ofrespectandrestorative returnto
naturebeforecyclesof plantingand
evenhunting.It’sonlyin thelast 300
yearswiththeriseof capitalthatwe
havecometothinkthatwemight
takefromnaturewithimpunity. The
desacralisationofnatureanditsat-
tendant evacuationofpropertiesof
value(whatwasI callingthetotal
equationofnaturewithwhat the
natural sciencesstudy) wasessential
tothemodernoutlookthatallowed
forthat.
Butmanyarguethatit is unscientific
to saythatnaturecontains
propertiesthatthenaturalsciences
cannotstudy?
Yes,theydo.Butthatis anelement-
aryfallacy.Inclaimingthatnature
hasvalueproperties,I amnotsaying
anything unscientific whatsoever.
You canonly say something un-
scientific if youcontradict somepro-
positionofsomescience. Butno
science contains the proposition:
“Natural sciencehascompleteand
exhaustivecoverageof nature.”That
is simplynota propositionofany
science. Onlyphilosophers andpub-
licintellectuals saysuchsillythings,
scientisticphilosophers whoinsist
thattherecanbenoquestions about
naturethatarenotscience’s ques-
tions.It is sheersuperstition,a su-
perstitionof modernityto matchany
superstitionof tradition. (Ifa scient-
istlike[Richard]Dawkinssaysit
too,it is notquascientistthat hesays
it. It is somethingthathesayson his
owntimeasa philosopherorpublic
intellectual.)Youhavebeendescribedasanatheist,andyetyouwouldcallthisa
superstitionof modernity?
Right. There is no contradiction
here.It is verysimple to sortoutthe
issues.
Speakingformyself,it is truethat
I cannotsubscribetothe viewthat
value properties have a sacred
source.Butit does notfollowthat
valuemustbeevacuatedfromthe
world(including nature) justbe-
causeofitsdesacralisation. Desac-
ralisation of the world and
disenchantmentof theworldaretwo
different things.Theformerdoesnot
entailthelatter. Tosaythattheworld
containsnodivineproperties is per-
fectlycompatiblewithsayingit con-
tains value properties. Indeed, a
greatdealofthedestructionofthe
environmentwouldhavehadcon-
ceptualobstaclesif onesawvalue
propertiesasintrinsictonature.A
greatdealofthecultureofobsoles-
cenceandcommodification would
havehadconceptual obstaclesif we
conceived ofobjects ashavingin-
trinsicvalue.Thepoint,then,is this.
Tobeopposedtoscience,i.e.,tobe
unscientific,istogiveunscientific
answerstoscience’squestions.So,for
instance, creationismdoesthat.It
givesan unscientific answer toa
questionin scienceabouttheorigins
of theuniverse.Butto beopposedto
scientism, which I am,is a quitedif-
ferent thing.Itis not tobe un-
scientific. It is ratherto insistthatnot
allquestions,notevenallquestions
aboutnature,arescience’squestions.
Thequestionofvalueis nota sci-
entific question, andsincenature
containsvaluepropertiesaswellas
thepropertiesthatnaturalscience
studies,there are questionsabout
nature that are not science’s
questions.
Now,to getbackto postmodern-
ismandrelativism;relativism about
valueandculture,at itsdeepest,was
madepossiblebytheevacuationof
valuefromnatureandfromthings
and consequently making values
havetheirentiresourceinourown
mentality(ourdesires, oursubject-
iveutilities,ourpreferences, touse
the contemporary social science
term,ourmoralsentiments, touse
AdamSmith’s term) anditsculturalWORKERSANDFARMERSof various unionsraise slogansduring the
MazdoorKisan SangharshRally at Parliament Street in New Delhi on
September5, 2018. “In Left commentaryin Indiaon the large September 5
worker-peasant(including agriculturallabourers) rally,it was pointedout how
significant it was that solidaritywas shown betweenthesetwo groupsdespite
distinct and conflictinginterests....”
ARUNSHARMA/PTI