270
PARTISAN REVIEW
but itself. But the philosopher finds poetry to be among the con–
tents of the universe. He has to come to terms with it. I can imagine
a brilliant essay by Ortega in which literature should be brought to
trial. He opens
his
"Considerations on Technique" with the following
sentences: "One of the themes which will be most eagerly discussed
in the next few years is that of the meaning, advantages, disad–
vantages, and limits of technique. I have always been of the opinion
that it is the writer's mission to anticipate the problems with which
his reader will be confronted years later, and to offer
him
clear ideas
on the questions at issue in good time-that is, before the controversy
begins-so that he may go down into the dust of battle with the
serene mind of a man who has already reached a decision in prin–
ciple.
'On ne doit ecrire que pour faire connaztre la verite,'
said
Malebranche, and turned his back on literature. For many years now,
Western Man, whether he is aware of it or not, has ceased to hope
anything from literature and once again hungers and thirsts for
clear and intelligible ideas about the things that matter."
Every philosophy raises a total claim. But we can respect only
those philosophies which know it and admit it. Ortega fulfils this
expectation. Philosophy, he teaches, possesses a violence which is a
part of its nature and which is in distinct opposition to the peaceful
demeanor which the sect of philosophers assumed soon after it made
its first appearance. Philosophers are generally too polite to discuss
this point openly. But the very existence of philosophy implies a
continuous and irreconcilable affront to the rest of humanity. It
implies nothing less than that the man without philosophy is scarcely
more than an animal. Where philosophy does not rule, sleep-walking
rules. All of us who do not philosophize, spend our lives, so to say,
in a state of somnolence.
A harsh judgment. But we shall find means to bear up under it.
It is not proven, and it cannot be proven, that all men must philo–
sophize. Once, in a criticism of modem physical science, Ortega re–
ferred to the "terrorism of the laboratories." We could object to him
that he teaches a terrorism of clear ideas. Such a spectacle is not
often offered us. There is something enthralling about it, as there is
about every process in which thought establishes an extreme position.
Let us take a few final steps in philosophic perception under
Ortega's guidance. His first problem was the antagonism between
