George Santayana on Liberalism and the Spiritual Life (original) (raw)

All idealists voluntarily suffer and therefore, there is hardly any room for them to complain about the world they live in. However, they have a wistful longing which expects the world to be tuned to their way of thinking! There is a continual frustration in their youthful years but fortunately a hope that kindles for the future keeps them lively. George Santayana somehow imbibed neither the Spanish nor the American culture totally. Generally this happens when one is born in one country and brought up in another. We have to accept the fact that sensitive souls rejoice living in past with select nostalgic memories and intentionally prefer to stretch on the dint of the speculating power within, sometimes beyond the stretchable limits. At times this volition does pay but might also result into a unique philosophical outlook comprising numerous components of varied nature. George Santayana happily nurtured the influences stemming out of the ancient Greek culture and of course the philosophy thereof. Being an accustomed global trotter he had developed an implicit faith in certain fancy novel ideas which indeed helped him later to go outrightly for taking on abstract ideas. He was definitely conscious of the fact that the path which he had opted was not at all a smooth one and initially he found everything sketchy. Exerting tirelessly and later enduring the demands of the situation, had become a routine practice for him. In the course of life he had developed the habit of trying to grasp and then guide the modern world on the basis of the past recognised theories giving absolutely no scope for even a minor deviation. This habit lasted throughout his life. Being a staid personality, he had no regrets but that many times improvised his personality in such a queer way that aloofness automatically became the major shade of his persona. Doubting the efficacy of the religious principles particularly when applied in the mart of the worldly affairs, may be viewed as a common human temperament when young. This would obviously lead to Atheism. However, with experience one may not find the chosen route totally satisfying either.Therefore, when a philosopher like George Santayana approaches or tries to infer the routine activities of the society he would have faced many contradictory shades within. This paper attempts to bring forth only such important outlooks and their influence on his philosophy.

Readers new to Santayana may feel puzzled by aspects of Scepticism and Animal Faith. A number of Santayana’s early critics were puzzled as well. Some found the relation between scepticism and common sense troublesome. Others were put off by Santayana’s indirect poetical style and his lack of “clarity.” In this paper I reflect on Santayana’s estimation of George Berkeley, whose work is both an inspiration and a foil for Santayana, and I tease out some observations that illuminate puzzlements that first-time readers might share with Santayana’s early critics. This same line of analysis should lead us to appreciate the impact of Santayana’s great “discovery of essence,” which he re-enacts in this book and which holds the key to understanding Santayana’s mature project.

An interesting trend of recent scholarship on Santayana’s thought is focused on his criticism of modernity and brings him together with the major figures of postmodern philosophy, especially with Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida, and Rorty. In my opinion, while the criticism of modernity certainly offers a relevant key to understand Santayana’s philosophy, it should be rooted first and foremost in some cultural and philosophical linkages that Santayana himself makes explicit throughout his writings, namely, a classical Latin author such as Lucretius, and a modern author such as Giacomo Leopardi. Answering the question in my title, it seems to me that, ultimately, Santayana is a timely/untimely philosopher, if his concepts of rationality and spirituality can be viewed and understood within the framework labeled by Michel Foucault as epimeleia heautou or cura sui.

Th e philosopher George Santayana was keenly aware of literature and particularly of tragedy and comedy. Taking his cue from the Platonic notion of the tragedy and comedy of life, he was able to look at politics from a detached point of view beyond tragedy and comedy. Th is detachment, however, is not without its problems, as it would seem to lead to a low estimation of human life in light of eternity. But precisely by maintaining his detachment from current politics, Santayana's contemplative stance off ers a powerful antidote, in thought, to all forms of modern, i.e. ideological , politics, including the politics of Realpolitik. Santayana's awareness of the tragedy and comedy of political life shows his awareness of the limits of politics.