Thought Faces the Future

Oedipus and the Sphinx, c. 470 BCE Vatican Museum

One of the reasons that, back in my professorial days, I thought studying philosophy was beneficial was that a culture’s preferences and beliefs could be tracked to its underlying assumptions. A culture rests on what it thinks is true and explanatory. Philosophy has either supplied those foundational views or at least can help one to figure them out. 

So it seemed to me that the study of philosophy made it more feasible to feel at home and be effective in one’s world and time.

Preserving that goal, what do I see as the intellectual situation at the frontier of the current cultural scene? Let’s do the quick aerial survey. In France, Maurice Merleau-Ponty was probably the more significant twentieth-century thinker – he was conducting an inquiry into what we can know about perception and action, not pushing a thesis – but Jean-Paul Sartre was the trend-setter. The kernel of truth in Sartre’s view was that one has a bit of freedom even in the most coercive situations and how one uses that bit defines one. Or at least it defines one for that time.

In Sartre’s successors, this germ of an insight morphed into the panoramic postmodern claim that objective factors might be bypassed entirely – clearing the way for the resistless play of interpretations and counter-interpretations. The boundaries of the arena where this seemingly limitless playfulness lived could be defined only in terms of the power relations detectable within it. So the next thing to discover was just who held the oppressive power and who was dominated by that power.

What’s been left out in this account of reality? Can we think of anything? I’ll give you a dime if you can. How about functional powers like the power of dentistry, or the power of plumbing, or cooking, or writing poetry, or chairing a committee that writes a workable constitution, or translating Sanskrit texts? Or arbitrating between factions embroiled in a useless quarrel? Or consoling a grieving friend? Or inventing a device that gives employment to many people?

Has anything else been omitted from the oppressor/oppressed story? Yes certainly, all the oppressive relations on this planet that are quite thoroughly unfair, abusive and hideous but have somehow failed to make the approved list. Plus all the problems that still need to be addressed but have somehow failed to fall under these two neat little headings. I don’t know when the word will finally get out, but all these are considerations that announce an intellectual dead end.

If I judge by the essays that win awards and get reprinted in the American Philosophical Association’s Proceedings and Addresses, philosophy in this country seems largely unscathed by the developments I’ve reported above. However, to judge by effects that leak over into The New York Review of Books and the NY Times Book Review, other disciplines in the humanities had fewer defenses and suffered seriously enough to affect the culture in sectors ranging from law to journalism to book publishing and fields in the middle. A culture of intimidation – where accusations of oppression might land on anyone – can outlast earlier rationales, giving make-work to the mediocre and the appearance of courage to the cowardly.

Insofar as feminism continues to provide a field for philosophic inquiry, my sense is that it has yet to rethink its hyper-Sartrean claim – derived from Simone de Beauvoir’s Second Sex – that for a woman the decisive factor was neither biology nor history nor even culture but just the decision to be a woman. That claim has failed to protect women in prison from cellmates who were convicted rapists but now identify as women, as it has failed to protect women athletes from players who used to be billed as male but can now stand opposite them on the court by making the same claim.

With regard to feminist theory, developments such as these suggest that it may well be time to go back to the drawing board.

—–

Where should philosophy go now? What does the frontier look like? Let me try a few forays.

(a) There must be a relation between the mechanistic view of the body and the holistic view. That relation seems largely unmapped. Acupuncture deals with the holistic view; mending fractures deals with the mechanistic view. The relation may prove unmappable, but we should at least try to identify the regions where the question of their relation arises.

(b) Many of us have had premonitions of future events, occurring either in dreams or in strong intuitions that seemed to come from outside ourselves. What would the picture of ordinary, time-bound human life look like if these apparent glimpses of the future were factored in?

(c) The philosopher A. J. Ayer, even though he was a positivist, had an experience that occurred when he’d been deemed clinically dead. The content of the experience had been such as to cast specific doubt on Ayer’s previous philosophical views. To publicize what happened in the way that he did took courage, despite the dismissal it drew – “Freddy has lost his cool” – from one friend, a well-known materialist philosopher. Instead of dismissal, suppose philosophers had pondered Ayer’s report and worked to draw out its possible implications.

Arguments that belittle, deny or explain away new data may have run out their string. Maybe it is time for philosophers to go out where, in past ages, their best work was done.

The most consequential task of philosophy is to articulate the world of thought at the frontiers –

 where what we do know

touches what we don’t yet know.


Related Content: Bad Faith at Sartre’s Cafe | Femininity – A Social Construct? | What Ayer Saw When He Was Dead

Posted in Absolute Freedom and Terror, absurdism, academe, action, afterlife, agnosticism, alienation, American politics, anthropology, anti-semitism, appreciation, art, art of living, atheism, authenticity, autonomy, bad faith, beauty, Biblical God, bigotry, book reviews, books, bureaucracy, chivalry, Christianity, cities, class, conformism, contemplation, contradictions, cool, courage, courtship, cults, cultural politics, culture, desire, dialectic, erotic life, eternity, ethics, ethnicity, evil, existentialism, exploitation, faith, fashion, fatherhood, female power, femininity, feminism, filial piety, films, freedom, friendship, gender balance, glitterati, Gnosticism, guilt and innocence, health, Hegel, hegemony, heroes, hidden God, hierarchy, history, history of ideas, id, idealism, ideality, identity, ideology, idolatry, immorality, immortality, institutional power, Jews, journalism, Judaism, law, legal responsibility, life and death struggle, literature, love, male power, martyrdom, masculinity, master, master/slave relation, memoir, memory, Messianic Age, mind control, modern women, modernism, moral action, moral evaluation, moral psychology, morality, mortality, motherhood, mysticism, Nihilism, non-violence, novels, ontology, oppression, pacifism, past and future, peace, Phenomenology of the Mind, philosophy, poetry, political, political movements, politics, politics of ideas, postmodernism, power, power games, presence, promissory notes, propaganda, psychology, public facade, public intellectual, racism, radicalism, reading, reductionism, relationships, religion, remembrance, repairing the culture, roles, romantic love, science, scientism, secular, seduction, self-deception, sex appeal, sexuality, slave, social climbing, social construction, social conventions, social ranking, sociobiology, spiritual journey, spiritual not religious, spirituality, status, status of women, suffering, terror, terrorism, the examined life, the problematic of men, the problematic of woman, the profane, the sacred, theism, theology, time, Truth, TV, twentieth century, twenty-first century, Utopia, victimhood, victims, violence, war, writing, Zeitgeist | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Neither Athens nor Jerusalem


School of Athens, Raphael 1510

In 1867 Matthew Arnold wrote a book titled Culture and Anarchy in which he held up two saving springs of our civilization: Athens – from which we get the inner urge to “see things as they really are” – and Jerusalem, from which we get the directive “to set doing above knowing.” 

I don’t know if I would draw the contrast between these two civilizational sources in the terms that Arnold used. But I do know that, in studying, teaching and loving philosophy as I do, while at the same time feeling myself to be Jewish at my self’s core, I must in some sense resemble the human type that Arnold was talking about.

On my last day of teaching at Brooklyn College, I passed around the attendance sheet for the Intro course and later found that the students had penned their own farewells. Since those attendance sheets now hang in my study, I can quote a line or two: “I am sure that, speaking for everybody, you touched many minds and lives. Thank you for portraying philosophy in such a user-friendly way …” or again, “Just know that you made a difference in many peoples’ lives, especially mine.”

It’s in the light of recent developments on university campuses that I’ve cast this backward glance over the terrain of my working life. What did it feel like to me, to work in the precincts of the academy – the House that Plato Built? What did it mean to me, teaching philosophy to students at Brooklyn College – that is, to young people from all over the world? My graduate school teacher of philosophy, the Straussian Stanley Rosen, described it as the disclosure of “beautiful and sacred things.” I remember Leo Bronstein – who was a celebrated teacher of art history at Brandeis – marveling, in his Russian/Catalan accents, that “the kids are forced, fo-r-r-rced (!) to learn sublime matters!”

In my turn, I viewed teaching philosophy as the transmission of a civilizational power and presence. If it was an Intro course, I would make the case for the importance to each of them of this transmission. “This will help you to decode the life you will face. It’s not true that you are what you eat. You are what you think! When you notice the way people behave, the way they frame their challenges, and the reasons or rationales they reference in explaining their decisions – you will be better able to lift out the thinking that lies back of all that.”

Sometimes I referred to the saying of Socrates that the unexamined [i.e. philosophically unsituated] life is not worth living. He meant, you’re not making the best use you can of your time here if you can’t identify and make good use of its philosophic assumptions. It’s not about choosing the “best philosophy” to live and steer by. They all have limitations or shortcomings, as does any attempt to understand a topic. No topic can be plumbed to every depth conceivable. But to know how to get to the available depths and to plumb that is a great power – empowering in the best sense – provided that (as with any power) it’s not used for harm.

So much for recalling what it was like for me to teach philosophy to real students. That said, we can fast forward to the present. What is it like to perceive young people who wear the name of “student” but mask their faces, menacing fellow students and teachers, injuring the working people who keep their academic classrooms and buildings functional? To what can I compare the predicament of a real teacher facing such defilements? Perhaps to the situation of a farmer whose field has been sown with salt and rendered barren by those means?

And what would I say to the so-called students who seem to relish doing precisely that kind of harm? If you attack the precincts of learning and teaching, you desecrate your own ability to learn or later to teach what you learned. You will still be able to be indoctrinated, and to indoctrinate others, but you can’t learn and you can no longer teach what you learned. And it’s not merely self-harm that you inflict. You injure your city, your country, your civilization. The wound you inflict has concentric circles of wounds that lie all round it.

And as for me, I wouldn’t know how to cure such wounds. Whatever healing modalities I possess – they don’t stretch that far. 

At present, I have yet to reroute my life so that the powers I’ve acquired have some further riverbed channel down which to flow. I can’t just stand at the river’s edge and forever shed tears for what’s been lost.


Related Content: Two Types of Intelligence

Posted in Absolute Freedom and Terror, absurdism, academe, action, afterlife, agnosticism, alienation, American politics, anthropology, anti-semitism, appreciation, art, art of living, atheism, authenticity, autonomy, bad faith, beauty, Biblical God, bigotry, books, bureaucracy, childhood, chivalry, Christianity, cities, class, conformism, contemplation, contradictions, cool, courage, courtship, cults, cultural politics, culture, desire, dialectic, eighteenth century, erotic life, eternity, ethics, ethnicity, evil, existentialism, exploitation, faith, fashion, fatherhood, female power, femininity, feminism, filial piety, films, freedom, friendship, gender balance, glitterati, Gnosticism, guilt and innocence, health, Hegel, hegemony, heroes, hidden God, hierarchy, history, history of ideas, id, idealism, ideality, identity, ideology, idolatry, immorality, immortality, institutional power, Jesus, Jews, journalism, Judaism, law, legal responsibility, life and death struggle, literature, love, male power, martyrdom, masculinity, master, master/slave relation, medieval, memoir, memory, Messianic Age, mind control, modern women, modernism, moral action, moral evaluation, moral psychology, morality, mortality, motherhood, mysticism, Nihilism, nineteenth-century, non-violence, novels, ontology, oppression, pacifism, past and future, peace, Phenomenology of the Mind, philosophy, poetry, political, political movements, politics, politics of ideas, postmodernism, power, power games, presence, promissory notes, propaganda, psychology, public facade, public intellectual, race, racism, radicalism, reading, reductionism, relationships, religion, remembrance, repairing the culture, roles, romance, romantic love, romanticism, science, scientism, secular, seduction, self-deception, sex appeal, sexuality, slave, social climbing, social construction, social conventions, social ranking, sociobiology, spiritual journey, spiritual not religious, spirituality, status, status of women, suffering, terror, terrorism, the examined life, the problematic of men, the problematic of woman, the profane, the sacred, theism, theology, time, Truth, TV, twentieth century, twenty-first century, Utopia, victimhood, victims, violence, war, work, writing, Zeitgeist | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

September 11, A Week Later

This post, written the week after September 11, 2001, is dedicated to Frank De Martini and Pablo Ortiz. Starting at the 88th floor on the North Tower, they went from floor to floor calling out to people who crouched in debris and darkness, without a clue as to what to do or where to go. “Is anybody there?” they called, gathering and shepherding people to hold on to each other and make their way down the stairs to the street below before the building fell. They are said to have saved 77 lives and inspired others to do the same. Their bodies were never found.

September 11, 2001, A Week Later

Since vacating my East Side studio apartment in June 2001, I’d visited the City almost weekly, but had not got to town last week. The initial numbness of the week of September 11 had eventually given way to tears that seemed to have no natural term. But on Tuesday the 18th I was able to get into the City, and would like to tell what I saw.

I arrived in Penn Station around 11:30 in the morning. Exiting the New Jersey train, I felt immediately that I was in a locality of Fear. It was not so much that people looked fearful or acted furtive. It was more a striking sense of collective vulnerability, of noticing things around one, beyond a New Yorker’s street smarts. No One Smiled. By the same token, no one was rowdy or obnoxious. People kept a space between themselves and other people. In fact, as I went up to the concourse, emptier by far than usual, and watched the walkers, what was striking to me was the return of a talent for walking intelligently, with the radar out, so as not to obtrude into the next person’s walking space, the gifted urbanity whose loss I had lamented in recent decades. The smart walkers of New York were back in motion.

I hadn’t planned to go downtown; it seemed voyeuristic. I’d thought just to do some errands, talk to a few people, and then stop at my Museum (the Met) and my Japanese tea house. But once I was on the asphalt, it seemed imperative to go down there, and get my bearings from the changed New York reality.

Wasn’t sure how to get downtown on the Lexington Avenue subway from Penn Station, but I asked a middle-aged, portly Irish cop behind a wooden enclosure on my way to the 7th Avenue escalators. He gave me his hypothesis (it was only roughly right), but gave it with such a direct look of kindness — like a warm gust, close and family-like.

Out on the street, heavy sadness in the air. New York of late has come to seem to me an inner place, more than the site of its artefacts — more than the artefact it itself IS. In the sad, sober, realistic faces of my City, in the snappily dressed young businessman on 34th and Park, directing me to the Downtown local, “Be careful of that corner with construction; it’s tricky,” with that same direct look of human kindness and care, there was love-laden sorrow.

On every street lamp and bus shelter the posted notices, with photographs and descriptions of the “missing” — missing one now knows, for the remainder of our lives.

The train was rather empty, its passengers disciplined and self-contained. The #6 local goes only as far as Brooklyn Bridge. One has to change there for the express. The express now skips Wall Street but stops at Fulton Street. Stepping onto the express, I asked a woman whether this train stopped at Fulton. New Yorkers are notoriously inaccurate or vague when answering such queries. But she said it did, enunciating clearly and quickly. My intention had been to walk around Wall Street. I supposed that, if the brokers could go to work, those streets at least would be accessible and I could get some feeling of how the streets had changed, closer to the crisis center.

Stepping onto the platform at Fulton Street, that expectation faltered. The air was acrid, even inside the station. At least half the people I saw had suddenly equipped themselves with paper masks to filter the polluted air. “Where did you get the mask?” I asked a young black girl. “At the hospital,” she said, puzzlingly. I didn’t think she was a nurse. They couldn’t all be nurses. It must be part of the urban equipment now. One had the sense that it was dangerous even to be in that vicinity. Air that thick and scratchy shouldn’t be allowed into one’s lungs.

Outside, crowds blocked the approach to Wall Street where I’d thought to go, streets were cordoned off (though you could elbow your way through if you had business, for example, if you had to do the trading on the floor of the bourse), National Guardsmen in fatigues and cops directed the massed crowds back to sidewalks to let the great trucks through. Their faces were young, objective, washed clean with sorrow. I was clearly in the way; and there was no place to walk. This was a danger zone. The men who are doing the heavy work there must take deep breaths, and often they work (as we see on TV) without masks. Each breath is an evident risk. The subway headed North carried people out of a war zone. As when Hemingway, in A Farewell to Arms, writes, “In the fall the war was always there, but we did not go to it any more.”

Uptown in my neighborhood, I stopped at the “Allure” lingerie shop to pick up some camisoles. Janice, who owns the shop, said that her sister-in-law had begged her to spend some nights at her home in Connecticut, out of this scene. But Janice feels that to leave town is to betray our City. She couldn’t leave.

I stopped at my old building on 90th Street to talk to the doormen. Marcos was there and kissed me (now that our relations are no longer professional and I’m “Abigail,” not Mrs. Martin or “Doctor”). They’ve seen nothing, he and Manuel. They’ve been on duty at our door. But Marcos lives downtown in Brooklyn where there is a great view of lower Manhattan. Now he doesn’t like to look at the view. He said we have nothing to do but keep going, keep on with our lives. I asked him to give my fond greetings to Manuel.

Stopped in to Food Liberation, my health food store and social club. John Miklatek, the young owner, was there and said he’d often thought about me this week. He asked what I thought of these events, and I told him, more or less. That I had not been able to pray or find guidance in meditation all week. There’d been only tears. That I had to be here. That I felt a tremendous spirit in the town. That I felt God was not above, not a transcendent Being in this story, not mere Spirit. That God was in the rubble, broken but unimpaired, in it. Not in the pure air, but in the acrid air — not where people have no cause to fear, but here where they have cause. Where they rightly fear. He said the spirit of the City has been tremendously upgraded. He felt this a defining event for his generation, and that it would lead either to World War III or perhaps a better world. I said, a little of both. We kissed hello and goodbye.

Very hungry by then, I thought I’d taxi to the Met and have lunch there. Flagged a cab with a driver with an Islamic name, the cab flying two small flags at half staff. But then I remembered that I’d wanted to stop at the local fire station with a donation, so I paid the driver and got out at 86th Street. Walked to 85th between Lex and Third with a hundred dollar check in hand made out to Engine 22 / Ladder 13 Firefighter Family Fund. The sidewalk round the fire station was forested with flowers. Not simple bouquets that you can pick up for $6.50 at a neighborhood grocer and lay against the wall, but flower pots of some size, expensive floral and garden offerings from the wall to the curb, and on the wall papers hung with messages of the God bless America and You Are Our Heroes kind. The fireman who took my check when it came my turn in the queue waited till my hand was free, then took the time to shake it warmly in personal thanks. I said nothing, just looked at him and nodded, but felt another gust of kindness.

The Met was as empty as it used to be in my teens, as I’d often wished it to be since, but somehow the emptiness seemed ominous, as if the presence of milling throngs had protected the art, which now stood naked to its enemies.

I know several waiters in the café. Alfonso told me the restaurant had been even emptier on Sunday, the people fearing that any prominent building could be a target. On September 11th, parents had been phoned to come pick up their children, but no public transportation moved on the streets, only emergency vehicles. Alfonso had walked from the Bronx to midtown Manhattan to pick up his daughter on her first day in high school, 93 blocks there with heart in mouth, and 93 blocks back. 186 blocks or eight and a half miles. On the way back, he and his daughter had stopped a few times for sodas.

“What will these kids think?” he asked. He spoke of six-year-olds who now talk of “bad men who destroy buildings” — having to absorb concepts like “bad men.” He said that psychologists advise parents to talk to their children and not let them watch too much TV.

I said, “Your daughter will never forget that day, September 11th, her first day of high school. But she will never forget that her father walked 186 blocks to get her.” I added, “Your wife must have been so worried while you were gone,” picturing a young Latin wife with apron tied in back, desperate in a small kitchen.

“Yes she worried while I was gone,” Alfonso said. “She’s a dispatcher for the Transit Police. These days she works 16 hour shifts at the crisis center.”

I looked at some of the art, all the same. There is a crucifix at the entrance to the medieval hall that legend ascribed to a sculptor who’d been an eyewitness. One sees why. It’s Byzantine in style, maybe 10th century (I don’t quite recall), open-eyed, “triumphal” rather than historical. But very much eyewitnessed, it seemed to me; on target, on location, and “with it.”

The stone Shiva upstairs too, of course, with its profoundly unsentimental teaching: God is in the carnage as much as in the formed civil orders — in the carnage not as Kali, mere destructive energy, but as the pity in it.

The growth of the spirit necessarily traverses the darkest of trials. The thing that I greatly feared has come upon me, Job said.

Noted on the Fifth Avenue bus going downtown: Bergdorf Goodman, Tiffany — no displays, only flags. Brooks Brothers, a huge flag. All the stores, flags at half mast. St. Patrick’s, some diocesan flag, also the flag, both at half staff. Saks: 14 flags at full staff, plus two large ones on an upper story at half staff. “With Sadness,” in darkened windows. Lord & Taylor the same. With what look like giant white shades pulled down, flags hung in front of the white shades.

On the crosstown at 34th Street the bus driver greets a young National Guardsman climbing aboard like a colleague. Turns out the bus driver works with FEMA in the rescue effort. I saw a fire truck pass on 34th Street. Thought I’d look away. These guys must be overwhelmed with adulation. One starts to get jaded, I imagined. But then I looked, and no. Their faces were illumined with sorrow.

So much for my day in the Big City.

Posted in Absolute Freedom and Terror, absurdism, action, alienation, art, cities, contradictions, cool, culture, desire, dialectic, ethics, evil, faith, freedom, friendship, guilt and innocence, health, heroes, history, history of ideas, identity, ideology, idolatry, institutional power, legal responsibility, life and death struggle, literature, love, memoir, non-violence, peace, political, political movements, power, psychology, relationships, religion, roles, spirituality, suffering, terror, the examined life, the problematic of men, the problematic of woman, theism, time, twenty-first century, violence, war, work, writing, Zeitgeist | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

History’s Spiritual Side

History’s Spiritual Side
“Cain and Abel”
Marc Chagall, 1911

Over the past few days, Jerry and I have been attending and speaking at the Eric Voegelin Society meetings in Philadelphia. Though the EVS is nested academically within the American Political Science Association, it’s a political science organization with a difference. Voegelin, the thinker from whom this society’s members take their inspiration, noticed that human beings include a spiritual component in their complex concerns. So he held that this feature ought to be taken into account in any adequate political theory.

Voegelin had been a refugee from Austria in the 1930’s, himself narrowly escaping the Nazi takeover of that country. So his interest in the spiritual element was not an armchair concern. He held that individuals and societies must learn to recognize this element if they are to deal with it in a balanced way. The extremist ideologies of his youth – Nazism and Communism – were examples of spiritual yearnings mishandled

Both Nazism and Communism exhibit the dangerous pursuit of a more-than-human purity. As such, Voegelin sees these seductive mass movements as imbued with a spirit he calls “gnostic.” Gnosticism, whether ancient or modern, involves a rejection of reality’s constraints – be they physical, biological, social and/or political – on the promise of a realm of secret knowledge (“gnosis”) pure, unfettered, and accessible immediately to its votaries. 

Gnosticism is seductive because the labors required in trying to understand oneself, other people, and the natural and social world are hard, with any gains piecemeal at best. One’s findings can be disconfirmed. One can fail. And fail many times. Whereas gnostics can’t fail. Or rather, every defeat gets instantly explained away, leaving the overarching delusion safely beyond the reach of refutation.

So the EVS meetings are interesting in a way that more standard academic conferences sometimes fail to be. EVS participants are sincerely invested in their attempts – often with impressive erudition and credentials – to understand a particular topic. They don’t wear the masks of detachment. The interest they show in one another’s work is not merely polite.

The paper I read took its title, “The Evil of This Time,” from the final thoughts of Sidney Carton, who faces the guillotine, having taken the place of his friend, in the last pages of A Tale of Two Cities. This is Charles Dickens’ great novel of the French Revolution. Here is what Sidney Carton thinks but does not say: 

I see the evil of this time,

and of the previous time of which this is the natural birth,

gradually making expiation for itself and passing away.

The “evil of this time” that I was referencing begins “with the events of October 7, 2023, and proceeds to its aftermath in Western and wider-world culture. “How,” I asked, “did so many respectable people bring themselves to the point of justifying the atrocities committed against ordinary – in many cases leftist, peace-advocating – Israeli civilians … justifications [that] began long before Israel launched its war to prevent the repetition of comparable atrocities proudly promised by the unrepentant perpetrators.”

That was my question. Although I’m by no means persuaded that I’ve answered it, what my paper tried to do was trace the intellectual lineage of this collapse of the norms that ordinarily constrain nice people – like (for one example) the professors at the Religion and Public Life program of the Harvard Divinity School who signed a collective letter actually rationalizing the horrors of October 7.

*. *. *

Another academic, on the same panel with me, was Bruno Godefroy, a young German political scientist who teaches at the University of Tours. His paper was a report on research he has done that explores Eric Voegelin’s sympathetic affiliation with the authoritarian regime that briefly governed Austria in the period just prior to the Nazi takeover of that country. 

Godefroy, as he told me afterwards, went into archival materials that had not been opened before. He’d begun with an open mind about what he might find there. But he had a hunch there was something to be found out in those unvisited repositories. What he discovered was that the young Voegelin – while rejecting Nazi racial doctrines – had not rejected an authoritarian Catholic illiberalism or the anti-semitism that partly fueled it. 

So the moderateness of method and aim that had characterized Voegelin’s mature position had not been a feature of his initial position. This although eventually, after he came to this country, he appreciated and even celebrated the political virtues he found in America.

What I found impressive about EVS was that, although all present in that auditorium listened to Godefroy’s report with the most intense silence – you could almost hear it cracking – no one tried to find excuses or rationalize away such a discovery. Indeed, Godefroy’s presentation of his findings to this audience was a sign of his trust in their fairness.

Afterward, I asked him if he thought there was a God. I don’t know why I raised that question. Perhaps I was curious to know how he’d found the inner fortitude to go into those archives with an open mind. Especially since, evidently, he’d not tried to use his discovery to whip up an intellectual scandal. Anyway, I don’t recall his words, but it seemed that he saw no need for the God hypothesis.

Well, I remarked,

the love of truth –

regardless of where the chips fall –

is religion enough.


Related Content: Voegelinian Vagaries | Reluctant Inferences | Not Getting Over It

Posted in Absolute Freedom and Terror, absurdism, academe, action, afterlife, agnosticism, alienation, American politics, anthropology, anti-semitism, appreciation, art, art of living, atheism, authenticity, autonomy, bad faith, beauty, Biblical God, bigotry, books, bureaucracy, chivalry, Christianity, cities, class, conformism, contemplation, contradictions, cool, courage, courtship, cults, cultural politics, culture, desire, dialectic, erotic life, eternity, ethics, ethnicity, evil, existentialism, exploitation, faith, fashion, fatherhood, female power, femininity, feminism, filial piety, films, freedom, friendship, gender balance, glitterati, Gnosticism, guilt and innocence, health, Hegel, hegemony, heroes, hidden God, hierarchy, history, history of ideas, id, idealism, ideality, identity, ideology, idolatry, immorality, immortality, institutional power, Jesus, Jews, journalism, Judaism, law, legal responsibility, life and death struggle, literature, love, male power, martyrdom, masculinity, master, master/slave relation, memoir, memory, Messianic Age, mind control, modern women, modernism, moral action, moral evaluation, moral psychology, morality, mortality, mysticism, Nihilism, nineteenth-century, non-violence, novels, ontology, oppression, pacifism, past and future, peace, Phenomenology of the Mind, philosophy, poetry, political, political movements, politics, politics of ideas, postmodernism, power, power games, presence, promissory notes, propaganda, psychology, public facade, public intellectual, racism, radicalism, reading, reductionism, relationships, religion, remembrance, repairing the culture, roles, romance, romantic love, romanticism, science, scientism, secular, seduction, self-deception, sex appeal, sexuality, slave, social climbing, social construction, social conventions, social ranking, sociobiology, spiritual journey, spiritual not religious, spirituality, status, status of women, suffering, terror, terrorism, the examined life, the problematic of men, the problematic of woman, the profane, the sacred, theism, theology, time, Truth, TV, twentieth century, twenty-first century, Utopia, victimhood, victims, violence, war, work, writing, Zeitgeist | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Light on the Longest Hatred

light on the longest hatred
From the “Exodus Series Paintings”
by Maria Lago

Light on the Longest Hatred

I’d intended to devote this column to leisurely reflections on what I sometimes term “the Jewish assignment” in history.  Reflections prompted by a biography I’m now reading, with the title, Rabbi Leo Baeck: Living a Religious Imperative in Troubled Times.  The author is Michael A. Meyer and he writes very intelligently about his subject.

Before starting this book, I knew almost nothing about Leo Baeck save for a vague recollection that he’d been criticized for his role during the Holocaust – was it for not spelling out to Jews what awaited them at the terminus of their train trip to the killing grounds?  

Since I’m not a big fan of armchair moralists who know exactly how other people should have acted during those other people’s mass slaughter, I’d not formed prior judgments about Leo Baeck.  As of now, in the biography, it’s still the 1920’s, he’s rabbi of an important congregation in Berlin and the Nazi period hasn’t yet begun.

However, what I learned from the Preface has put me very much on his side.  During the thirties, when he worked to assist emigration from Germany, Baeck was repeatedly offered asylum and even a favorable teaching position in England.  These offers he refused, choosing rather to give what consolation and assistance he could to Jews who remained trapped in Germany – either by lack of means or because they’d realized too late what Hitlerism portended. 

Hey, armchair moralists,

that’s good enough for me.

My anticipated hour for writerly reflection has meanwhile collided with an online news item that just came to my attention.  The Professional Staff Congress, the academic union of the City University of New York — to which I belong, which in the past helped me in a job fight and supplies part of my pension – has just passed a resolution about Israel.  The language of the resolution describes Israel as a colonial-settler-apartheid state without a right-to-exist.  

Usually such resolutions are passed by a minority that has nothing better to do.  Everybody else goes home to have dinner with their friends or families and get their work done.  Only the extremists stay up late to get their resolutions through.  By morning, when ordinary people wake up, it’s a done deal.

I am not an effective debater and try my best to “stay out of politics,” since it interferes with my ability to sleep at night.  Nor am I a political theorist.   Therefore, bracketing the string of false claims in the PSC resolution, let me just summarize briefly what gives Israel a better right to exist than any other state on the planet.

What, ordinarily, gives a state its “right” to exist?  Three things: (1) victory in battle, (2) international treaties, (3) productive use of the territory with which its people have mixed their labor.  Israel meets all three of these “ordinary” criteria.  

She meets two further criteria, which are non-ordinary.  (4) Her people have been persecuted for 2000 years in every country where they sought to live outside the land of Israel – their martyrdom culminating in the wickedest collective deed of persecution in recorded history. (5) They lived,  recorded, and remembered their experiences in their land in such a way as to make it a holy land for many peoples besides themselves, thus fulfilling a promise that their record attributes to God: “In your name will all the peoples of the world be blessed.”

Now back to my original question: What was Leo Baeck’s contribution to the thinking-through of the Jewish assignment — the covenant between God and the Jews — as something ongoing?  

The biographer contrasts it with the thought of two of his German-Jewish contemporaries: Martin Buber and Franz Rosenzweig.  Buber seems more individual: the communion between you and me extends from the two personal I’s, converging toward the divine Thou.  For Rosenzweig, it is experienced in the revelation of God’s love, which calls forth from ourselves the reciprocal response of lovers of God.

Unlike these thinkers, whom he knew and corresponded with, Baeck feels a rabbi’s responsibility toward the Jewish people as an entire community.  He seems to have had a talent for finding ways to give Jews of conflicting opinions some unifying thread or sense of communion with each other.  He was gifted with benevolence and a great sense of responsibility.  He emphasized the moral element in divine commandments but did not discard the external rituals that also tied his people together.  

I haven’t read far enough into this account to say more, but it seems that his thinking evolved to allow room for God’s unpredictable, incalculable presence – the mysterious side of the divine – visiting a people whose vocation would be to partner with God in tying past to future.  That vocation would never be exhaustively disclosed by what happens in the historical here and now.  

As a thinker, Baeck interests me particularly because he’ll be put to the terrible tests of real life in the worst of circumstances.  What will he think, and what will he do, then?

And, speaking of such things, what do I make of the unprecedented hatred that now emanates from so many corners of the academic and opinion-shaping world?  There’s no mistaking it.  It provides the advance rationale for genocide — for the next Shoah.

What I make of it is that it also provides evidence – uncanny empirical evidence if ever there was such a thing – for the place of the Jews in history  spiritually understood.  The Jews remind people of the God whose record in history they first knew and preserved.

What else would prompt so much hatred?

Posted in Absolute Freedom and Terror, absurdism, academe, action, afterlife, alienation, American politics, art of living, atheism, autonomy, bad faith, Bible, Biblical God, bigotry, book reviews, books, Christianity, cities, conformism, contemplation, contradictions, courage, cults, cultural politics, culture, desire, dialectic, erotic life, eternity, ethics, evil, existentialism, exploitation, faith, fashion, freedom, friendship, glitterati, Gnosticism, guilt and innocence, hegemony, heroes, hidden God, hierarchy, history, history of ideas, idealism, ideality, identity, ideology, idolatry, immorality, institutional power, Jews, journalism, Judaism, law, legal responsibility, life and death struggle, love, martyrdom, memory, mind control, modern women, modernism, moral action, moral evaluation, moral psychology, morality, mortality, mysticism, non-violence, ontology, oppression, past and future, peace, philosophy, political movements, politics of ideas, postmodernism, power, presence, propaganda, psychology, public facade, public intellectual, race, radicalism, reading, reductionism, relationships, religion, roles, romanticism, scientism, secular, seduction, self-deception, social climbing, social construction, social conventions, social ranking, spiritual journey, spiritual not religious, spirituality, status, status of women, suffering, terror, terrorism, the examined life, the problematic of men, the problematic of woman, the profane, the sacred, theism, theology, time, twentieth century, twenty-first century, Utopia, victimhood, victims, violence, war, work, writing, Zeitgeist | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Philosophy’s Refugees

Philosophy’s Refugees
The crime scene after the murder of Moritz Schlick
at the philosophers’ staircase of the University of Vienna in 1936.
Austrian National Library, Picture Archives Contemporary History.

Last night, I finished reading David Edmond’s book, the one subtitled The Rise and Fall of the Vienna Circle, to which he gave the more sensational title, The Murder of Professor Schlick. Moritz Schlick was in his forties when he became the first leader of the vanguard movement later known as the Vienna Circle. He wasn’t murdered for that reason. The shooter was just an obsessed, crazy former student. It’s an occupational hazard.

Edmond’s book is really quite good, putting together the philosophic markers of this group, the political history they endured in common – and lastly the academic resettlements each had to make separately as stateless refugees from Vienna when the Nazis took the city.

As philosophers, they looked to identify truths as incontestable and free of human bias as could be found. For this reason, they urged that claims to truth or validity be restricted to those directly confirmable by sense experience or else those that followed from their premises consistently. By keeping speech and belief within these simple constraints, they hoped that nonsense could in future be expunged from the practice of philosophy.

It all seemed quite promising. What could go wrong? Well, the two great constraints left out all that we have reason to believe about the past. History fell out of meaningfulness. Also, all those features of the physical world that are too small to be perceived with our senses. Also probabilities. And of course judgments of character – in fact, most of the nuanced complexities of human experience. So much for the constraint that confined the truth-seeker to sense experience.

On the logical side, young Kurt Gödel gave a paper showing, as his colleague Rudolf Carnap noted, some “problems with the proof of consistency.” It was “his incompleteness finding” … “that whatever axioms were posited as the foundation blocks of mathematics, there would inevitably be some truths within mathematics that could not be proved.” 

These provisional frustrations paved the way for discoveries of other kinds and more fruitful ways of conceiving the work of the sciences. If foundational certainties had to be given up, clarity was not on that account lost.

There was one view on which they all agreed to the end of their days. Karl Popper (tangentially connected to the Circle) put it this way: “One has to read [German philosopher Martin Heidegger] … in the original to see what a swindler he was.” 

“Swindler” or no, Heidegger belonged to a current or lineage in philosophy whose aims and landscape were of quite a different kind. It had to do with a quality of mind or character for which the term “honesty” falls short. It gets the name of “authenticity” (Eigentlichkeit) and involves knowing how to avoid living at second-hand, how to escape a merely conventional life, how to get real, how to be solitary, how to face the boundaries of one’s existence, how to live deeply in awareness of one’s own eventual death.

Okay, fair enough. I’m not against any of that. But somewhere along what Heidegger called the solitary woodpaths of his life, in 1933 he joined the Nazi party, became Rector of the University of Freiburg, and removed the professorial status from Edmund Husserl, the philosopher (incidentally Jewish) who had been his mentor and secured Heidegger’s position as Husserl’s successor at Freiburg. By the way, the Nazism was sincere, not merely opportunistic. It was not diminished or discouraged by Hitler’s World War II defeat – as Heidegger’s posthumously published Black Notebooks (1931-1970) have revealed. Years after one of his students fled Germany, the former student recalled Heidegger entering the classroom door to announce, “Today class dismissed! The Fuhrer has spoken. Truth will not be the same for a thousand years!”

What shall we make of these all-too-broad contrasts, the Vienna Circle Certitudes on the one side, Heideggerian Authenticity on the other? After all, I too believe by experience that “authenticity” is not an empty or meaningless word – even though it’s unlikely to be captured by the scientific criteria so prized in the Vienna Circle. Life does present challenges that call for intuitive leaps and risks. There are even missteps that need to be lived through. Prudence – even intellectual prudence – can be overdone.

***

Philosophy’s Refugees

The Death of Socrates by Jacques-Louis David, 1787

That said, Heidegger’s betrayal of Husserl, his mentor and benefactor, is without precedent in the whole history of philosophy. Had philosophy got off to a start like that – instead of in the atmosphere of honor in which Plato held Socrates as his teacher, and Aristotle held Plato (though he differed from his teacher) – it would have sunk beneath the willed forgetfulness that covers ignominy.

What I honor in the young men and women of the Vienna Circle was their willingness to put their principles to the test of argument and to acknowledge refutation when it occurred. In this they followed the Socratic principle laid down in Athens long ago: 

Better to lose the argument

but win the truth –

than win the argument

but lose the truth.


Posted in Absolute Freedom and Terror, absurdism, academe, action, afterlife, agnosticism, alienation, American politics, anthropology, anti-semitism, appreciation, art, art of living, atheism, authenticity, autonomy, bad faith, beauty, Biblical God, bigotry, book reviews, books, bureaucracy, chivalry, Christianity, cities, class, conformism, contemplation, contradictions, cool, courage, courtship, cults, cultural politics, culture, desire, dialectic, erotic life, eternity, ethics, ethnicity, evil, existentialism, exploitation, faith, fashion, fatherhood, female power, femininity, feminism, filial piety, freedom, friendship, gender balance, glitterati, Gnosticism, guilt and innocence, health, Hegel, hegemony, heroes, hidden God, hierarchy, history, history of ideas, id, idealism, ideality, identity, ideology, idolatry, immorality, immortality, institutional power, Jews, journalism, Judaism, law, legal responsibility, life and death struggle, literature, love, male power, martyrdom, masculinity, master/slave relation, memoir, memory, Messianic Age, mind control, modern women, modernism, moral action, moral evaluation, moral psychology, morality, mortality, mysticism, Nihilism, nineteenth-century, non-violence, novels, ontology, oppression, pacifism, past and future, peace, Phenomenology of the Mind, philosophy, poetry, political, political movements, politics, politics of ideas, postmodernism, power, presence, promissory notes, propaganda, psychology, public facade, public intellectual, race, racism, radicalism, reading, reductionism, relationships, religion, remembrance, repairing the culture, roles, romanticism, science, scientism, secular, seduction, self-deception, sex appeal, sexuality, social climbing, social construction, social conventions, social ranking, sociobiology, spiritual journey, spiritual not religious, spirituality, status, status of women, suffering, terror, terrorism, the examined life, the problematic of men, the problematic of woman, the profane, the sacred, theism, theology, time, Truth, twentieth century, twenty-first century, Utopia, victimhood, victims, violence, war, work, writing, Zeitgeist | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Deep versus Shallow

Deep versus Shallow

Oedipus and the Sphinx, c. 470 BCE
Vatican Musuem

One time I asked David Stove, a philosopher at Sydney University’s Department of Traditional and Modern Philosophy, whether he thought there were such things as foundational truths – propositions that underlay and supported the edifice of human knowledge. 

     “Yes,” Stove replied without hesitation. “But no gentleman would ask you what they were.”

Another time, at one of the Trad and Mod Staff Club luncheons where I learned how they philosophize when the accent is British, Stove characterized Continental philosophy as the genre where Deep calls to Deep. From the emphasis he put on the noun, it was clear that neither the Caller nor the Called would prove of the slightest interest to David Stove.

When I was a kid, I had no interest in growing up to be Deep. What did interest me? Well, how much easier it was to climb a tree barefoot than with shoes on. Shoeless, your foot more easily gripped the tree bark and kept you aloft.

Another interest was winning dueling contests, using branches for swords. If you want to win, don’t take one single step backward. Just stand there crossing swords – thwack, thwack, thwack. Quite mistakenly, your opponent is likely to infer that, since he’s not winning, he must be losing. To vary the monotony of (as he thinks) losing, he might just take one step back. If he does that, you can drive him to the wall!

Such were the shallow lessons of the summer I was ten, my last summer at Hilltop, the bungalow colony in the Watchung Mountains of New Jersey, where my family vacationed, along with other families and their children, who were playmates for me.

I carried into grownup life a rather similar, pared-down sense for keeping life intelligible, which meant simple. So the first apartment I could pay for out of an assistant professor’s salary was a one-room, partly furnished with wooden crates kindly donated by the Italian grocer across the street on Third Avenue. That way I had a coffee table and a dining table, though I still had to purchase a few chairs, a rudimentary bookcase and a desk. Picked ‘em up for a song.

After each teaching year, I would go through any new things accumulated during that time and I’d discard whatever I no longer needed.

Eventually this spareness was forced to give way to the stuff inherited after my parents died. Some of the bulkier items could be shipped to the house in Maine, but there were pieces that obviously did not belong downeast. Among the latter was a large, square coffee table, actually made from the mold of an Egyptian wall relief. I don’t know what it said, in hieroglyphics, but it reflected my mother’s life much more than mine. I was reluctant to let it go, but it was certainly too big for my one-room apartment. 

Speaking of desired spareness versus the intrusions of stuff, lately I’ve been reading a book titled The Murder of Professor Schlick: The Rise and Fall of the Vienna Circle by David Edmonds. The “Vienna Circle” was the name self-bestowed on a brilliant group of scientifically, philosophically and/or mathematically accomplished thinkers who met to discuss their view of the methods by which philosophy might lend clarifying support for progress in the sciences. 

The Vienna Circle desired spareness. “Above all, they detested metaphysics—claims about the nature of reality that … go beyond what can be established by math/logic and by empirical science.” This was a period of enormous creativity in the sciences. “Alongside Einstein, physicists such as Max Planck, Niels Bohr, and Werner Heisenberg were reimagining and redescribing the way the world was constructed (p. 23).” Within the Vienna Circle, some differences emerged about what might distinguish verifiable claims from meaningless, nonsensical ones, but all agreed on the objective. It was to bring to philosophy the level of clarity and meaningfulness that the sciences already exemplified.

Among the Viennese innovators working in a deliberately modern spirit was Sigmund Freud. It seems that “in the nineteenth century Charles Darwin had forced mankind to … see itself as part of the animal world … . Modernism placed an emphasis on the animal, on the emotional and the irrational parts of our … makeup, on our sexual and primeval urges (p. 76).”

Although they were unclear as to whether psychoanalysis did or did not meet the Vienna Circle’s criteria for a science, all the same a number of Circle members quietly got themselves psychoanalyzed. In this number was Frank Ramsey, brilliant theoretician of mathematics. He underwent six months of psychoanalysis. In 1925, he gave a talk to the Apostles, a self-selected and secretive Cambridge society considered by its members to include none but the best and the brightest. Ramsey’s talk was about the Oedipus Complex, a psychological self-contortion that, according to Freud, was universal in men. 

“In my own case,” said Ramsey, “I think my interest in philosophy … is derived from a fairly well repressed infantile rivalry with my father and my wish to kill him. This means that I can never get any great satisfaction from philosophizing, never anything like the pleasure I should have got from killing my father, which my conscience or rather my love for him forbade me to do when I was small.”

Freud named this hypothetical complex after Oedipus Rex, a play by Sophocles staged in Athens in 467 BCE. Speaking of which, as it happens, I was some years ago crossing the campus of Columbia University at night when I noticed that this very play by Sophocles was being staged outdoors on the steps of the mall. As I stood there to watch, King Oedipus had just discovered that the older woman whom he’d married, Jocasta, was in fact his mother, and the stranger he’d killed in a conflict on the road had been his father. The desolation of spirit that was figured forth by the actor was so torrential, so devasting, that I myself could not bear to watch it any longer. I moved along.

Think about it. How likely is it that such a catastrophic mismatch (as we may call it) is playing itself out beneath the surface of every man you meet? I have no trouble supposing that the male infant, like the female infant, has a longing for its mother. But wouldn’t that be for the safety and security of her womb, which the infant might still remember, rather than for a copulatory connection for which the male infant lacks even the necessary biological toolbox? Oh well. Let’s move along …

It seems to me that for the brilliant Frank Ramsey to internalize the Freudian hypothesis was like my trying to cram the Egyptian-mold-with-ancient-hieroglyphics coffee table into my small city apartment. In my own case, it got justified eventually when I married Jerry and we moved into a bigger house. 

But in Ramsey’s case? Freudian psychoanalysis was as well-placed as an oversized Egyptian coffee table in a one-room city apartment.

Posted in absurdism, academe, action, afterlife, agnosticism, alienation, American politics, anthropology, anti-semitism, appreciation, art, art of living, atheism, authenticity, autonomy, bad faith, beauty, Bible, Biblical God, bigotry, book reviews, books, bureaucracy, childhood, chivalry, Christianity, cities, class, conformism, contemplation, contradictions, cool, courage, courtship, cults, cultural politics, culture, desire, dialectic, erotic life, eternity, ethics, ethnicity, evil, existentialism, exploitation, faith, fashion, fatherhood, female power, femininity, feminism, films, freedom, friendship, gender balance, glitterati, Gnosticism, guilt and innocence, health, Hegel, hegemony, heroes, hidden God, hierarchy, history, history of ideas, id, idealism, ideality, identity, ideology, idolatry, immorality, immortality, institutional power, Jews, journalism, Judaism, law, legal responsibility, life and death struggle, literature, love, male power, martyrdom, masculinity, master, master/slave relation, memoir, memory, Messianic Age, mind control, modern women, modernism, moral action, moral evaluation, moral psychology, morality, mortality, motherhood, mysticism, Nihilism, nineteenth-century, non-violence, novels, ontology, oppression, pacifism, past and future, peace, Phenomenology of the Mind, philosophy, poetry, political, political movements, politics, politics of ideas, postmodernism, power, presence, promissory notes, propaganda, psychology, public facade, public intellectual, radicalism, reading, reductionism, relationships, religion, remembrance, repairing the culture, roles, romance, romantic love, romanticism, science, scientism, secular, seduction, self-deception, sex appeal, sexuality, slave, social climbing, social construction, social conventions, social ranking, sociobiology, spiritual journey, spiritual not religious, spirituality, status, status of women, suffering, terror, the examined life, the problematic of men, the problematic of woman, the profane, the sacred, theism, theology, time, Truth, TV, twentieth century, twenty-first century, Utopia, victimhood, victims, violence, war, work, writing, Zeitgeist | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Jesus

Jesus
Rembrandt. c. 1648. Head of Christ.
Menasseh ben Israel, rabbi, scholar, and printer in
Amsterdam, is believed to have posed as the model.

I never tried to arrive at settled convictions about Jesus of Nazareth. Being Jewish, I saw no need to do that, except for holding a few broad-stroke opinions about certain views associated with Christianity. 

For example, take the belief that Christians were more loving than Jews. Nothing in my personal experience has led me to agree with that flattering opinion. My parents were pretty loving people.

Or take the theological tenet that Jesus, by his death on the cross, has freed believers from the spiritually dire consequences of Original Sin. I was aware that the doctrine of Original Sin had been introduced by Paul and never was a Jewish doctrine. You can’t find it in the Hebrew Bible. What’s more, to my knowledge, you can’t find Original Sin in any words attributed to Jesus in any of the four gospels.

Let me linger on that one for a moment. What’s the Jewish take on the Garden of Eden and the story of the expulsion of humankind from that Garden? I don’t speak for my co-religionists of course, but the story – as I understand it through my Jewish lens – is an analysis of the human condition put into narrative form. We suffer, we die, we know the difference between good and evil and we find ourselves in the midst of asymmetrical erotic relations (neither perfectly balanced nor ideally fair). That’s what it’s like to be human. Hey, live with it!

Does that place us incurably far from God – hopelessly out of the divine reach? Well, that’s not what the text in Genesis says. Once outside the Garden, Adam and Eve have two sons. They name the boys Cain and Abel. Abel’s sacrifice to God is accepted. Accepted, expulsion or no expulsion! Cain’s is not. As we know, Cain doesn’t take it well. He murders his brother and for that he bears responsibility. No doctrine of lapsarian incapacity blurs these dramatic distinctions, which will mark history going forward.

So, if I did not think of Jesus as freeing humankind from Original Sin, who or what was Jesus, as I thought of him? That’s hard to say. I didn’t blame him for Christian anti-semitism. I knew there were passages, in the gospels as we have them, that didn’t seem to me credible but could license a theology of contempt for Jews. Thus Matthew 27:25 has a Jewish crowd purportedly shouting to Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, “His blood be upon us and upon our children!” My thought was, who on earth shouts such words? Would even a hysterical lynch mob emit such a yell – casting a dark, future-binding curse over their children? No, I thought, that has to be a later interpolation, from a redactor with an axe to grind. How many such interpolations might there be, or what circumstance might have prompted them was a matter for New Testament scholars. Not my academic specialty.

On the other hand, I must have thought it better not to think about such questions overmuch. Christian friends had given me support in a key instance I had written about in this column. Earnest interfaith discussions, in which I’d participated, had been heartening and thought-provoking. And I’ve always liked hillbilly gospel. Let’s not wake the powers of darkness.

Like G.W.F. Hegel, I hold the view that cultures can’t be understood until you ask what their members think about the Absolute. Who or what is ultimate for them? Where do they get their sense of life as meaningful? Much else in a culture – what’s considered good taste, its choreography of erotic relations, the threats to self-esteem within it, its supports for self-confidence – these shake down from its highest places. What is sacred in a culture? What counts as defiling for its members? Of course, in complex cultures, where there are many strands of influence, this is harder to get at. Still, the Hegelian questions remain instructive and worth asking.

Since last October 7, a tidal wave of antisemitism has swept over our small blue planet. I don’t know how this phenomenon looks from outer space, but here on earth it makes many once-familiar places almost unrecognizable to me. In Western countries, the most prominent voices seem to come from the secular associations and groups that dominate contemporary communication in our day. Often such groups are skeptical in their general outlook, and given over to causes and purposes that are post-religious. Despite these apparently nonsectarian surfaces, I have a Hegelian desire to know what view of the Ultimate lies back of the antisemitic tidal wave? 

Contemporary cultural formations descend from a culture whose view of the Ultimate was Christian. For nearly two thousand years – certainly after the first generation of Jesus-followers had died out – Christian culture emitted and transmitted a reflexive hatred and contempt for Jews. Do the nominally secular groups who now openly despise their Jewish fellow students, teachers, colleagues and neighbors, owe nothing to the theology that informed the culture of their forebears for the previous two millennia?

Out of curiosity about the whole phenomenon, I’ve started to read a book recommended to me as a careful study by the Cambridge-educated William Nicholls, an Anglican minister who founded and headed the Department of Religious Studies at the University of British Columbia. His book is titled Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate. It traces the origins of this thread in the fabric of Christian theology, making use of the latest work in New Testament scholarship, to lift out the historical Jesus, peeling back what recent scholarship suspects to be the partisan polemic partly overlaying and disguising the original figure.

So far, the effect on me of Nicholls’ 437 page book, of which I’ve only read up to page 67, has been to disclose Jesus the Jew. And so far, from the little I’ve read, he sounds wonderful.

I believe we might still be friends.


Related Content: Who or What Were Adam and Eve? | Theological Rivalry

Posted in Absolute Freedom and Terror, absurdism, academe, action, afterlife, agnosticism, alienation, American politics, anthropology, anti-semitism, appreciation, art, art of living, atheism, authenticity, autonomy, bad faith, beauty, Bible, Biblical God, bigotry, books, bureaucracy, childhood, chivalry, Christianity, cities, class, conformism, contemplation, contradictions, cool, courage, courtship, cults, cultural politics, culture, desire, dialectic, erotic life, eternity, ethics, ethnicity, evil, existentialism, exploitation, faith, fashion, fatherhood, female power, femininity, feminism, films, freedom, friendship, gender balance, glitterati, Gnosticism, guilt and innocence, health, Hegel, hegemony, heroes, hidden God, hierarchy, history, history of ideas, id, idealism, ideality, identity, ideology, idolatry, immorality, immortality, institutional power, Jesus, Jews, journalism, Judaism, law, legal responsibility, life and death struggle, literature, love, male power, martyrdom, masculinity, master, master/slave relation, medieval, memoir, memory, Messianic Age, mind control, modern women, modernism, moral action, moral evaluation, moral psychology, morality, mortality, motherhood, mysticism, Nihilism, nineteenth-century, non-violence, novels, ontology, oppression, pacifism, past and future, peace, Phenomenology of the Mind, philosophy, poetry, political, political movements, politics, politics of ideas, postmodernism, power, presence, promissory notes, propaganda, psychology, public facade, public intellectual, race, racism, radicalism, reading, reductionism, relationships, religion, remembrance, repairing the culture, roles, romance, romantic love, romanticism, science, scientism, secular, seduction, self-deception, sex appeal, sexuality, slave, social climbing, social construction, social conventions, social ranking, sociobiology, spiritual journey, spiritual not religious, spirituality, status, status of women, suffering, terror, terrorism, the examined life, the problematic of men, the problematic of woman, the profane, the sacred, theism, theology, time, Truth, TV, twentieth century, twenty-first century, Utopia, victimhood, victims, violence, war, work, writing, Zeitgeist | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Passionate Intensity

Passionate Intensity
Juli-Revolution 1830 in Paris by Nicholas-Edward Gabé

In 1919, William Butler Yeats wrote a poem with two lines that came to seem more timely as the century wore on:

The best lack all conviction, while

The worst are full of passionate intensity.

Within little more than a decade, fascism would be on the rise in Spain, Italy, Austria and Germany. And the fit of the two lines with our own time still seems disconcertingly tight.

On the Left, we find the woke-sters. Though they profess to maintain a united front in defense of The Oppressed, along with steadfast opposition to all Oppressors – it seems disconcertingly easy to find oneself expelled from the ranks of the Oppressed and demoted to the despised precincts of Oppressor. The wrong word, a telltale slowness to denounce the latest Enemy of the People (especially if our newest enemy used to be your personal friend) – and poof! You’re out! Down in the muck below! Forgotten! We don’t know you any more!

All the Oppressed who’ve been authenticated have their names on the Approved List. Don’t even think about siding with some perceived victim or sufferer who isn’t posted on the List.

The best way to maintain your standing with the Oppressed is to keep your head down. Once you get noticed, for any reason, good or bad, the dance gets trickier. You could easily get denounced in your turn. Btw, this syndrome hasn’t changed since the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror (ca. 1789-1799), the classic account of which is in G.W.F. Hegel’s Phenomenology of Mind. Nothing of importance has changed since Hegel first described it in his chapter titled, “Absolute Freedom and Terror.”

Now what does the “passionate intensity” look like on the Right? Those who are found ineligible for membership in the class of the Oppressed, often find themselves choking back anger. They may feel oppressed, but they don’t qualify for that social rank. They don’t want to be socially downranked, shunned, or fired, but whatever they say can be suddenly found out as racist, sexist, transphobic, binary, heteronormative, etcetera etcetera. Even if what they said was meant as a joke, they can still be unmasked. So they can’t be confident of being able to let off steam harmlessly. Further, they may be concerned that their children are being taught values or given verbal signals in school different from those approved at home. Additionally, they can’t be sure that experimental interventions concerning sex identity aren’t being advocated during school hours – those too without parental knowledge or consent.

On the American body politic, what do both the far Left and the far Right have in common? Both of these contending blocs appear to have – in one degree or another – given up on the democratic process. Each is showing a new-found tolerance for authoritarian shortcuts. In these respects, the Left and the Right are starting to look like mirror images of each other.

Back when the Constitution of the United States had just been ratified, Ben Franklin stepped outside the closed doors of the Convention and was asked what had been approved in that assembly. We all know his reply:

A Republic, if you can keep it.

Since those who still want to keep it are surely more than those who want authoritarian shortcuts, why can’t we just assume that our inherited, rights-bearing citizenship is the norm, always has been since the Constitution was first ratified, and leave it at that, without further concern?

In 1945, French philosopher Merleau-Ponty wrote an article on this topic titled, “The War Has Taken Place.” Before World War II, he and his elite classmates had simply assumed that the right of each human being to be treated with dignity and respect for that person’s moral and intellectual freedom was self-evident. But when the Nazis occupied Paris, they erased these rights. To get them back, the rights would need to be fought for. Rights were neither immune from assault nor self-perpetuating.

The lesson that the War taught Merleau-Ponty remains true in our time. The democratic norms don’t defend themselves. They don’t impose themselves. If we want them, we must defend them.

Years ago, when I was a Professor of Philosophy at Brooklyn College of The City University of New York, a new college president decided to sideline the college’s award-winning liberal arts curriculum, and put a new set of required courses in its place – all centering round the borough of … uh, Brooklyn! We had students whose parents came from all over the world. And they didn’t come there for their children to study the borough of Brooklyn!

I and a like-minded Professor in the History Department decided to fight this degrading of the courses that would in future be offered to our students. One of our first moves was to call a meeting of concerned faculty for the purpose of assessing the situation and planning effective strategies. 

Between us, we divided the calls to be made to colleagues.

We called one colleague after another. Many of those we called told us that they had given up on the college and were planning to take early retirement. Since I’m not a natural politician, I had to reach for any counter-argument I could think of. To one colleague, in desperation, I tried recounting a dream I’d dreamed the night before. Here’s how my dream went:

I was standing in the entrance lobby

of New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art

with its magnificent, high-domed ceiling overhead.

But the entrance lobby was cluttered

with moveable stalls marketing trinkets and junk items,

each stall bracketed by tall wooden spires

that interfered with the view of the high-domed ceiling.

In my dream, I exclaimed in distress:

Where will we go, in New York,

to see a noble prospect?

After a moment’s silence, my colleague from another Department (was it English? Art History?) said to me, “Okay, I’ll go to your meeting.”

As things turned out, we actually did win the fight. In the course of it, I met Jerry, who was an ally and advisor, and we fell in love. The story of our victory ran in most of the New York papers as well as the nationally read Chronicle of Higher Education.

What’s the moral? You don’t win ‘em all, but you don’t lose ‘em all either.

But you for sure lose the ones

you fail to fight.


Related Content: Press Coverage of Victory at Brooklyn College

Posted in Absolute Freedom and Terror, absurdism, academe, action, afterlife, agnosticism, alienation, American politics, anthropology, anti-semitism, appreciation, art, art of living, atheism, authenticity, autonomy, bad faith, beauty, Bible, Biblical God, bigotry, books, bureaucracy, childhood, chivalry, Christianity, cities, class, conformism, contemplation, contradictions, cool, courage, courtship, cults, cultural politics, culture, desire, dialectic, eighteenth century, erotic life, eternity, ethics, ethnicity, evil, existentialism, exploitation, faith, fashion, fatherhood, female power, femininity, feminism, films, freedom, friendship, gender balance, glitterati, Gnosticism, guilt and innocence, health, Hegel, hegemony, heroes, hidden God, hierarchy, history, history of ideas, id, idealism, ideality, identity, ideology, idolatry, immorality, immortality, institutional power, Jews, journalism, Judaism, law, legal responsibility, life and death struggle, literature, love, male power, martyrdom, masculinity, master, master/slave relation, memoir, memory, Messianic Age, mind control, modern women, modernism, moral action, moral evaluation, moral psychology, morality, mortality, motherhood, mysticism, Nihilism, nineteenth-century, non-violence, novels, ontology, oppression, pacifism, past and future, peace, philosophy, poetry, political, political movements, politics, politics of ideas, postmodernism, power, presence, promissory notes, propaganda, psychology, public facade, public intellectual, racism, radicalism, reading, reductionism, relationships, religion, remembrance, repairing the culture, roles, romance, romantic love, romanticism, science, scientism, secular, seduction, self-deception, sex appeal, sexuality, slave, social climbing, social construction, social conventions, social ranking, sociobiology, spiritual journey, spiritual not religious, spirituality, status, status of women, suffering, terror, terrorism, the examined life, the problematic of men, the problematic of woman, the profane, the sacred, theism, theology, time, Truth, TV, twentieth century, twenty-first century, Utopia, victimhood, victims, violence, war, work, writing, Zeitgeist | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments