Notes on "How Philosophy Can Become More Universal and Useful for the Benefit of the People" (1765)
Key ideas gleamed from the text (i.e. What is the new philosophy that Herder is proposing?)
- It must be for the common people
- It should speak their language
- This new philosophy must change the discourse of philosophy--language and poetry is thus essential to this project (that explains his neologisms)
- This philosophy must focus on anthropology. It must be human-centered
- It's comparative, it's not just a kind of pure philosophy. It has to be connected with some other fields, like economics, politics or even metaphysics
- It can't do anything to obstruct our natural moral sensations
Key Passages
[From Cambridge University Press' Philosophical Writings (2002)--translated by Michael Forster]
1. Influence of Rousseau in Herder's project (philosophy, as it is, can be harmful to the people):
Where else is this Logic than in the writings of our patriotic friend of humanity Rousseau? His great theme is all too closely related with mine: he has proved to everyone who has human eyes which have not been weakened by the philosophical telescope "that for the benefit of the human people no development of the higher powers of the soul is desirable," and I have had to prove that for the benefit of the people in the state, of these creatures who are still nearer to nature than scholars, no development of the philosophical powers of the soul is desirable...
...
Recapitulation: Our Logic does not teach us to think more or better (scholarly thought is merely for the scholar, and even that Logic cannot accomplish unless it is treated as part of metaphysics). The people ought not to become a philosopher, for in that case it ceases to be the people. It is harmful to the people, and the people needs guidance--through philosophy--in other words, the Logic of the healthy understanding.
12
[What do we make about "the people ought not to become a philosopher, for in that case it ceases to be the people"? Herder here is granting a great value to "the people". This concept's assumptions go largely hidden. But we only need to remember the work he did with the German volkslieder, or folk songs, to get a grasp at what he's doing here.]
[Also, the phrase "healthy understanding" is important here. He is searching for a philosophy of the "healthy understanding". I hear echoes of Nietzsche's vitalistic philosophy here.]
[Also, the phrase "healthy understanding" is important here. He is searching for a philosophy of the "healthy understanding". I hear echoes of Nietzsche's vitalistic philosophy here.]
2. Philosophy (as it is) can be a hinder our sensations
Thanks to nature, which created us, there are not cognitions but sensations, and these are all good. They are voices of conscience, our leader, sent by God. They can be made weaker, but not obscured. I draw further inferences. Everything that the principles and maxims of moral theory [Moral] say each person knows, implicitly and obscurely...All the light that the philosopher gives the rule makes a thing distinct that was already certain for me beforehand. He teaches it to my understanding. And my heart, not the understanding, must feel it. If rules make people virtuous, then clothes makes men, then the philosophers are gods, they are creators.
13
As soon as sensation turns into principle it ceases to be sensation. I think, I consider, I grasp moral duty--my viewpoint is quite different. I unlearn its opposite: to act, to apply the principle...The scholar who looks at his beauty's cheek through a magnifying glass will discover lumps and holes, sheer proportions, but he will not be moved by beauty.
14
And what is moral philosophy? A collection of rules which are mostly too general to be applied in individual cases, and yet always remain too flaccid to oppose a whole stream of bad dispositions and form a people's whole manner of thought. Nothing is more ridiculous than hearing a thin philosopher--ex grege communi--go on about the supreme strength of moral theory. Unless another science helps him--be it metaphysics or politics or often even a miserable economics--he is a mere talker. If you take away from him his philosophical barrel which he stands in, if you take away from him the venerable barbarism of his words, then he gets booed off.
14
O you who wish to tear away with a bold hand the veil that nature wove before things, may your hand tremble back. You schoolteacher, who force your pupils to abstract philosophy, you work contrary to nature--feverishly and yet uselessly, indeed as a destroyer of nature.
17
18
[Another repetition of the statement that the people will stop being the people with philosophy (I assume, philosophy as it is). The concern for the "small things" is important. Philosophy must be down to earth, about human beings as they exist.]
[Another repetition of the statement that the people will stop being the people with philosophy (I assume, philosophy as it is). The concern for the "small things" is important. Philosophy must be down to earth, about human beings as they exist.]
3. KEY--Philosophy must descend itself to the study of human beings
To be sure our philosophy must descend from the stars to human beings. The abstract component must for its part remain unattacked, unmutilated. But is there not in addition to it a philosophy which is immediately useful for the people: a philosophy of the healthy understanding? I must talk to the people in its language, in its manner of thought, in its sphere. Its language is things and not words; its manner of thought lively, not clear--certain, not proving; its sphere real advantage in daily affairs, foundations for advantage, or lively pleasure. Behold!, that is what philosophy must do in order to be a philosophy for the common people. Who recognizes our philosophy in this picture?
19
[This is problem one of the strongest statements in this essay. It orients Herder's interest in language, but in finding a common language for common people. What do we make about the distinction between a philosophy that's lively but not clear, certain but not proving? I certainly see how proving something might diminish the real-world relevance of a philosophical language...but clarity?]
[This is problem one of the strongest statements in this essay. It orients Herder's interest in language, but in finding a common language for common people. What do we make about the distinction between a philosophy that's lively but not clear, certain but not proving? I certainly see how proving something might diminish the real-world relevance of a philosophical language...but clarity?]
If philosophy [Philosophie] is to become useful for human beings, then let it make the human being its center. Philosophy, which has weakened itself by far too huge overextensions, will become strong when it restricts itself to its center.
21
[Here I see another echo of the future Nietzsche. An emphasis on a strong philosophy, a healthy philosophy--not necessarily a clear or accurate philosophy.]
Set before him instead of words a large number of actions, let him see instead of reading, instead of wishing to educate his head let him educate himself and merely protect him from miseducating himself.
22-23
4. In praise of the simple country-dwellers (Romanticism beginning to self-define itself?)
Try to imprint in him a philosophical spirit, so that he never desires to become a professional philosopher. May your main law be freedom and dependence on oneself, uncompelled self-observation, and independence from others' judgement. Everything that the philosophers teach and cannot do, those do who are closest to nature, the simple country-dwellers. These are the greatest observers of nature, in their serfdom the freest people, who despise the tyrant honor, who never let others' judgment take precedence over their own. In short, O philosopher, go to the country and learn the way of the farmers, refine this picture into an ideal, and overthrow the unphilosophical manner of living, overthrow the idol which shows you philosophy as corruption of the world, but not through philosophy. He who inspects the people with a philosophical eye, how many uncomprehended concepts...When it is taught nothing foreign etc. We learn merely what we do not need. Let this be said to the private tutors, they can improve a whole house if they are philosophers; to the country people; to the teachers of religion, from whom we unfortunately also learn to think; to the teachers of the humbler part of the people.
23
5. Emphasis on socializing and luxury in the education of the "noble male"
Nobler males in schools and academies. Changing of them. Nothing should be learned by heart. There should be no disputation. Books should be organized differently. Socializing more open. They are the easiest to improve, closest to the philosopher. Here philosophy is a very good part of luxury. Boredom. Curiosity.
27
In thinking--history of scholarship from the human being; core the history of philosophy
In the political constitution--such a book as Montesquieu--restriction of philosophy to anthropology--luxury should be introduced...[List breaks off.]
27
6. The importance of women, conversation and society to the new philosophy
And in order to set up this philosophy, is not an introduction of the philosopher into women's quarters and parties required here? A conversation with this fair sex which draws from them, and displays, their finest ideas and enriches philosophy with such a valuable portion, the knowledge of the fair [part of the] people, which knowledge must be the foundation for its education [Bildung]: education for the human being, the man, society, and children!
27-28
