CONCLUSION
The metaphysics of Teilhard de Chardin mostly expressed in
The Phenomenon of Man is a brilliant synthesis of Christianity with
evolution, arguing very cogently that Christianity not only fits naturally into
evolution, but is in fact the real purpose of it all. Teilhard de Chardin
accepted the possibility of other levels of consciousness that we don't
understand yet. To deal with such levels, he had to invent new words and/or
resort to metaphors. In order to appreciate Teilhard's vision, it is first
necessary to understand his basic concepts: Noo genesis, Noosphere, Cosmo
genesis, Christo genesis, convergence, Omega point and complexification. The
key thing that Teilhard de Chardin recognized is that there is more to life,
nature and the universe than the eye or instruments can reveal. He invites each
of us to step up with him beyond the merely "real" to a "complex plane" of
thought on a higher level. The future of evolution is more interesting than the
past, and Teilhard de Chardin is one of very few people ever to look over the
horizon. Interpreting the future of evolution is necessarily a matter of
speculation; the most optimistic of the futurists is Pierre Teilhard de
Chardin. The model envisioned by Teilhard de Chardin has been variously
denounced, criticized, accepted, praised or endorsed by various observers, but
it has seldom been understood. Original Teilhardian words like Noosphere are
commonly regarded as a nice literary device, but are not taken seriously. In
order to enhance understanding of central Teilhardian concepts such as
complexification, centration, the within and without, it is important to go
back to the Phenomenon of man which is a purely metaphysics work. The
way in which we learn mathematics, growing from a simple to a complex
understanding as our level of information grows, is presented as an analogy for
the kind of growth in complexity that Teilhard de Chardin proposes and his
vision beyond our present horizon seems to be very plausible.
PART TWO
OPTIMISM IN TEILHARDIAN
HUMANISM
INTRODUCTION
Heraclitus and Parmenides represent two opposed views as far
as evolution is concerned. According to Heraclitus, things are in perpetual
movement, we are moving; whereas according to Parmenides, being is static,
nothing changes; we are not moving at all. The denial of change, evolution,
development and progress leads to pessimism. For those who are pessimistic
towards the future, nothing appears to have changed since man began to hand
down the memory of the past or the forms of life. The ever-growing movement of
evil in the form of all kinds of violence and hatred seems to confirm this
pessimistic attitude that could lead one to affirm that the future is not
bright, the future will never be bright as the present situation and the past
situation of mankind is and has been characterised by violence and hatred. In
this light, Teilhard de Chardin affirms:
[...] (Immobility has never inspired anyone with
enthusiasm!) [...] Human suffering, vice and war, although they may momentarily
abate, recur from age to age with an increasing virulence. Even the striving
after progress contributes to the sum of evil: to effect change is to undermine
the painfully established traditional order whereby the distress of living
creatures was reduced to a minimum. What innovator has not re-tapped the
springs of blood and tears? For the sake of human tranquillity, in the name of
Fact, and in defence of the sacred Established Order, the immobilists forbid
the earth to move. Nothing changes, they say, or can change. The raft must
drift purposelessly on a shoreless sea.'
Teilhard de Chardin in The Future of man does not
insist on the clash of civilizations2, but on the dialogue of
civilizations. Our work in this second part is to bring out the optimistic
views of Teilhard de Chardin.
I Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, The Future of
Man, New York, I964, pp. II-I2.
2 Samuel Huttington wrote a book entitled The
Clash of Civilizations, a pessimistic view of human interactions.
CHAPTER FOUR
HUMAN RACES IN TEILHARD DE CHARDIN'S DAYS
AND HIS CALL FOR OPTIMISM
Teilhard de Chardin witnessed both the First and the Second
World Wars. In his days, the various ethnic unities of the world appeared to be
in bristling hostility to one another. This antagonism among peoples, in which
he was caught, seemed to give a final knock to whoever dreamed of a unification
of the universe. The world in his days was characterised by repulsion,
isolation and fragmentation and this was revealed by wars and conflicts.
Despite this situation of conflict and divergence, Teilhard de Chardin remained
optimistic towards the future. In The Vision of the Past, we read:
Believers in the existence of human progress remain
scandalized and disconcerted by the revival of racialism. This outbreak of
egoistic violence, they think, condemns their dearest hopes. But could one not
maintain, on the contrary, that in so far as it satisfies a preliminary
condition necessary for their realization, it actually justifies
them?'
As such, there is no need for mankind to despair; the general
movement of evolution - we are moving towards the Omega Point - will bring
mankind together under the phenomenon of the panhuman convergence, the
civilization of the universal. In this chapter, we would like to consider the
conflict situation among civilizations, the movement towards union, and the
value of Pan-human-mobilism in fulfilling optimistic hopes towards the future
of mankind.
I Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Op. cit., p.
209.
4.1. The conflict situation
The Twentieth Century is behind us. It was the most violent
century in the history of mankind. It was also the one to see the most rapid
scientific and technical advances. It included two World Wars and the
Holocaust. It saw Genocides. It produced and used Nuclear and Chemical Weapons.
It has been a century torn by strife. The contradictions between peace and war
could not have been sharper. Still, the results do not turn out as they should,
and the number of wars refuses to approach the zero mark. Today we record some
twenty to thirty major armed conflicts a year. To these we can add minor armed
conflicts, terrorist group activities, riots and unrest in all parts of the
world. This might be less than was observed five years ago, which provides some
consolation, though it also makes clear that the question of war is not about
to leave us; war, as Heraclitus said, is really the father of all things as it
is always present in the history of mankind.
The First World War was started in the spirit of "war as an
adventure," which could be ended whenever the participants wanted but that is
not what happened. The actual destruction was terrible beyond imagining. The
images changed dramatically, and - once the carnage had ended - the slogan
instead became: "No More War." Considerable efforts were put in to prevent the
recurrence of war. The League of Nations was one approach. A new war followed,
nonetheless, but this time it was not celebrated as a noble task but regarded
as a necessary or inevitable outcome of events. Since the Second World War, war
has increasingly been analyzed in terms of a security dilemma. The basic notion
is that nobody wants war, but the defensive measures set up by one side are
interpreted as offensive by the other side. Preparing for peace seems to lead
to tension and even to war. The Cold War was seen as such as a dilemma. It
appeared difficult for any party to break out of the vicious circle created by
the arms race and the escalatory potential of crises.
Teilhard de Chardin bears witness to the fact that some
peoples of the earth have lived in fear of one another and even in conflict. He
imagines that these forces of opposition lying in every human unit in Europe or
in Asia, were then in gestation and that they wanted to come out, neither to
oppose nor crush themselves, but to unite, come together and to fertilize
themselves. He says inter alia:
We are now beginning to feel it in us, and to observe it
in our neighbours: before the last disturbances that shook the earth, the
peoples scarcely lived other than on the surface; a world of energies was still
sleeping in each of them. Well, these powers are, I imagine, still hidden; and
at the heart of each natural human unity, in Europe, in Asia, everywhere, they
are at this moment moving and trying to reach the light of day: not, I
conclude, in order to fight and devour one another, but to rejoin and fertilize
one another. Fully conscious nations are needed for a united
earth.'
There has been a remarkable consensus on the need for
containing conflict and even on the need for contributing to solving conflict.
International organizations have acquired a stronger role than ever before in
matters of global security and peace. The "international community" has emerged
as a new constellation. Its record is mixed, but the negative attitude to war
remains: Wars should not take place, and the world as a whole should contribute
to their elimination. The lessons of the 20th century have truly changed the
perspectives on waging war. This is definitely a step towards union and
peace.
| 
