Schuon magisterially expresses the limitations of the rationalistic mind: “The common illusion of an "absolutely real" within relativity breeds philosophical sophistries and in particular an empiricist and experimental science wishing to unveil the metaphysical mystery of Existence; those who seek to enclose the Universe within their shortsighted logic fail to be aware, at least in principle, that the sum of possible phenomenal knowledge is inexhaustible and that, consequently, present "scientific" information represents a naught beside our ignorance—in short that "there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (Shakespeare) and that in order to extend our means of investigation to fit the scale of the total cosmos, we would have to begin by multiplying our human senses in mathematical progression, which brings us back to the unlimited, therefore to the inaccessible and the unknowable”. [Treasures of Buddhism, p. 41-42]. In other terms, one can compare the scope of empirical and discursive knowledge to the segment of a straight line which contains an infinity of points, although, by definition, none of them lies beyond the extremities of the segment. This implies that man could reach by rational means virtually any stretches of this “horizontal” segment but will never exceed its boundaries, a fact which certainly does not come as a surprise to the scientistic mindset which postulated that there is nothing in the world which is not within reach of our discursive intelligence—ergo, the boundaries simply do not exist and the Universe is confined to the limits of our rational apprehension.
The scientific unrest, metaphorically called “critical thinking” can plastically be described as the struggle of the fish in an overpopulated fish tank and the phenomenon becomes even more obvious when the powerful support of empirical evidence cannot play a role as it is the case with abstract thinking in general and with philosophy in particular[1]—in these latter cases, ingenious but shallow fabrications provide a substitute for experimentation as the foundation of new intellectual buildups. It is not surprising that once the existence of the absolute truth or even the possibility of such truth came to be questioned, surrogates emerged: in this climate, myriads of ideas, ranging from simple opinions to sophisticated philosophical theories can compete with equal rights for the quality of truthfulness (the sacrosanct “freedom of expression” is just another metaphor for this diversity); in the absence of a normative intellectual framework, the world succumbed to intellectual chaos, euphemistically called “freethinking” and in this climate almost anything could be proven or disproved without too much pain if the premises (otherwise perfectly arbitrary) were carefully chosen.
[1] Although the methods of science and modern philosophy are different, their attitude regarding the ultimate reality are the same: a deep mistrust, aberrant distortions or complete denial.
Motto
In our days, when the monstrous state of confusion that has engulfed humankind seems to have thrown individuals and societies in complete disarray, one feels almost embarrassed to bring into discussion lofty spiritual matters which may be regarded as inconsequential and naïvely idealistic compared to the grave human problems that our terrestrial existence raises every day. Two thousand years ago, the Bible foretold these circumstances for which René Guénon provided a more recent account: “... the inferior judges the superior, ignorance sets bounds to wisdom, error prevails over truth, the human is substituted for the divine, Earth has priority over Heaven, the individual sets the measure for all things and claims to dictate to the Universe laws drawn entirely from his relative and fallible reason (from “Individualism”, in “The Crisis of Modern World”).