WS 2011/2011 exam translation (advanced) (Staatsexamen Frühjahr 2007) text 9
The word “culture” seems to mean something high,
profound, respectable - a thing before which we bow. It joins nature as a
standard for the judgement of men and their deeds but has even greater dignity.
It is almost never used pejoratively, as are “society”, “state”,
“nation” or even “civilization”, terms for which culture
is gradually substituted, or whose legitimacy is underwritten by culture.
Culture is the unity of man’s brutish nature and all the arts and sciences*) he
acquired in his movement from the state of nature to civil society. Culture
restores the lost wholeness of first man on a higher level, where his faculties
can be fully developed without contradiction between the desires of nature and
the moral imperatives of his social life.
“Culture”
in the modern sense was first used by Immanuel Kant**), who was thinking of
Rousseau when he employed it, particularly about what Rousseau said of the
bourgeois. The bourgeois is selfish, but without the
purity and simplicity of natural selfishness. He makes contracts hoping to get
the better of those with whom he contracts. His faithfulness to others and
his obedience to law are founded on expectation of gain: “Honesty
is the best policy”. Thus he corrupts morality, the essence of which is to
exist for its own sake. The bourgeois satisfies neither extreme, nature or
morality. The moral demand is merely an abstract ideal if it asks for what
nature cannot give. Brutish selfishness would be preferable to sham morality.
But what is the
relation between Kant’s use of the word and ours? It seems there are two
different current uses that, while distinct, are linked. First, culture is
almost identical to people or nation, as in French culture, German culture,
Iranian culture, etc. Second, culture refers to art, music, literature,
educational television, certain kinds of movies - in short, everything that is
uplifting and edifying, as opposed to commerce.
The
link is that culture is what makes possible, on a high level, the rich social
life that constitutes a people, their customs, styles, tastes, festivals,
rituals, gods - all that binds individuals into a group with roots, a community
in which they think and will generally, with the people a moral unity, and the
individual united within himself. A culture is a work of art, of which the fine
arts are the sublime expression. In culture, on the other hand, the individuals
are formed by the collectivity as are the members of the chorus of a Greek drama.
A Charles de Gaulle, or, for that matter, an Alexander Solzhenitsyn saw the
United States as a mere aggregate of individuals, a dumping ground for the
refuse from other places, devoted to consuming; in short, no culture.
Quelle: Alan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind, London 1987, pp. 185, 187-188
For the complete text (of Alan Bloom's chapter on "culture") click HERE
wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allan_Bloom
review (1): www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/closing_of_the_american_mind.html
review (2): www.ram.org/ramblings/philosophy/closing_1.html
review (3):
www.gotterdammerung.org/books/reviews/c/closing-of-the-american-mind.html
**) Monty Python:; Philosophers' football match: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ur5fGSBsfq8
Philosopers' football match RE-ENACTED:
a) http://www.philosophersfootball.com/
a) http://www.philosophersfootball.com/files/press-releases/Release_Matchday_Web.pdf
more caveman cartoons
back to exam translation WS 2011/2012, index back to homepage
THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE THE BOTTOM LINE