by Lars Gabriel Unlayao Slettebø[1] and Fabio Nicolás Venero Figueroa[2]
Atop a finely woven gold-threaded mat sits a man with immaculate posture, adorned with a cape of shimmering jade-green quetzal feathers. His regal features are tastefully accompanied with
large oblong earpieces which almost reach his shoulders. The soft glimmer of his golden diadem elegantly compliments his nutty brown complexion. He smirks as he makes eye contact with the
man sitting next to him, soft wrinkles deepen around his eyes as he ponders over how to respond
to his friend’s thoughtful metaphysical reflection which seems to be coming to an intriguing conclusion. He sips from the red cup in his hands, containing a bitter yet fragrant drink.
“… dubito, cogito, ergo sum!”
Confident and proud of his eloquent choice of words, the other man patiently listens to his philosophical sparring partner’s response. He, on the other hand, sits atop an ankle-high rosewood stool, nearly hidden by his glistening velvet cape. Contrary to his partner, his face is unadorned, exempt a stylish mustache and goatee. Absent-mindedly he brushes away a strand of
his wavy and impeccably kempt hair, which raven black hue dramatically contrasts with his beige skin and snow-white collar.
As the man with the plumed cape melodiously expresses his own stance on the matter, the man with the velvet cape furrows his brow thoughtfully, a smirk playing on his lips. He takes a sip from his own white and blue porcelain cup, containing a similarly bitter and fragrant (but somehow more poignant) beverage. At first, he finds himself eagerly nodding sympathetically at the poetic lamentation expressed by his partner, but as he reaches the end his eyebrows are raised in shock.
“… na nikuika pampa onkaj tonati uan ta, ¿kenke axtikuika?”
An awkward stillness drags on for a long moment, until they simultaneously burst into giddy laughter, and tap each other’s backs in a brotherly half-embrace. “I think we need stronger
refreshment.”, one of them exclaims. With a mischievous smile the other waves over an attendant and responds:
“Indeed, for life is short, my friend.” Their smiles are infectious.
***
Above we’ve described a fictional scene between Nezahualcoyotl and Descartes discussing philosophy, to ponder how the two men separated by large distances in time and space, might have interacted. You see, both philosophers saw the world as illusory (Portilla, 2006). However, their philosophical responses to this observation stand as polar opposites[3].
Nezahualcoyotl calls the earth a “treacherous house of paintings” and laments life’s impermanence “… even jade loses its shimmer, even gold breaks, even quetzal feathers must tear. Not forever on this treacherous earth, just a short time here.” As for humans: “like paintings, we fade away, like flowers, we dry up, here on this treacherous earth.” Nezahualcoyotl recognized that suffering and uncertainty was an indelible part of the human condition. In his despair he asks the songbird why it sings, to which it responds: “I sing because I am alive to see beauty under the sun, why don’t you sing?” This conveys a poetic approach to knowledge—he embraces uncertainty through creative, intellectual, and artistic expression. In this article we use Nezahualcoyotl’s poetic approach to explore the philosophical discourse itself. It should be noted that poetry, art, and philosophy are referred to as “flower and song” in Nahuatl (Maffie, 2015).
In stark contrast, Descartes’ approach to illusion is not about embracing it, but fighting it with logic. “I will suppose therefore that… some evil demon, as clever and deceitful as he is powerful, has employed all his energies in deceiving me.”, then he concludes with “I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am.” The contrast between the two philosophers reflects two distinct ways of knowing. Descartes treats doubt and analysis as the foundation of knowledge. Nezahualcoyotl, on the other hand, sees knowledge as something to be experienced, sung, and felt. On another note, we wonder how they might have felt had they known their faces would one day be plastered on hundred-bill denominations of France and Mexico?
At the time of writing, most state governments promote shared historical narratives, cultural symbols, and values that foster a sense of belonging to a national identity. Education and media instill national identities, teaching citizens about their country’s history, ideals, and philosophy. Nationalist imagery, such as flags, anthems, or the faces of famous philosophers printed on currency, is disseminated to shape the imagined communities’ landscape. Exposure to certain key-figures, like Nezahualcoyotl and Descartes, encourages emotional connection to the imagined community and reinforces social cohesion and national pride. Making it intuitive for a member of each imagined community seeking knowledge to engage with philosophers they have been familiarized with. We can contextualize nationalist-imagined communities with The School of Athens by Raphael.
Raphael has included his own likeness in the lower-right-hand corner, along with his contemporaries Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. The fresco invites the onlooker to internalize the common heritage and continuation of philosophical thought between Hellenistic and Renaissance thinkers. Perhaps imagining the complex conversations they might have had.
While renaissance-era Europeans enthusiastically adopted ancient philosophers into their imagined spaces of discourse, they were not inclusive of foreigners and women. While the
revival of classical thought in Europe evolved to legitimize and justify colonial violence, systems of oppression, and wholesale resource extraction (Mignolo, 2003), The School of Athens was remarkably inclusive for its time and place and contributed to ushering in an era of intellectual synthesis across cultures.
Similarly, Water and Land paintings combine historical and mythical philosophers, intended to be meditated upon and allow the onlooker to orient themselves in a space of exuberant discourse. An especially popular motif, The Three Vinegar Tasters, depicts Confucius, LaoZi, and Buddha all taking a sip from a vat of vinegar. This motif depicts the three sages expressing their attitudes towards vinegar: Buddha finds the vinegar bitter, Confucius finds it sour, and Laozi finds it sweet. This apocryphal (and absurd) event portrays elegantly and succinctly how these philosophers perceive a common world they all inhabit differently. The motif is widely considered respectful to all three traditions, and communicates the value of, and reverence for, all three patriarchs.
The above examples provide a concrete example of how representing philosophers in friendly dialogue can bolster narratives of social cohesion and co-existence for different
world-views. Lamana (2019) advocates for the recognition of Guaman Poma de Ayala, whose critique of colonial society has largely gone ignored in North Atlantic mainstream discourse. He compares Guaman Poma with Plato and Aristotle, and argues that his insights are as indispensable to understand the modern world, depicts himself in dialogue with Indigenous and Spanish leaders, clergy, and peasants. Himself dressed in European-style fashion, demonstrating his own intellectual positionality at the confluence of these two societies. Nevertheless, his critique of colonial society have largely gone ignored in North Atlantic mainstream discourse (Lamana, 2019).
Imagine if we took Lamana’s proposal seriously, and depicted Guaman Poma de Ayala conversing with Plato, Aristotle, and Da Vinci, in our time’s “School of Athens”? One way, is to imagine Nezahualcoyotl and Descartes discussing philosophy and laughing, at a non-descript bar. And, if it’s not too daring, what if we depict ourselves as Raphael did? Engaging with those
vital yet unjustly ignored thinkers, and breathe new life into the classics, hopefully redeemed of their inveterate eurocentrism. We, the authors, envision a community where our flowers and
songs—our paintings, literature, and artistic expressions—are celebrated as components of decolonial healing. To do this, we must remember that in order to create spaces of respectful and egalitarian dialogue, we must first imagine them.
Bibliography
Lamana, G. (2019). How “Indians” Think: Colonial Indigenous Intellectuals and the Question of Critical Race Theory. University of Arizona Press.
Maffie, J. (2013). Aztec philosophy: Understanding a world in motion. University Press of Colorado.
Montiel, J. (2019). Aztec Metaphysics—Two Interpretations of an Evanescent World. Genealogy, 3(4), 59.
Nezahualcoyotl’s poems: San iuki tlakuiloli ah tonpopoliui/Como una pintura nos iremos borrando.; In xochitl, in cuicatl/La flor, la canción.; Piltototsin./Pajarillo.
Portilla, M. L. (2006). La filosofía náhuatl: estudiada en sus fuentes (Vol. 10). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Figures
Figure 1: 100 pesos, Banco de México.
Figure 2: Banque de France. (1942). 100 Francs – Descartes (type 1942).
Figure 3: Raphael. (1509–1511). The School of Athens [Fresco]. Apostolic Palace, Vatican City.
Figure 4: Unknown Artist. (Qing Dynasty). Buddhist, Daoist, and Folk Deities from the Water-Land Ritual [Painting]. Philadelphia Museum of Art.
Figure 5: Kanō School Artist. (16th century). The Three Vinegar Tasters [Painting]. Tokyo National Museum.
Figure 6: Guamán Poma de Ayala, F. (1583–1615). El primer nueva corónica y buen gobierno [Illustration].
Notes
1. Gabriel is a human geographer and Master’s student of Social Anthropology at Universitetet i Oslo UiO. (lgslette@uio.no).
2. Fabio is an anthropologist from Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos and Master’s student of Andean History in Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú (fabio.venero@pucp.edu.pe).
3. To be precise, we interpret the difference in Nezahualcoyotl and Descartes rooted in their understanding of god. Nezahualcoyotl perceives “god” as impermanent (referring to the pantheistic entity named teotl in Mexica metaphysics (Maffie, 2015)). While he distrusts his own senses, he accepts them and makes art to deal with the impermanent nature of god. Descartes on the other hand perceives god as eternal and his soul too. He distrusts his own senses (although only methodologically, he never rejects god spiritually) and rejects them, trusting in stead in logic.
