The Philosophical and the Psychological Approach to Life
Our ideas have, however, the unfortunate but inevitable tendency to lag behind the changes in the total situation. They can hardly do otherwise, because, so long as nothing changes in the world, they remain more or less adapted and therefore function in a satisfactory way. There is then no cogent reason why they should be changed and adapted anew. It is only when conditions have altered so drastically that there is an unendurable rift between the outer situation and our ideas, now become antiquated, that the general problem of our Weltanschauung, or philosophy of life, arises, and with it the question of how the primordial images that maintain the ﬂow of instinctive energy are to be reoriented or readapted. They cannot simply be replaced by a new rational conﬁguration,
for this would be molded too much by the outer situation and not enough by man’s biological needs. Moreover, not only would it build no bridge to the original man, but it would block the approach to him altogether. This is in keeping with the aims of Marxist education, which seeks, like God himself, to mold man, but in the image of the State. Today, our basic convictions have become increasingly rationalistic. Our philosophy is no longer a way of life, as it was in antiquity; it has turned into an exclusively intellectual and academic aﬀair. Our denominational religions with their archaic rites and conceptions – justiﬁed enough in themselves – express a view of the world which caused no great diﬃculties in the Middle Ages but has become strange and unintelligible to the man of today. Despite this conﬂict with the modern scientiﬁc outlook, a deep instinct bids him hang on to ideas which, if taken literally, leave out of account all the mental developments of the last ﬁve hundred years. The obvious purpose of this is to prevent him from falling into the abyss of nihilistic despair. But even when, as rationalists, we feel impelled to criticize contemporary religion as literalistic, narrowminded and obsolescent, we should never forget that the creeds proclaim a doctrine whose symbols, although their interpretation may be disputed, nevertheless possess a life of their own on account of their archetypal character. Consequently, intellectual understanding is by no means indispensable in all cases, but is called for only when evaluation through feeling and intuition does not suﬃce, that is to say, with people for whom the intellect holds the prime power of conviction.