I'm finishing off a book of selected writings with author comments by Arthur Koestler called Bricks to Babel. He was an incredibly gifted writer. I have trouble knowing where to begin because this book is one gigantic tome of erudition, acute observations, and thoughtful reminiscences. I had not read anything of his prior to this book, though he is often referenced in books I read. And the only book of his I had previously heard of is Darkness at Noon. But based on the extracts I read, I think I'd really enjoy his novel Gladiators. It's not in print anymore so I'm having trouble tracking it down. Oh, but I will. Or, I should say, my husband will.
I also enjoyed his auto-biographical and commentary selections. In one of his most intriguing essays for me, he questions the motivation behind non-believing Jews continuing to identify themselves as Jews. Why bother with a moniker that has the potential to create problems and to create barriers for oneself and ones' children if one doesn't believe Jews are God's chosen people? It's an interesting question. And one that has been batted around for some time, apparently. Who knew it? Thoughtfully selected extract:
Let me concede at once that psychologically there is every excuse for Jews being emotional, illogical and touchy on the question of renunciation - even if they are unable to say what exactly they are reluctant to renounce. But let it also be understood that, while every man has a right to act irrationally and against his own interests, he has no right to act in this way where the future of his children is concerned. I would like to make it clear at this point that my whole line of argument, and the practical conclusions derived from it, are aimed not at the present, but at the next generation, at the decisions which men and women who were brought up in the Jewish community must take regarding not their own status, but the future of their children. Once this point is clearly established, a number of objections against the process of assimilation will be automatically removed.
He berated those on the Left who refused to condemn Soviet totalitarianism even after its excesses became known. Koestler wrote that "young idealists" are particularly prone to becoming "shipwrecked" on particular "logical fallacies and emotional eddies." To help them avoid these fallacies in thinking, he listed "seven deadly fallacies" to avoid. Here are several:
The confusion of Left and East. Some on the Left felt they had to support the Soviet Union since they thought of it as on their side of the political spectrum -- home team support and all that. He argued that what was happening in the Soviet Union was not socialism.
The soul-searching fallacy and the fallacy of the false equation. Closely related. These have to do with assuming the guilt of American and European societies -- imperialism, poor treatment of minorities, etc. -- to be equal to Soviet totalitarian crimes. Since we too are just as guilty, we do not have a right to condemn the Soviet Union's excesses.
The anti-anti attitude fallacy. Koestler explains: "It runs: "I am not a Communist. In fact, I dislike Communist politics, but I don't want to be identified with anti-Communist witchhunting." Hence I am neither a Communist nor an anti-communist, but an anti-anti-Communist"."
All these fallacies in political thought as observed by Koestler are still with us, though the vocabulary has changed. Many people cannot embrace what is good about America because American society does not correspond to their idealistic vision of perfection. Many people who consider themselves progressives are actually more anti-anti-conservatives. And vice versa. And don't many of us root for the home team -- Dynamo Dems or Red Bull Reps -- without always giving what's best for the country our fullest consideration? It's about winning, and egos are bruised when the other guy wins.
Refer back to my comment under your Orthodoxy entry.
Posted by: DH | 05/31/2010 at 07:31 PM
virkningen af temperament.
Posted by: Mulberry Outlet | 09/14/2012 at 02:45 AM