know about nothing but were afraid tornask. One comes actually to prefer one’srnuniverse devoid of the hoax of quality.rn(It may not occur to us that anotherrnwell-known name for such a place isrnHell.)rnUnless one were a poet, say, or arnphilosopher. They, in their primordialrnpurity of function and meaning, arc asrnrare as stars in the daytime, though theyrnmay occur. Such a one might have beenrnfated to be born in the midst of an OldrnWorld’s highest of high hills, wherernMozart also had been born, at one ofrnthat worid’s least propitious modern moments,rna little after the Siegfried Linernwas breached.rnInspired by the example of Dietrichrnvon Ilildebrand and of Karol Wojtyla,rnotherwise known as Pope John Paul II, anrnadmirably unselfregarding personagernnamed Josef Seifert came to found thernInternational Academy for Philosophyrnin the Principality of Liechtenstein, Thernterm itself would appear provocative,rnrecalling as it does those other twornacademies—Plato’s, Cosimo’s—of happyrnmemorv without which the worldrncould never have hoped to have come intornbeing at all.rnThis may well have been a nervy thingrnto trv. Though as with that of Athens orrnof Florence, a family and a fortune standrnbehind it, Liechtenstein’s princely housernis not so well known—yet—as that ofrnSolon or the Medicis. The old princernnow deceased displayed a crucial presencernof mind, though, in a maddenedrnworld, sparing his principality participationrnin the Third Reich. In contrast tornthose other world metropolises, mostrnpeople have barely heard of Liechtenstein,rnwhose obscurity behind mountainsrnat the heart of a Europe currently obsessedrnwith its own materialist/liedonistrnabandon may prove an asset whose valuernhas yet to mature. It is the academy’srnpremise that considerably less is rightrnwith the emerging human picture thanrnmost are willing to consider. The academyrnexists not to “study” philosophy (onernmay do that there, of course) but to resurrectrnit. At which point one may wellrnask whether such a thing were even possible;rnif possible, advisable; if advisable,rndesirable. That would be to begin, asrnPlato himself said all philosophy must, inrnwonder.rnSeifert’s first words to me were aboutrnmy own New World (Dallas, as it happened,rnwhere I have never been). I le wasrnbeing introduced to a local political figurernwho asked him, in that singular wayrnof our countrymen, not “What do yourndo?” but “What do you do?” and tornwhich he replied, not “I write books” norrn”I teach at the university,” though he didrnboth, but—”1 am a philosopher.” Thatrnwas what he knew himself to be.rn”A… ? A . . . ‘ What?” (It is hard tornknow whether the public figure’s responsernwas a plov.) “A phuh . . . la . . .rnsuh . . . phuh . . .? Hey! Do you realizernwhat that means? That means . . . thatrnthe lowliest truekdriver in this town … isrnof more real use in life than you!”rnThe man from the Alps where libertyrnis as air was not as abashed by the turn ofrnconversation as he was meant to be. Thernprime philosophical virtue can be a finernthing on occasion. He respectfully askedrnif Tex had heard of Aristotle, the sourcernof the opinion as to the prime philosophicalrnvirtue. It may have been vanity, butrnthe query acquired a positive response.rn”Then you may know of his remark thatrnwhat is of no ‘use’ may—on that very accountrn—be what is most to be valued.”rnWe are not yet a race of philosopherrnkings, and this notion had not occurredrnto Tex. It did serve, though, to put a periodrnto the social interval.rnBut can there be “value” in pursuingrnwhat is of no “use”? The academy hasrnbeen founded upon an apt set of observations,rnas startling as indefeasible, asrndisturbing as ignored: one, that our timernhas spawned a greater number of politicalrnmurders than all other times put together;rntwo, that these deaths are a consequencernnot of reversion to savagery,rnitself a real enough result, but of philosophy.rnThe academy stipulates that thernphilosophies in question are, to be sure,rndemonstrably bad ones, ideologiesrnpassed off as philosophies, stratagems forrnpsychological manipulation, even systematicrnanfi-philosophies: that modernityrnis largely antipathetic to the traditionalrnclaims of philosophy as well as arnconsequence of its very attitude, that influentialrnphilosophers of the last threerncenturies have expended inordinate energiesrndiscrediting themselves. Whencernthe scorn of our no-nonsense Texan. Hernprobably does know where the oil well is,rnafter alkrnBut would he recognize his cousinsin-rncontcmpt? The ones who said, “Godrnis dead. Nothing is true. Anything goes”?rnThe ones who scoffed, “Philosophersrnhave explained the worid—it is necessaryrnto change it!”? The ones who sneered,rn”Our enemies will never be in a positionrnto tell us we lied”? The ones who hokcdrnup the portrait of Albert Einstein for therncover of Time with the rubric, “It’s all relative,”rnas if the physicist himself had neverrnsaid—as he had, repeatedly—thatrnnone of his theories had philosophicalrnrelevance at all? Or that school of linguisticsrnthat thought it had debunkedrnthe scandal of words actually meaningrnanything?rnSo we—who comprise in our own estimationrnthe most sophistieatedly disillusionedrnhuman race since the openingrnwords of Eeclesiastes—let swarms ofrnmeaningless words and hoked up imagesrnassail us every day. The phonier theyrncome off, the truer we are apt to takernthem to be.rnOne evidently well-known thinker ofrnour time I had the luck not to have heardrnof made front page news a few years backrnby declaring that history had come to anrnend. I happened to have been in Anatoliarnat the time, where the father of historyrnand the first Ionian philosopher werernborn. This news flash led me to thinkrnthat we have grown so used to the savorrnof sophistry we are likely to gag on anyrntaste of truth, a predicament one sourrnGreek had commented upon even in hisrnday: “Nothing ‘is.’ If it ‘were,’ it would bernindefinable; if definable, incommunicable;rnif communicable, still unintelligible.”rnThis sounds to me now like only a fairrnappraisal of the task the academ- has setrnitself. It will involve the healing of atrophiedrnperception, the revival of the lovernof wisdom in its ancient and eternalrnsense, the restoration of the primacy ofrnquality over quantity, mind over matter.rnFor this to happen, we will have to allowsomernmeaning to the evidence of thingsrnnot seen and stop pretending that ourrnown is the onlv form of mind.rnPeter Laurie is a writer living in upstaternNew York.rnFor Immediate servicsrnCHRONICLESrnNEW SUBSCRIBERSrnTOLL FREE NUMBERrn1-800-877-5459rn50/CHRONICLESrnrnrn