THE EMBELLISHMENT OF SCIENCE.—In the same way that the feeling that
“nature is ugly, wild, tedious—we must embellish it (_embellir la
nature_)”—brought about rococo horticulture, so does the view that
“science is ugly, difficult, dry, dreary and weary, we must embellish it,”
invariably gives rise to something called philosophy. This philosophy sets
out to do what all art and poetry endeavour to do, viz., giving amusement
above all else; but it wishes to do this, in conformity with its
hereditary pride, in a higher and more sublime fashion before an audience
of superior intellects. It is no small ambition to create for these
intellects a kind of horticulture, the principal charm of which—like that
of the usual gardening—is to bring about an optical illusion (by means of
temples, perspective, grottos, winding walks, and waterfalls, to speak in
similes), exhibiting science in a condensed form and in all kinds of
strange and unexpected illuminations, infusing into it as much indecision,
irrationality, and dreaminess as will enable us to walk about in it “as in
savage nature,” but without trouble and boredom.
Those who are possessed of this ambition even dream of making religion
superfluous—religion, which among men of former times served as the
highest kind of entertainment. All this is now running its course, and
will one day attain its highest tide. Even now hostile voices are being
raised against philosophy, exclaiming: “Return to science, to nature, and
the naturalness of science!” and thus an age may begin which may discover
the most powerful beauty precisely in the “savage and ugly” domains of
science, just as it is only since the time of Rousseau that we have
discovered the sense for the beauty of high mountains and deserts.
428.
TWO KINDS OF MORALISTS.—To see a law of nature for the first time, and to
see it whole (for example, the law of gravity or the reflection of light
and sound), and afterwards to explain such a law, are two different things
and concern different classes of minds. In the same way, those moralists
who observe and exhibit human laws and habits—moralists with
discriminating ears, noses, and eyes—differ entirely from those who
interpret their observations. These latter must above all be inventive,
and must possess an imagination untrammelled by sagacity and knowledge.
429.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account