nowhere (secularly speaking), which he wishes to exchange, as it
were, for something he has made himself. There is no reason to
doubt our abilities to accomplish such an exchange, just as there
is no reason to doubt our present ability to destroy all organic life
on earth. The question is only whether we wish to use our new
scientific and technical knowledge in this direction, and this ques-
tion cannot be decided by scientific means; it is a political question
of the first order and therefore can hardly be left to the decision of
professional scientists or professional politicians.
While such possibilities still may lie in a distant future, the first
boomerang effects of science's great triumphs have made them-
selves felt in a crisis within the natural sciences themselves. The
trouble concerns the fact that the "truths" of the modern scientific
world view, though they can be demonstrated in mathematical
formulas and proved technologically, will no longer lend them-
selves to normal expression in speech and thought. The moment
these "truths" are spoken of conceptually and coherently, the re-
sulting statements will be "not perhaps as meaningless as a 'tri-
angular circle,' but much more so than a 'winged lion' " (Erwin
Schrodinger). We do not yet know whether this situation is final.
But it could be that we, who are earth-bound creatures and have
begun to act as though we were dwellers of the universe, will for-
ever be unable to understand, that is, to think and speak about the
things which nevertheless we are able to do. In this case, it would
be as though our brain, which constitutes the physical, material
condition of our thoughts, were unable to follow what we do, so
that from now on we would indeed need artificial machines to do
our thinking and speaking. If it should turn out to be true that
knowledge (in the modern sense of know-how) and thought have
parted company for good, then we would indeed become the help-
less slaves, not so much of our machines as of our know-how,
thoughtless creatures at the mercy of every gadget which is tech-
nically possible, no matter how murderous it is.
However, even apart from these last and yet uncertain conse-
quences, the situation created by the sciences is of great political
significance. Wherever the relevance of speech is at stake, matters
become political by definition, for speech is what makes man a
political being. If we would follow the advice, so frequently urged
[ ^ ]
The Human Condition
upon us, to adjust our cultural attitudes to the present status of
scientific achievement, we would in all earnest adopt a way of
life in which speech is no longer meaningful. For the sciences today
have been forced to adopt a "language" of mathematical symbols
which, though it was originally meant only as an abbreviation for
spoken statements, now contains statements that in no way can be
translated back into speech. The reason why it may be wise to
distrust the political judgment of scientists qua scientists is not
primarily their lack of "character"—that they did not refuse to
develop atomic weapons—or their naivete—that they did not
understand that once these weapons were developed they would
be the last to be consulted about their use-—but precisely the fact
that they move in a world where speech has lost its power. And
whatever men do or know or experience can make sense only to
the extent that it can be spoken about. There may be truths be-
yond speech, and they may be of great relevance to man in the
singular, that is, to man in so far as he is not a political being,
whatever else he may be. Men in the plural, that is, men in so far
as they live and move and act in this world, can experience mean-
ingfulness only because they can talk with and make sense to each
other and to themselves.
Closer at hand and perhaps equally decisive is another no less
threatening event. This is the advent of automation, which in a
few decades probably will empty the factories and liberate man-
kind from its oldest and most natural burden, the burden of labor-
ing and the bondage to necessity. Here, too, a fundamental aspect
of the human condition is at stake, but the rebellion against it, the
wish to be liberated from labor's "toil and trouble," is not modern
but as old as recorded history. Freedom from labor itself is not
new; it once belonged among the most firmly established privileges
of the few. In this instance, it seems as though scientific progress
and technical developments had been only taken advantage of to
achieve something about which all former ages dreamed but which
none had been able to realize.
However, this is so only in appearance. The modern age has
carried with it a theoretical glorification of labor and has resulted
in a factual transformation of the whole of society into a laboring
society. The fulfilment of the wish, therefore, like the fulfilment
[ 4 ]