PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE
879
jects on the basis of this object itself, is a choice that cannot be justi–
fied scientificall). Or: The ideas that guide us are tested in the sys–
tematic process of investigation, but they themselves do not become an
object of direct investigation.
Science left to itself as mere science becomes homeless. The
intellect is a whore, said Nicholas of Cusa, for it can prostitute it–
self to anything. Science is a whore, said Lenin, for it sells itself to
any class interest. For Nicholas of Cusa it is Reason, and ultimately
the knowledge of God, that gives meaning, certainty dnd truth to
intellectual knowledge; for Lenin, it is the classless society that
promotes pure science. Be that as it may, awareness of all this is the
business of philosophical reflection. Philoscphy
15
inherent in the
actual sciences themselves; it is their inner meaning that provides the
scif!ntist with sustenance and guides his methodical wf)rk. He who
consolidates this guidance through reflection and becomes conscious
of it, has reached the stage of explicit philosophizing.
If
this guidance
fails, science falls into gratuitous converltion, meaningless correct–
ness, aimless busyness and spineless servitude.
A pure science requires a pure philosophy.
But how can philosophy be pure? Has it not always striven to
be science? Our answer is: It is "science," but science of such a
sort that in the sense of modern scientific inquiry it is both less and
more than science.
Philosophy can be called science in so far as it presupposes the
sciences. There is no tenable philosophy outside the sciences. Al–
though conscious of its distinct character, philosophy is inseparable
from science. It refuses to transgress against universally binding insight.
Anyone who philosophizes must be familiar with scientific method.
Any philosopher who is not trained
in
a scientific discipline and
who fails to keep
his
scientific interests constantly alive, will inevitably
bungle and stumble, and mistake uncritical rough drafts for definitive
knowledge. Unless an idea is submitted to the coldly dispassionate test
of scientific inquiry, it is rapidly consumed in the fire of emotions
and passions, or else
it
withers into a dry and narrow fanaticism.
Moreover, anyone who philosophizes strives for scientific knowl–
edge, for it is the only way to genuine non-knowledge. It is as
though the most magnificent insights could be achieved only through
