognized; no other attitude is allowed. As an expression of collective despotism, it seeks to reign despotically over all individuals, making them equal before it. It has organized itself, built its weapons, proofs, methods, and violence on this very will.

In contrast, wisdom dissolves, reintegrates, and returns the individual to himself. Each person has his truth, which precisely and profoundly expresses his life. This truth is a unique way of experiencing and expressing reality, which does not contradict or exclude other different ways. These diverse ways are equally possible within the differentiation that forms the basis of the hierarchy of wisdom.

This is sufficient regarding the second root of European decay and its remedy, justifying the principle that “the wise must govern.” In the realm of wisdom, the hierarchy of knowledge aligns with the hierarchy of power and individual superiority. Knowledge is being, and being is power, which naturally attracts the dignity of imperium.

In contrast, all of Europe stands with an organization nearly two millennia old. There is, as we said, the reign of professors, “intellectuals,” and eyeglasses without eyes — the academic, “cultured” world. By arrogating the privilege of knowledge and spirit, this world only demonstrates the extent to which the decadence and abstraction of the post-Christian world have advanced.

Julius Evola 

Pagan Imperialism