Date: 29 Jul 92 06:11:35 GMT
From: wojdylo@uniwa.uwa.edu.au (INFIDEL)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject:  Naphtha and Settembrini 






	Responses to Mike Morris's Posts.       28/7/92


  JW:
  To answer a further query of Mr Morris's,  I do believe that he has something
  important wrong: it is his identification of all forms of absolute power
  as being equally evil. 

  MM:
  OK, but this is now moving beyond a discussion of Mann.

It always has been. Mann, after all, is dead and gone. What possible use is a 
dead man to us?



  JW:
                          Settembrini firing a pistol into the head of 
  Rochefoucault in the name of Justice is as evil as a Marxist/Leninist
  shooting a round into the squalid brain of Nicholas II, or a hypothetical
  Jewish scum in 1929 firing into the pretty head of Adolf Hitler, following 
  publication of that inspiring work, _Mein Kampf_, thereby averting World
  War 2 and the loss of 60 million lives.

  MM  (27/7/92):
  	I find this last telling. 
	
It was meant to be.


  MM  (27/7/92):
	I think you are saying that you believe I am
	morally relativistic ...

...not quite approaching moral annihilation...


			...to the point that I am unwilling to judge anything
	evil, that ``everything is permitted''. You are seriously in error
	about this.


I'm glad that you have paid some attention to Kundera. 
It's also heartening to find that you are not totally a moral relativist, to
the point that you are even willing to judge some things evil.Let us see to what
extent you are really willing to shake off the moral relativist tag, and to 
whose detriment your reticence might accrue.

First some comments on past discussion.

  MM (18/7/92):
	[Regarding the role of the protagonists Naphtha and Settembrini in 
	Mann's "The Magic Mountain"]

	I make it something like Progress/Reason v. Reaction/Spirit.

  MM (19/7/92):
	[Regarding Naphtha's views]

	Exactly what I call philosophic right-wing-ism.

The Marxist Naphtha a protagonist for Progress/Reason? And a right-winger to 
boot?  I think that Mr. Morris has it the wrong way around, at least. Could 
the source of this curiosity be related to Mr Morris's willingness to lump 
Marx, Hegel AND Freud in his "left-leaning philosophical lineage"?


In the case of Thomas Mann's novel, the "Magic Mountain", more appropriate 
categories are surely:

   reason/transcendental values v. (reason in the service of) dogma/pantheistic 
   values & "materialism".  

Generally speaking, the former recalls Settembrini, the latter Naphtha.

Naphtha was the idealist, hence
Mann's references to the Valkyrian scarp and `beauty of places unreachable
by humans' in connection with Naphtha.  (c.f.  Goethe's "Faust": Faust's
conversation with Wagner during their walk through the forest before the 
Walpurgis Night (including a description of a 'jet black dog' (Wagner doesn't
pick up Faust's jibe at his idealism).)) 


Settembrini believed in the values won in
the French Revolution; in particular, a transcendental notion of Justice 
(c.f the last conversation between the Settembrini and Naphtha before the 
challenge). He was the realist. Every place is -- and must be -- reachable by 
humans, capable of being made familiar, "human" -- not eventually, at some 
unspecified future time, but NOW.

(There are connections here which I'm willing to discuss; e.g. why is 
"transcendental" linked to "realism", but "materialism" with "idealism"? Is
pantheism realistic or is it idealistic? Can it be either ? )

Mr. Morris classes Hegel, Marx AND Freud within a leftward philosophical 
lineage (19/7/92).  What qualities of these three is he picking out and calling
"left"?


Hegel -- pantheistic in his idea of "destiny of nation" -- 
was a panderer to the Prussian aristocracy in the early 1800's -- what most 
people would consider `right-wing' for those times ---  consolidating his 
position of power within the king's court by promoting his "destiny of the 
nation" as a prophecy specifically about Prussia.  But it need not be 
interpreted in this "materialistic" way; i.e. in a way which specifies a 
particular real entity (in this case, "Prussia") as the object of the belief.
Choosing the real entity causes  the pantheistic belief to move from the 
Realistic realm to the Idealistic realm. Attaching faith to the real entity 
("it is PRUSSIA's destiny to be great...") is the definition of "materialism".
Hegel's idea is pantheistic but not necessarily materialistic; Hegel made it
materialistic in his lifetime, to his own dishonest advantage.  To
make Mr. Morris's "left" category work for him, I suggest that  he's referring
to Hegel's materialism when he classes Hegel's ideas in the "leftward leaning
philosophical lineage".

(Though "Left" does not necessarily mean "materialistic". Mr Morris is 
reacting to recent so-called "feminist" (and other) ideological battles at his
campus, for instance, which are "materialistic" in the sense I shall describe 
below. )

It's possible to "feel" that nations seem to have a destiny without being
sure that a particular nation has a particular destiny. This is the 
"open-endedness" of "science" (i.e. reason, the TRANSCENDENTAL)  which so 
irked Naphtha.

Marxism -- pantheistic in its socialist ideal --  is always materialistic; the 
socialist ideal is supposed to be arrived at by a process called "dialectic
materialism", which assigns faith to particular events in world history as
being portents of a prophecy. (See Kolakowski's "Main Currents of Marxism" --
do not dismiss Leszek Kolakowski's ironic tone as "non-objective": he is being
as objective as is possible.)

Naphtha's claim to be in the service of reason suffers from the same problem as
Marxism's claim to be "scientific".  

Aside:  

Sad that a Western academic such as Mike Morris couldn't recognize 
that identity.  It's only a year since the fall of communism in Russia. Have 
we forgotten already what Marxism is? Did Western academics ever know it at all?

End of aside.

Aside:

Do not confuse the terms "universal" and "transcendental": a materialistic
pantheism can be universal  (c.f. the Shinto religion, for instance). The 
communist ideal is universal -- envisaged, indeed, by riff-raff,
to be of benefit to the whole world -- as are the transcendental ones of the 
French Revolution.

End of aside.


Finally, Freud's logical systems  are transcendental, "open-ended", since
one doesn't have to believe any of the connections he supposes without 
experimental proof.  Various sections of the community use Freud for their
own purposes, make his suppositions "fixed", "un-openended", unable to be 
argued with and agreed upon by popular consent; distant, valkyrian, 
materialistic, idealistic.  This is what Mr Morris wants to pick up
in his category, it seems.

There is the possibility that Mr Morris is (errantly) referring to the roles 
of the ego in the belief systems.  The Kant v Hegel distinction. Transcendental
Vs pantheist. Broadly speaking, the Western Vs Eastern European literary 
traditions.

Then Freud does not belong in the "left" group. His ideas are in the 
transcendental pidgeon hole; he's as "Western" as you can get.



Now a brief counterpoint.

  MM(21/7/92):
	"I have to hold the ethical imperative higher than any aesthetic one."

This sounds disturbingly like the Western sovietologist who noted that since
almost no villages in the Soviet Union in the period 1930 to 1953 were 
simultaneously being terrorised by Stalin's regime, there could not have been
much of a terror. 

So the recommendation was to treat Stalin like "one of the boys".

Western observers have been notoriously slow to figure out the nature of 
regimes from Stalin, through Ceausescu, to the Serbian military's ambitions
for the Balkans. (Serbian ambitions for Yugoslavia were known more than 
18 months ago -- why weren't the Serbians pressured by the U.N then, thereby 
avoiding the current tragedy in ex-Yugoslavia?) 

It seems that there is some use for an "aesthetic imperative" after all.

End of counterpoint.

	
  MM(23/7/92):
	"I would argue that science is one of the most dictatorial programs we 
	have."

I must admit that I have seen more appropriate uses of the word "dictatorial". 
The scientific literature or the scientific consensus may be "corrigible" 
(MM (23/7/92)) but the objective truth is not. Any credible scientific 
community will eventually have to face the facts.  Just as Western governments 
now have to face the fact of the Balkan War, and the danger of it spreading.
If facing up to facts is to be deemed as "dicatatorial", then maybe it'd be 
better for all of us to take less notice of them, lest we be embroiled in the 
unethical tyranny of Truth.

It strikes me as odd that Mr Morris uses the word "dictatorial" in connection
with "science".  Surely the word is better used in connection with ignorance
and its consequences, among which can be included the tacit approval of 
political dicatorships by ostensibly liberal Westerners.


29/7/92

Mike Morris writes:


   MM(27/7/92):

	If the only nasty thing Hitler had ever done was publish _Mein
	Kampf_ (I'm talking about my impression of a book I have not (yet)
	read), then I would say, regardless of the horror of the content of
	the book, anyone would be criminally unjust to kill the man just for
	having written a book. 
	

It's nice of you to condascend to agreeing with the letter of the Law; a 
sacrifice on your behalf, your readers know, as you have already told them of 
your aversion to the dictatorial nature of Facts, and, I'm sure you agree, 
Facts are vital in the implementation of Law.  

In this case, howvever, I must agree with your evaluation that facts,are,indeed,
dictatorial, and that in the hypothetical case of the shooting of Hitler, the
fact of the crime is best ignored.

Before consigning the hypothetically-shot Hitler to the dustbin of history,
let's first consider how your picture of the situation in the above passage is
about what one would expect from the typical Western liberal claiming the self-
indulgent privilege of Right to Life.

There is nothing horrific in Mein Kampf; it's rather banal, actually. Le Pen
does much better in his campaigns for the French presidential elections. _Mein
Kampf_ tells of Hitler's vision, including a strong displeasure with Jews and
their influence on the country.  Soon after Mein Kampf was published, Hitler 
became leader -- with extraordinary powers -  of one of the most powerful 
nations on earth. Now the typical liberal claims that since Hitler had only 
*thought* about doing nasty things to stinking Jews, that he'd only published 
a book(he'd never actually killed any Jew! What a nice man in such a fine 
suit!) that he can't be judged evil enough to be erradicated himself. 

The good-fellow liberal therefore excuses Hitler's right hand man, Goebbels, 
from crimes against humanity, since the good-fellow Goebbels killed almost 
no-one with his own hands, he was, after all, just a good family man (as the
diaries show) "thinking, writing and making films" (Mike Morris 23/7/92). 

	
  MM (27/7/92):
	[Regarding Naphtha's moral vision in the "Magic Mountain"]
	No, I think it's an evil program. But I also think that to say this I
	have to carry about with me some powerful notion of what evil is, and
	that no glorious moment of human achievement, no Napolean at Austerlitz,
	no Michelangelo painting the ceiling, is worth this evil.

And it's not worth excusing no pistol-packing Jewish punk like Misha Zeleny 
from blowing the brains out of Adolf Hitler in 1929; Adolf's life is too 
sacred.  As sacred as your son's or daughters.  Let him carry on in power --
my daughters are safe from the ideas in his book; after all, I taught them
how to read books like that properly, without getting too angry at the author,
even if his _publicly stated_ intentions differ from what is revealed in the 
more intimate setting of the novel or memoir.   (As long as they don't
step out the front door, in Germany in 1935,  then it's O.K.)


  MM (27/7/92):
	If Naphtha tried to kill my children I'd simply react by slicing him up
	in little bits. If he tried to kill yours, I think that the right thing
	for me to do would be to gun him down... But the guy was just talking.
	Or thinking, writing, making films.  He didn't *do* anything ...

Neither did Goebbels, more or less. Shall we petition the Allied Powers for a 
formal apology for their unjust treatment of Goebbels?


  MM (27/7/92):	
	I would say that _Mein Kampf_ need not be beautiful (or even moral)
	for its author to retain a Right to Life. I think Hitler lost that
	Right when he killed, ...

Hitler never personally killed anyone (maybe only himself).  He just thought
bad thoughts, remember? Just like everyone does. Just like Nick Ellis does. 
(But Ellis does not admit it. He's a dishonest cunt. That's why his work 
stinks.)
 
	  ... not when he wrote.
 
He lost that right -- if anyone ever has it -- when he first stepped into
a position of influence, when his thoughts first began to be realized.


  MM (27/7/92):	
	If your claim, John, is that the mass murders and war and crimes came 
	from the book, I strongly disagree.

This is a ridiculous reading of my point. Perhaps you need to retire from
academia, the workload is getting to you.

On second thought, sometimes you sound more like a wet-behind-the-ears college 
boy than a geriatric academic.

  
  MM (27/7/92):	
	My guess is that when I will read it, I will judge it to be both 
	morally evil and intellectually in error. 

Deciding whether or not Naphtha's sayings were "intellectually
in error" seems to have drawn your attention away from the identity between 
the Marxist claim to be "scientific" and Naphtha's claim to be in the service 
of reason.   A slight oversight?

Meanwhile the Serbians struck their first blow towards achieving their 
ambitions in the Balkans.

Perhaps there are disadvantages in the (American) liberal world-view after all.

  MM (27/7/92):	
	I am certain, though, even without reading it, that _Mein Kampf_
	cannot be criminally unjust. It's just a book.

Laws, by definition, refer to human conduct, not to inanimate objects.


  MM (27/7/92):	
	Now, in my way of thinking about moral judgments, I believe that
	I can judge myself, and I believe that it is possible, if
	difficult, for me to judge others. 

How can you judge Hitler to be evil ? He loved Eva, he had perfectly real
human feelings, he loved his dog, walks in the Austrian countryside, evenings 
by the fireplace in a snowy mountain chalet, a temper tantrum now and then...  
How can you be so arrogant as to judge all these things that make up "Adolf 
Hitler" ?   He had "free will" so you judge him ... so what ? Once you've 
judged the totallity of Adolf Hitler, how does that affect your relationship 
with your children ?  They like walks in the countryside too, you know.  
You really are a bastard, aren't you. 


	
  MM (27/7/92):	
	This possibility of judgment stems first
	from my belief in my own free will (inscrutability to any sort of
	``scientific'' determinism when it comes to my moral choice) 

So you can prove to me that you are not someone's marionette ? I await
your proof.


 John Wojdylo
 Sydney 1992

--
Tom Osborn,                                   " As  simple  as  possible,
School of Computing Sciences,                       but  not  more  so  ! "
University of Technology, Sydney,        
PO Box 123 Broadway 2007,  AUSTRALIA.