32
PARTISAN REVIEW
yet I do not think philosophizing can be directed only towards those
who might be called "exquisite" any more than toward those who can
be called "plain." A philosopher should at least
strive
to be, in Hus–
serl's phrase, a "functionary of humanity,"
1
and humanity must in–
clude those who cannot be called plain as well as those who can. The
point is important, I think, for it illustrates the fact that there is an
implicit disavowal of philosophy in any approach to it that is politi–
cally motivated, and this is true even when the motivation for that
approach springs from democratic rather than aristocratic values.
I am aware that in his youth Hook wrote some very perceptive
pieces on modern philosophers. I am thinking of his piece on Morris
Raphael Cohen in the
Joumal of Philosophy,
of his review of Husserl's
Ideas
when it appeared in English translation, and of his salute to
Hartmann's
Ethics,
which he hailed as the greatest book on ethics
since Aristotle. I do not think Hook would defend that judgment to–
day, but since Hartmann's book is so interesting even today, I would
defend Hook for having made it when he did. And I must add that in
a few brilliant paragraphs of a
New York Sunday Times
article, he com–
pletely demolished Ayn Rand's argument in favor of The Selfish
Life, as if that were an ideal still awaiting fuller realization. All the
same it is not for these pieces - or even for his excellent essays on
Thurman Arnold and Kenneth Burke - that Delmore Schwartz can
be justified in having called Hook a "great critical intelligence."
I myself first became aware of Hook's political judgment when
I read his attack on the theory of social fascism which, backed by
none other than Joseph Stalin, had become a dogma in the Commu–
nist International and aided Hitler in coming to power. This theory
justified the Communists in making no distinction between socialists
and fascists; it had divided the German masses and given Hitler his
chance. Hook's analysis of the theory was a model of destructive logic,
an exercise in "deconstruction" long before that term had been ad–
vanced. (It is to be noted that at the time - the early thirties - an ef–
fort had been made to hide or at least cover the negative and painful
aspects of criticism by saying that criticism could be "constructive";
1. I think Whitehead showed himself to be a philosopher in Husserl's understanding
of the role when he pointed out that when Rome fell, the barbarians at least enjoyed
themselves . We intuitively recognize that some aspect of philosophy is here revealed,
for if the remark had been made by a poet or a historian we would credit the one
who made it with being "philosophical."
