1Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Sources of Madness—The Insane Thinkers of the Modern Age
lifted in full from:
Sources of Madness—The Insane Thinkers of the Modern Age
Sources of Madness—The Insane Thinkers of the Modern Age
Author
- Kelly O'Connell Monday, August 29, 2011
What is more characteristic of our modern day than crazy and wholly indefensible “policies”? It seems one of the undeniable characteristics of our times that many of the West’s most common practices and theories appear the result of insane conclusions. Perhaps this did not occur by accident. Instead, many of the founders of this modern age were troubled individuals who struggled with profound emotional and mental issues.
While one might assume that such an unstable background would preclude a person from being chosen as a leader, nothing could be further from the truth. Yet, there may be an explanation as to why such crippled minds were chosen as role models to the modern era.
One of the most obvious aspects of a crazy idea is that it is transparently unacceptable to the average person. And yet, if one wants to set about radically changing society they must have a model or philosophy to draw from. It would therefore help to find a mentally unwell person as a source for morally or intellectually unacceptable theories. Because these types of people would be most likely to suggest theories that were quite different and undermine traditional society. Correct? The topic of this essay is the clearly insane bent of much of our modern thinking, resultant from mentally infirm intellectuals like Nietzsche and Comte, and how this creates madness in our everyday lives.
I. August Comte’s Religion of Humanity
A. Early Career: Mr. Science
An extremely influential thinker for the modern age was Frenchman August Comte (1798-1857), founder of Positivism and Sociology. Comte saw the godless aftermath of the French Revolution, and also received a first-class science education. This would be the only grist for the mill needed for his ideas, plus madness. He started his academic career aiding Saint-Simon, a father of socialism, and highly influential to Karl Marx. Comte had revolutionary mindset, but was of a nervous disposition. He once asked—“‘How does one reorganize human life, irrespectively of God and king?” One writer claims Comte was,
An advanced and brilliant child, at the age of fourteen he declared he had “naturally ceased believing in God” and had already “gone through all the essential stages of the revolutionary spirit.”
Comte derived a theory that the only proper subject of philosophy was what could be measured or detected by the senses, or scientifically, which he named “Positivism.”
B. Comte’s Ideas: A High Church of Science
August Comte believed all life must be viewed from a scientific angle, put under political control. His book Philosophical Considerations on the Sciences and the Scientists (1825) gives the law of the three stages,
The law states that, in its development, humanity passes through three successive stages: the theological, the metaphysical, and the positive.
Comte’s Law of Three Stages was borrowed from 12th century rogue abbot Joachim of Flora‘s heretic tripartite vision of history.
C. Comte’s Insanity: Institutionalized, Discharged, but “Not Cured”
Comte had a profound and violent break with reality, and—much like Nietzsche, never truly recovered his sanity. Says the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy,
In April 1826, Comte began teaching a Course of Positive Philosophy. It was suddenly interrupted because of a ‘cerebral crisis’ due to overwork and conjugal sorrows. Comte was then hospitalized in the clinic of Dr. Esquirol. Upon leaving, he was classified as ‘not cured’.
The mental breakdown was profound. Says another author,
This was a time of major crisis for Comte. In 1826 he experienced “violent derangements” ending with a complete mental breakdown. His recovery took 2 years. This was no minor illness, Comte was delusional & paranoid, at times delirious, at others violent. He even tried to kill himself more than once.
Comte had two more periods of mental illness—in 1838 & 1845. Some claim he was never totally sane again after 1826, given the bizarre nature of his later thoughts. His rejection of liberalism in favour of authoritarianism, his distrust of the people, his belief social science could provide the blueprint for the society of the future, his desire to train a new spiritual elite, all lead in the direction of establishing Comte’s Religion of Humanity.
D. Comte’s Totalitarian Urge
While Comte first extolled freedom of speech, he soon tired of liberty. Instead, he began to demand the need for a rigid society dominated by spiritual elites. States one author,
Comte revealed disdain for the people’s opinion. He felt only enlightened men should take part in journalism or government, arguing only those specifically trained in political science should play an active role in politics. Social scientists should rule, and the liberty of everyone else should be restricted accordingly.
He contended sovereignty of the people would vest power in those unfit to rule both morally & intellectually, “replacing the arbitrariness of kings by the arbitrariness of people, or rather, by that of individuals.” Comte argued government should be made “head of society,” uniting people & focusing everyone’s activities on common goals.
Comte became totally anti-freedom for the masses. Writes Comte:
Liberty ... in a reasonable proportion is ... useful to ... people who have attained a certain degree of instruction and have acquired some habits of foresight ... [but] is very harmful to those who have not fulfilled these two conditions and have the indispensable need, for themselves as much as for others, to be kept in tutelage.
E. Comte’s Godless Church of Humanity
Comte believed scientific sociology was the new church. His ideas, while novel then, seem old-hat to anyone familiar with today’s modern liberalism. The Church was said to be utterly corrupt. So we need scientists in various disciplines to provide rules. Instead of being a scary idea, Comte states that the scientific method will protect the people from error.
Comte was also opposed to economic growth over spiritual and moral development. Further, persuaded by Thomas Malthus, he wanted to see his church of humanism halt the reckless breeding of humans. Much like Joachim of Flora’s design which he copied, Comte’s structure of his final society was like a secularized Catholic Church. His scientists were an atheist clergy. Observes one author,
He rejected democracy and freedom of the individual in favour of a powerful elite who would rule with an iron hand. Only the enlightened few would have any say in his new society. His Religion of Humanity, with himself in role of pope, would tell people what to think and how to act. His proposed structure for spiritual leadership was so much like the Catholic church, that T.H. Huxley described his later ideas as ‘Catholicism minus Christianity.’
II. Other Crazed Intellectuals:
Some of the other most influential minds of the modern age have either struggled with their sanity, or have gone full-bore insane. Consider the unstable following intellectuals.
A. Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one of the most influential intellectuals of modernity. According to Paul Johnson in Intellectuals, his ideas changed history and his books are considered masterpieces, establishing principles of society, democracy, education and humanity’s place in nature. He helped found the basis for intellectual, social and political revolutions in at least three nations.
When Rousseau died the response was emotional. Writer George Sand called him “Saint Rousseau,” whereas the poet Shelly termed him a “sublime genius.” The philosopher Schiller claimed he was a “Christ-like soul for whom only Heaven’s angels are fit company.”
But those who actually knew Rousseau tell a different story, according to Johnson. While a talented writer, Rousseau was also a monster of vanity, ingratitude and revenge. The love of his life, Sophie d’Houdetot, dismissed him as an “interesting madman.” French Encyclopedia creator Denis Diderot, an initial patron, referred to him as “deceitful, vain as Satan, ungrateful, cruel, hypocritical and full of malice.” If alive today, he might be diagnosed a sociopath.
Rousseau claimed to be a benefactor of man, the greatest living humanist. And yet in his writings, the state is the father of man and morphs from harmless friend into a ruthless dictator. His entire society is dependent upon the state, and he turns politicians into New Men, messiahs—who can solve all problems through political genius, according to Johnson. It seems Rousseau, who abandoned his own five children to almost certain death in orphanages, believed the state was the answer to all problems.
But what exactly was Rousseau’s problem? Why did his benefactor, philosopher David Hume, after inviting him to the UK, end up calling him “A monster, he sees himself as the only important being in the universe”? Rousseau was undoubtedly insane. Johnson quotes one modern academic listing Rousseau’s shortcomings, as follows:
He was a masochist, exhibitionist, neurasthenic, hypochondriac, onanist, latent homosexual afflicted by the typical urge for repeated displacements, incapable of normal or parental affection, incipient paranoiac, narcissistic introvert rendered unsocial by his illness, filled with guilt feelings, pathologically timid, a kleptomaniac, infantilist, irritable and miserly.
But also consider Rousseau’s own testimony in the Confessions:
One day I took the Mercure de France and, while reading, as I walked, I came upon the subject proposed by the Academy of Dijon as a prize essay for the following year: Has the progress of the arts and sciences contributed more to the corruption or purification of morals? From the moment I read these words, I beheld another world and became another man… on my arrival at Vincennes I was in a state of agitation bordering on madness.
B. Friedrich Nietzsche
The writer Friedrich Nietzsche claimed “God is Dead” but ended his life mentally incapacitated and bedridden, after battling the God of the Bible for years. He is one of the most important thinkers in the history of atheism, and is a clear founder of Existentialism, yet there is no clear line between the madness of his mind and his ideas. This may be because he set off on an insane task—the “reevaluation of all values”—done by a Superman. This goal, in itself is crazy, and well describes Nietzsche’s permanently addled state of mind.
Nietzsche’s madness seemed to come on gradually and may have caused his crazy writings, or vice-verse. Either way, despite his current status as a hero to disenfranchised youth and the godless, Nietzsche went permanently insane, only to be cared for by his mother, a pastor’s widow. His breakdown is described by one author:
Nietzsche’s final collapse came in 1889. On 3 January 1889, Nietzsche saw a coach driver beating his horse. Nietzsche considered this cruel, & rushed the man. He did not reach the coach, collapsing. He was taken back to his apartment, but he had collapsed mentally. He was later found by friends, playing the piano with his elbows, singing wildly. Friedrich was taken to an asylum, but was quickly reprieved by his mother, who took him home.
The autobiographical book Ecce Homo (“Behold the man”) is a testimony to Nietzsche’s insanity, with such titles as, “Why I Am So Wise”, “Why I Am So Clever”, “Why I Write Such Good Books” and “Why I Am a Destiny”. But the book is signed by “Dionysus versus the Crucified,” showing the insane journey he was on—to confront, confute and collapse Christ. But instead of creating a superman who overwhelms all religions, Nietzsche was left a mental cripple who ended his life babbling and unaware of his own name. Yet the man is still venerated as an inspirational genius and unparalleled role model.
III. Conclusion
It is quite evident that many of today’s most widely accepted ideas and standards are simply crazy. We know this because they make little commons sense and always fail. Sadly, such is the state of modern society across the West. Dictionary.com defines insanity as,
1. the condition of being insane; a derangement of the mind. Synonyms: dementia, lunacy, madness, craziness, mania, aberration.
2. Law: such unsoundness of mind as frees one from legal responsibility, as for committing a crime, or as signals one’s lack of legal capacity, as for entering into a contractual agreement.
3. Psychiatry: pyschosis.
4. (a.) extreme foolishness; folly; senselessness; foolhardiness; (b.) a foolish or senseless action, policy, statement, etc.
Take Comte’s ideal state, where political scientists create an atheist church taking the place of religion, which is then outlawed. Thereafter it allows no dissent—even to members of the media. Where the state has totalitarian powers and cannot be resisted. And the only people allowed any liberties are the elites, whose scientific sociology allows them to create a perfect moral code so all men may be forced to live in perfect harmony. Is this not the current totalitarian dream of almost all leftists, liberals, progressive, socialists and Marxists today?!!
Economics: Consider, an economics based upon a socialistic theory where there is no compunction to work if you don’t feel like it—you will still get paid. Or, a fiscal policy based upon “Deficit Spending” where such activity is taught to be a huge, positive creator of wealth. Is not such thinking crazy?
Families: Imagine the notion of “Family planning” based upon abortion, and where there is no societal expectation for parents to marry or even cohabitate. Could such a society produce mentally healthy offspring?
Education: Ponder an educational system officially founded upon materialism, which does not teach its students how to use logic, where God cannot be mentioned, and morality is an issue of simple taste.
Law: How about a legal structure where law is said to be “positive”—that is based only upon the will of the lawmakers, without any appeal to Natural or Higher Law or God’s Things. Could such a legal theory persuade citizens to choose rightly between right and wrong?
Government: Imagine a political structure in which the state is presented as having the powers and rights of a god, and where persons can trade security for freedom and never have to worry about any violence or tyranny again. Further, where individuals have no rights because only the group matters.
The notion of removing God and liberty so that man may be free is more properly found in Lucifer’s playbook than the Founders. But, are the above listed ideas not all certifiably crazy and doomed to fail? And is it really possible to assume that insane thinkers will not be touched by madness when they go to publish? In fact, doesn’t it simply explain why we have such inscrutable values and policies when our heroes were permanently insane? Further, don’t we also risk becoming crazy by committing ourselves to unbalanced ideas?
We must admit today it is more true than ever what Rousseau once famously observed… “Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains.”
a micah p.s. what do the three renowned idiots mentioned above have in common?
Reply With Quote
Micah!
Originally Posted by micah719
Even though they would disagree our overall society would be better if we all followed the ten commandments. 
This is something I have run into already online and it definitely makes me scratch my head. The fact is that he definitely believes in evolution, and that we are all no better than animals. The reason I bring this up is that Darwin, the man who POPULARIZED evolution died a madman. Good role model there if I ever heard of one. Funny that most atheists I've ever heard of have never said anyhing against OTHER religions as a whole.
Bookmarks