Our new issue, “After Bernie,” is out now. Our questions are simple: what did Bernie accomplish, why did he fail, what is his legacy, and how should we continue the struggle for democratic socialism? Get a discounted print subscription today !

Toward the end of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan , the body of Spock, encased in a coffin made from photon-torpedo casing, is launched in a formal Starfleet burial “at sea” into orbit around a newly forming planet. Admiral Kirk’s voice breaks as he eulogizes his recently departed Vulcan friend: “Of all the souls I have encountered in my travels, his was the most . . . human.” At this point, Saavik, another Vulcan officer serving aboard the Enterprise and played by Kirstie Alley, winces at what one might describe as Kirk’s “homo-sapien-normativity.” But Kirk here is really speaking to the audience more than to his fellow officers aboard the starship. He is echoing the words of Star Trek creator and ardent humanist Gene Roddenberry that Spock was “the conscience of Star Trek.” Through Kirk’s funeral speech, the writers are reminding us that the beloved hyper-rationalist, ultra-logical half-human, half Vulcan character is the heart of the series and the thematic essence of what Roddenberry had wanted to say about humanity through his work. Spock was no Vulcan at all. The story of Spock, the highly logical Vulcan society, and the universalist, optimistic rationalism that is explored through the broader series and its successors, is in fact the striving, future-oriented story of humanity and our unbounded capacity to improve our condition once we leave behind an infancy of unreason. Star Trek creators expressly intended the story of Spock and Vulcan society, a civilization that emerges from nuclear holocaust to pacifist philosophical maturity, as a parallel to the progression of human society toward enlightenment. But Spock’s tale is no Pollyanna-ish narrative merely celebrating the retreat from obscurantist habits of mind that blindly accept facts about the world as deriving from authority and toward an inevitable understanding of the world based on logic and evidence alone. Rather, Spock represents how difficult it has been for us to loosen the shackles of irrationalism. The internal conflict experienced by Spock between his Vulcan logician heritage and his human emotions, as well as the external conflict between Spock and the intuitive Kirk and the emotional McCoy parallels humanity’s troubled exit — still uncompleted — from its nonage to what Marx calls in the Grundrisse “the true realm of freedom.”

Science officer Spock was of course as much a creation of actor Leonard Nimoy, who died on Thursday at age eighty-three, as of Roddenberry and the other writers who built and continue to build the Star Trek mythos. In a production memo from 1968, Roddenberry wrote: “In the beginning of the Star Trek episodes, Mr Spock was a fellow who occasionally said ‘illogical’ and that was about it. We all worked hard to build him into a fully dimensional character, and a lot of people, including Leonard Nimoy, deserve credit.” Nimoy grappled with people’s identification of him with his alter ego, but over the years came to embrace the phenomenon: “To this day, I sense Vulcan speech patterns, Vulcan social attitudes, and even Vulcan patterns of logic and emotional suppression in my behavior.” Spock was especially warmly embraced by scientists and engineers, and inspired a generation of young people to go into such fields. His presence as a guest of honor at a 1967 National Space Club dinner in the presence of astronaut John Glenn and other NASA figures, Nimoy was touched by how Spock was viewed as the “dramatization of the future of their space program.” Spock and his Star Trek colleagues personified that postwar, Space Age, and “public sector” mood of adventure, curiosity, and ambition — a human drive, a spirit of Enterprise , you might say, but for its own sake rather than for profit, that seems to have been lost somewhere in the 1980s. “Star Trek speaks to some basic human needs: that there is a tomorrow — it’s not all going to be over with a big flash and a bomb; that the human race is improving; that we have things to be proud of as humans,” Rodenberry said in a 1988 interview. “No, ancient astronauts did not build the pyramids — human beings built them, because they’re clever and they work hard. And Star Trek is about those things.” In the series, Vulcans endeavor to live by reason and logic alone, and to suppress — or, more correctly, to master — emotion. But their society was not always this way. Once a war-mongering and emotional civilization, Vulcans underwent a “Time of Awakening” — the writers intended it as a loose parallel to our own Age of Enlightenment — in which the ethic of philosopher Surak, a sort of Spinoza or Maimonides figure, steadily spread across the planet. Notably in the series, Baruch Spinoza appears with some frequency. Kirk, for example, is an enthusiast of the Dutch philosopher, while Roddenberry’s wife, Majel Barrett, once said that Medieval Iberian-Jewish philosopher and astronomer Maimonides, who emphasized complete logical perfection, inspired aspects of the Vulcan philosophy. Surak held that violent, irrational, intuition- and instinct-driven emotions were the source of Vulcan’s brutal cycle of wars. In order to avoid extinction, he argued that emotion had to be bridled by reason. The core of their logical civilization was the search for truth through logical, empirical methods, and an abjuring of credulity and emotion as illogical and a stumbling block to arriving at truth. Spinoza in our own world drew on the ancient Stoics and Jewish rationalists of the Middle Ages to argue for a philosophy grounded on the “mastery of the passions” — the same phrasing used in Diane Duane’s novel, Spock’s World , as the translation of the Vulcan word for their process of restraining emotion, Arie’mnu. Spinoza was the anchor of what historian Jonathan Israel calls the revolutionary or “Radical” Enlightenment — distinct from the “Moderate” Enlightenment of such figures as Voltaire, Hume, and Newton who were keen to restrict the scope of reason and to limit its employment to gentlemen such as themselves while traditional authority remained the primary guide for everyone else. Where the figures of the Moderate Enlightenment made their peace with monarchy, slavery, or the church — Spinoza pushed on through toward democracy, equality, and liberty. Israel describes Spinoza’s principle contribution in the history of ideas as a “Revolution of the Mind,” concentrating precursors of atheist and materialist thought from ancient and oriental realms together with the emerging rationalism and empiricism of his Enlightenment contemporaries into a system of thought that laid the basis for the democratic revolutions of the eighteenth century. Spinoza’s materialist argument that “the order and connection of ideas is the same as the order and connection of things” may have anticipated the physicalism (the argument that there exists nothing beyond the physical) of contemporary scientists and the historical materialism of Marx, but it stretches back to the reaching for the material, the rational, the empirical of abundant figures in the golden age of Islamic science and mathematics while European learning stagnated under a dark age slumber, or to the engineering wonders of Tang dynasty China, or to the early materialism of Democritus and Epicurus or atomism of Jain and Buddhist thinkers. Given how widespread this urge appears to be, it is perhaps better to speak of enlightenment rather than “the Enlightenment,” without a definite article or capitalization. Nonetheless, the seventeenth-century revolution of the mind did mark something of a break: a decisive condensation of such thinking, and, like the inhabitants of Vulcan after Surak, we have been fundamentally different ever since, though the Enlightenment project remains uncompleted. As with radical ideas of the fictional Surak, Radical Enlightenment thought, writes Israel, “matured and seeped its way through large sections of society over a long period before the onset of the revolution in actuality.” As with our own often violent battles between the forces of progress and reaction, Surak’s efforts resulted in bitter conflict. Those who rejected his logic-emphasizing ethic of O’thia and “sought a return to savage ways” fought a devastating nuclear war before abandoning the planet. These anti-rationalist separatists would later become known as the Romulans, one of the arch-villain species of the series. Later on, a now peaceful and rational Vulcan becomes the first alien species to make contact with humans in the year 2063. They offer massive, Marshall Plan-like assistance to Earth after the devastation of World War III and assist us in making our transition to an interstellar species free of inequality and disease. Discussions abound online as to whether the Federation in the various series is intended as a socialist utopia (What about the Ferengi? Does Chateau Picard mean their is still private ownership of land?), and while the series makes no explicit references to democratic planning or the market, the consensus is that, well, it does appear to be a post-scarcity socialist economy of some description, albeit with a highly hierarchical, even militarist tinge. These debates aside, with the passing of Nimoy, it is worthwhile — as it was at the time of the death of Neil Armstrong two and a half years ago — to take note of the slow and mysterious demise of the Space Age alongside the contemporary turn against rationality, science, and the Enlightenment. The cover story of this month’s National Geographic speaks to how widespread this anti-modernist phenomenon is, focusing as it does on the growing popular opposition to science in both its right and left varieties, from climate change deniers, creationists, and anti-fluoridation warriors to vaccine refuseniks, alternative-medicine charlatans, and those who oppose all GMO technology in the abstract, rather than just the corporate malfeasance of agribusiness. Meanwhile, the localist tendencies of some of the green-minded tend to locate our problems with industrial civilization rather than with capitalism — with the forces of production instead of the relations of production. And the postmodernism of the academy, which casts science and logic as Eurocentric, hubristic, and unable to recognize “other ways of knowing,” has long since left the building. The Romulans are in the ascendant.