Kierkegaard and Schopenhauer were in some ways like-minded. The former wrote in his journals that Schopenhauer’s “expressions are sometimes so closely akin to mine that in my exaggerated diffidence I perhaps end by ascribing to him what is my very own.” I suspect that the two pessimistic and penetrating philosophers would agree on the destructive effect of what Kierkegaard called “levelling,” roughly, the artificial erasing of human differences* so that every person appears to be of the same type — namely, the average person of average talents, stereotypical human interests, and mediocre moral strength. (See The Present Age, Harper Perennial, 2010, particularly pp. 24-25) This levelling might be thought required given the fact that we are equal with respect to personhood and its value. But that would be a mistaken conclusion; personhood is indeed valuable, but the fact that we are persons does not necessitate the flattening of the various empirical differences between human persons. Equal in personhood does not entail uniformity of attributes, nor does it entail invariability of outcomes.
Within reason, “live and let live” is wise counsel. And yet, regarding the human potential for excellence, this advice is not followed. In its vain effort to achieve the apotheosis of the average, human society severely pressures those of higher intellect and/or moral strength to hide their aptitude for the sake of fitting in with the masses. The outstanding ones are not permitted to be themselves — at least not in public, despite the fact that they are largely responsible for many great developments in human history. This intolerance of the intelligent hegemonizes popular culture, notwithstanding the banality that everyone should “be yourself!” This “you-should-be-you” kind of tolerance is a deceptive attitude since it holds only for those who fit the flattened mold.
As Schopenhauer puts it in Counsels and Maxims, Ch. 2, Section 9:
“So-called good society recognizes every kind of claim but that of intellect, which is a contraband article; and people are expected to exhibit an unlimited amount of patience towards every form of folly and stupidity, perversity, and dullness; whilst personal merit has to beg pardon, as it were, for being present, or else conceal itself altogether [my emphasis]. Intellectual superiority offends by its very existence, without any desire to do so.”
Kierkegaard makes a similar point: “From now on, the great man, the leader (according to his position), will be without authority because he will have divinely understood the diabolical principle of the levelling process; he will be unrecognizable; he will keep his distinction hidden like a plain-clothes policeman, …” (The Present Age, p. 55)
Notice that both thinkers refer to the unreasonable social demands heaped on the first-class mind to hide its mental superiority while in public, as if intellectual aristocracy (as Schopenhauer calls it in Section 10) were a matter of shame, while the crudeness of the ordinary chit-chatter is elevated to an ideal. Like a book flipped upside down, the lower order of mind is put above the higher; the world is thus expected to read the upended text of human affairs from right to left and then left to wonder why things make little sense.
Yet matters are much worse today. A. S. and S. K. would be horrified. The West — and perhaps the rest of the world as well, since the West has influenced the rest to such a significant extent — no longer tries to force its best individuals to conceal themselves. Rather, we have adopted a perforated worldview** such that obvious differences are believed not to exist objectively. Binary properties which motivate either-or thinking are taken not to be real but, according to this postmodern perspective, are merely the residue of efforts by the ‘patriarchy’ or some other undesirable group of power-possessors to control those who supposedly lack power.*** The time has come, we are told, to scrape away the dregs of the old order and prepare for the smooth reality of the newly-flattened world according to which everyone is a token of the same bland type.
This flat surface will not float; like a ship with a leaky hull, it will eventually sink. It’s a matter of time.
*This is a merely doxastic erasing. No human effort can achieve an ontological deletion of such differences. For instance, we cannot eliminate Messi’s superior soccer abilities or a sprinting champion’s faster speed just by pretending they do not exist.
**It is filled with holes, and they are easy to find if one looks with a clear mind.
***Think about it: if there are groups of power-possessors and power-lackers such that one is either in the former or in the latter, then there are, in fact, binary aspects of the world which justify either-or thinking, thus negating the perforated worldview which rejects the existence of binaries. I don’t deny that groups with and without power exist, nor do I deny that power tends to corrupt, but it doesn’t follow that there are no objective differences between people. I have just highlighted one hole in the sinking ship; there are others.
Advertisement
Re "This levelling might be thought required given the fact that we are equal with respect to personhood and its value. But that would be a mistaken conclusion."
Leveling is often connected to Christianity (for one, the Levelers were an extreme protestant sect), but one could make an argument that Christianity is actually the antidote because it provides a ground for equal respect independent of personal differences and, therefore, makes disguising those differences unnecessary. I think Roger Scruton used to argue in this way.
Re "This intolerance of the intelligent hegemonizes popular culture, notwithstanding the banality that everyone should 'be yourself!'"
Yes, quite. Writing in a traditional style seems to be getting harder and harder; it's apparently too difficult to follow.
Kierkegaard is strange thinker. Sometimes he comes off simply as a proto-existentialist and pathological protestant. But then he was also an extremely observant and talented writer. Similarly, few philosophers are less Aristotelian than Kierkegaard, and yet an Aristotelian can find much of interest in him.