There was recent revival in the controversy over Heidegger's connection with Nazism. I did quite a bit of research on this a few years ago, so I thought it might be useful to someone to summarize what I found out, and the conclusions I reached.
Some people think that Heidegger was simply a liar and a hypocrite, who cooperated with the Nazis to further his career and/or save his skin. Other people claim that he wasn't a hypocrite, and that this makes his behavior even worse. He joined the party before Hitler came to power, and because he never formally apologized for joining, many people think he remained a Nazi for the rest of his life.
The first group gets to say that Heidegger, like Charlie Parker or Richard Wagner, was a schmuck who happened to be a great creative thinker, and there is therefore no reason to think that his ideas are contaminated by his Nazism. The second group concludes that Heidegger was a sincere Nazi, and therefore no one should read his work anymore.
As usual, the reality is more complicated. Heidegger was a schmuck, but he was not a coward. His relationship with the Nazis actually showed a considerable amount of moral courage. He was also in a sense a sincere Nazi, but that does not mean that no one should read his books. It does, however, reflect badly on his character, but not in the usual ways he is criticized. Here is a summary of what I consider to be the essential facts. I have not gone back to check my research so I may have a few details wrong. Nevertheless, I think this summary captures essentially what happened.
Heidegger was a great admirer of both Hitler and the Nazis before they came to power. This was why they made him Chancellor of Freiburg University, and why the the most famous speech he gave as Chancellor was so optimistic. That speech is pretty clearly in Heidegger's style, and was in my opinion written entirely by him. That speech contains few statements that would freak people out if it had been written at any other time in history, but it looks pretty scary when you realize he is talking about the Nazis. Over the next year, Heidegger signed (and in my opinion did not write) a variety of other pronouncements which sound like general issue boiler plate Nazi propaganda, calling for the burning of books, the expulsion of Jews etc. These speeches have been collected in a book called something like "German Existentialism". Although they are obviously important historical documents, I don't think they tell us anything about what Heidegger was thinking at the time.
After about a year of this, Heidegger resigned as Chancellor. The reason he gave was that the Nazis were not living up to their own ideals. Over the next few years, Heidegger frequently criticized the Nazis, so much so that his books were eventually banned and he lost many of the privileges that he once had. Heidegger was never jailed or physically punished for his criticisms. He was the only intellectual of any stature the Nazis had, and they didn't want to completely disassociate themselves from him. He was, however, forced to work on a labor crew when he was over fifty, lifting rocks and doing other kinds of hard menial labor. Some of his critics have pointed out that essentially all German boys and men were pressed into these labor crews as the war was winding down. However, it's obvious that an important figure like Heidegger would have been exempted from this kind of treatment if he had simply kept his mouth shut, so he really did pay a price for not being silent.
All this looks pretty good for him until you consider a few other factors. His criticisms of Nazism were limited almost exclusively to their misinterpretations of Nietzsche. No mention of the imprisonment, torture, and murder of Jews. He did not even speak up against the firing of his Jewish teacher Edmund Husserl, and editions of Being and Time published in Nazi Germany removed the original dedication to Husserl. Also, what about this claim that the Nazis were not living up to their ideals? For the Nazis, this seems like it would be a good thing, considering how vile their ideals were. To understand what Heidegger meant by this, however, you have to consider another statement attributed to him: That Hitler himself didn't really understand Nazism.
Here is where we can see that Heidegger's big character flaw was not cowardice, but hubris. Heidegger had a very special gift for reinterpreting the great classic texts of western philosophy, particularly the pre-Socratics. He believed that he was uncovering the true meaning of these texts that had been lost for centuries. The rest of us who admire this work usually see these re-interpretations as brilliant original creations,and don't worry about how accurate they might be. Heidegger apparently had an interpretation of Nazism which was as original and idiosyncratic as his interpretations of Parmenides and Heraclitus, which apparently made Nazism look pretty good. He thought that his interpretation was the only one that mattered. Perhaps he was aware of Nazism's innumerable evils and believed that eventually he could purge those out and come up with a more essential Nazi ideology that was humane and decent. This is not as preposterous as it would be for you or me to believe. Heidegger really was one of the greatest thinkers of all time, and he had a profound effect on the minds of thousands of people. This particular delusion is also not a problem when you're reinterpreting the ideas of someone who has been dead for thousands of years. But Marty, when Hitler is alive and his troops are marching across Europe, you don't get to decide what Nazism is. It's his ball, so you have to play by his rules.
Surprisingly, Heidegger never seemed to have grasped this obvious point. Apparently he believed to his dying day that he was the only person who really understood what Nazism was, (or at least could have been) and that is why he never apologized for being a Nazi. He felt that he had stood up for his beliefs, and therefore he had nothing to apologize for. However, to understand why he felt this way, you have to give a meaning to Nazism shared by no one but him, and also believe that this idiosyncratic interpretation is the only one that mattered.
Richard Mcdonough's Martin Heidegger's Being and Time has a chapter on the relations between Heidegger's ideas and Nazism which is the best work I have seen on this topic. It shows pretty clearly that Heidegger's idea of Nazism was so different from anyone else's that it was only Heidegger's scholarly hubris that enabled him to ignore the numerous evils and stupidities in Nazism, and focus only on the parts he liked.
Saturday, November 21, 2009
The Twilight Movies
My sister-in-law (a scholar of medieval romance) and my nieces are crazy about the Twilight books and movies, and my wife suggested we see both of them. So I did, and was quite impressed at how they managed to imbed the classic Gothic myths into the lives of modern young girls. Here is the rather prosaic story that underlies them. I do not mean to disparage them by uncovering this story, because I am genuinely impressed at how the author has given this story such epic resonance. That is part of what artists are supposed to do: "See infinity in a grain of sand and eternity in an hour". Here's the grain of sand that the author of these stories is working with. You'll have to see the movies, or read the first two books, to see what she has done with it so far.
1) The sensible thing to do is to date boys in your own social class. However, the kids in your social class are boring, partly because they're a lot like you, and partly because you seem to want something more than they want. Consequently, you are going to be attracted primarily to upper class boys with pale skin and high cheekbones, and secondarily to lower class boys with dark skin and big biceps.
2) The first movie dealt with the problems of being attracted to the upper class boys. Most of them will see you as food, to be chewed up and spit out for their temporary pleasure. The best you can hope for is a boy who will want to treat you this way, but loves you so much that he stops himself from doing so by shear force of will. His brother, however, will not have the will power that he has, so don't ever let him see parts of your body that are ordinarily covered. Your upper class boyfriend will protect you from his brother, but this will result in bad family tensions. Eventually you will want your upper class boyfriend to do the terrible thing that would destroy you, but he won't, no matter how much you beg him to, because he loves you too much. He believes that if he does this terrible thing, you will be damned for all eternity. You're willing to risk that, he's not.
3) If your upper class boyfriend leaves you (as he does in the second movie) you can turn to the lower class boy with brown skin and big biceps. He will not force himself on you, but he will do things like fix your motor cyle. Unfortunately, his friends travel in gangs that are bad tempered, dangerous and violent. Eventually he will join one of those gangs himself, because this kind of violence is in his genes. He realizes this, however, and so refuses to get emotionally involved with you, even though he loves you. He knows that other members of his gang have committed domestic violence against the women they love, and he is afraid he will do the same thing to you.
The good news is that the upper class boy eventually agrees to do the terrible thing that you both want him to do, but only if you agree to marry him. The bad news is that if you do this, the lower class boy will get very angry, and there's no telling what he'll do when he gets angry.
The one character I found myself identifying with was the girl's father. He loves his daughter deeply, but the only way he has ever learned to relate to women is romantically, and he knows that this is highly inappropriate in her case. Consequently, he keeps his distance from her, and expresses his feelings only in stiff formal utterances and the giving of carefully chosen gifts. This shows my age of course, as does the fact that the last time I saw Romeo and Juliet (performed by my own students) I couldn't identify with Romeo any more. Instead, I identified with Friar Lawrence, the childless scholar who finds himself surrounded by teenagers hopped up on hormones and existential angst, doing everything he can to stop them from killing themselves. I hope I have more success than he did. Perhaps watching movies like Twilight will help.
1) The sensible thing to do is to date boys in your own social class. However, the kids in your social class are boring, partly because they're a lot like you, and partly because you seem to want something more than they want. Consequently, you are going to be attracted primarily to upper class boys with pale skin and high cheekbones, and secondarily to lower class boys with dark skin and big biceps.
2) The first movie dealt with the problems of being attracted to the upper class boys. Most of them will see you as food, to be chewed up and spit out for their temporary pleasure. The best you can hope for is a boy who will want to treat you this way, but loves you so much that he stops himself from doing so by shear force of will. His brother, however, will not have the will power that he has, so don't ever let him see parts of your body that are ordinarily covered. Your upper class boyfriend will protect you from his brother, but this will result in bad family tensions. Eventually you will want your upper class boyfriend to do the terrible thing that would destroy you, but he won't, no matter how much you beg him to, because he loves you too much. He believes that if he does this terrible thing, you will be damned for all eternity. You're willing to risk that, he's not.
3) If your upper class boyfriend leaves you (as he does in the second movie) you can turn to the lower class boy with brown skin and big biceps. He will not force himself on you, but he will do things like fix your motor cyle. Unfortunately, his friends travel in gangs that are bad tempered, dangerous and violent. Eventually he will join one of those gangs himself, because this kind of violence is in his genes. He realizes this, however, and so refuses to get emotionally involved with you, even though he loves you. He knows that other members of his gang have committed domestic violence against the women they love, and he is afraid he will do the same thing to you.
The good news is that the upper class boy eventually agrees to do the terrible thing that you both want him to do, but only if you agree to marry him. The bad news is that if you do this, the lower class boy will get very angry, and there's no telling what he'll do when he gets angry.
The one character I found myself identifying with was the girl's father. He loves his daughter deeply, but the only way he has ever learned to relate to women is romantically, and he knows that this is highly inappropriate in her case. Consequently, he keeps his distance from her, and expresses his feelings only in stiff formal utterances and the giving of carefully chosen gifts. This shows my age of course, as does the fact that the last time I saw Romeo and Juliet (performed by my own students) I couldn't identify with Romeo any more. Instead, I identified with Friar Lawrence, the childless scholar who finds himself surrounded by teenagers hopped up on hormones and existential angst, doing everything he can to stop them from killing themselves. I hope I have more success than he did. Perhaps watching movies like Twilight will help.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Roman Polanski
For some reason, I keep rereading the news items and posted comments about Roman Polanski. These texts get very repetitious very quickly, but I still feel the need to keep reading and thinking about this, because I can't seem to feel comfortable with the intense emotions of either side. I don't want to join the mob condemning him, or the mob who wants to free him. I did read an article in the London Telegraph, however, and the reader comments I read on that article did give me some clarity on the issue.
This article described many of the horrible things that have happened to Polansky in his long and painful life. Wife killed by Charles Manson, Mother killed by Nazis etc. The comments were people who claimed that this writer is claiming that Polansky is innocent, or deserves to be forgiven. Not once does he say any such thing in the article. He simply tells Polansky's story. This I've decided, is why I can't feel comfortable with either side of this controversy. It seems that everyone feels it is necessary to assume that anyone who has done anything bad must be bad all the way through. What this article shows is that talented people, who have had terrible things done to them, sometimes do terrible things themselves. Some people are threatened by this kind of moral ambiguity in the world, and don't want to feel sympathy for someone who deserves to be punished. That's too bad, the world is a morally ambiguous place.
This article described many of the horrible things that have happened to Polansky in his long and painful life. Wife killed by Charles Manson, Mother killed by Nazis etc. The comments were people who claimed that this writer is claiming that Polansky is innocent, or deserves to be forgiven. Not once does he say any such thing in the article. He simply tells Polansky's story. This I've decided, is why I can't feel comfortable with either side of this controversy. It seems that everyone feels it is necessary to assume that anyone who has done anything bad must be bad all the way through. What this article shows is that talented people, who have had terrible things done to them, sometimes do terrible things themselves. Some people are threatened by this kind of moral ambiguity in the world, and don't want to feel sympathy for someone who deserves to be punished. That's too bad, the world is a morally ambiguous place.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Restore Majority Rule in California.
A grassroots movement is beginning to put a measure on the California ballot which consists of one sentence ”All legislative actions on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote." This is the only thing which will make California functional again.
This seems to be the most centralized address for organized work on repealing the 2/3 rule in California. The measure was written by George Lakoff (Professor of Linguistics at Berkeley), and he's one of the main organizers of the campaign.
www.camajorityrule.com
Proposition 13 made it possible to pass Tax cuts with a simple majority and Tax increases require a 2/3rds. This has created a culture of Tax cuts in Boom times that are impossible to replace in Bust times. Treasurer Angelides ran for Governor on a program that would have balanced the budget by raising taxes on incomes over 250K by less than 1 percent for 5 years. Pete Wilson followed a similar formula and it worked. But the days of Sane Republicans are a distant memory, and California decided instead to cut money to the Universities and create a skilled labor shortage that will shrink the tax base even further. These impossibly low tax rates have been hemorrhaging the budget ever since, so it’s probably impossible to fix the budget that easily today. But the real problem in California is too little revenue, not too much spending. Cuts in education create more unemployment, which creates less revenue, which creates more cuts in employment and so on. This is the disastrous Republican "plan" for California's future.
The Republicans have lost the ability to do anything other than Chant the Mantra "NO NEW TAXES". The Majority rule measure will break their stranglehold on the budget, and make it possible to fund essential public services once more. I would urge eveyrone to go to this site and volunteer to help the campaign.The people who say this can't pass are probably also the people that said Obama could never get elected. Let's prove them wrong again
This seems to be the most centralized address for organized work on repealing the 2/3 rule in California. The measure was written by George Lakoff (Professor of Linguistics at Berkeley), and he's one of the main organizers of the campaign.
www.camajorityrule.com
Proposition 13 made it possible to pass Tax cuts with a simple majority and Tax increases require a 2/3rds. This has created a culture of Tax cuts in Boom times that are impossible to replace in Bust times. Treasurer Angelides ran for Governor on a program that would have balanced the budget by raising taxes on incomes over 250K by less than 1 percent for 5 years. Pete Wilson followed a similar formula and it worked. But the days of Sane Republicans are a distant memory, and California decided instead to cut money to the Universities and create a skilled labor shortage that will shrink the tax base even further. These impossibly low tax rates have been hemorrhaging the budget ever since, so it’s probably impossible to fix the budget that easily today. But the real problem in California is too little revenue, not too much spending. Cuts in education create more unemployment, which creates less revenue, which creates more cuts in employment and so on. This is the disastrous Republican "plan" for California's future.
The Republicans have lost the ability to do anything other than Chant the Mantra "NO NEW TAXES". The Majority rule measure will break their stranglehold on the budget, and make it possible to fund essential public services once more. I would urge eveyrone to go to this site and volunteer to help the campaign.The people who say this can't pass are probably also the people that said Obama could never get elected. Let's prove them wrong again
Monday, August 10, 2009
Obama and Gitmo redux
It appears that Obama no longer "rejects as false the dichotomy of our ideals and safety". He's created a special kind of "justice" for some of the Gitmo prisoners that will enable him to detain them without charges. I'm not happy about this, because I think it's wrong, and I think it will compromise our security more than letting those people go. To convict those who can be proven guilty, and let the rest go (preferably with compensations for the damage done to their lives), would have been a powerful blow to the Al Qaeda propaganda machine. But let's get real here, and not pretend that this shows that there is no difference between Obama and Bush. Obama is winding this up at a faster rate than Bush did, and he is also creating a system that will evaluate prisoners on an objective criterion, rather than making their imprisonment a matter of presidential whim. Those are steps in the right direction, although not far enough.
I think Obama has taken this position because he knows that fear of terrorism is the most powerful card the Republicans have, and that doing the right thing in this context could be fatal politically. I think the best thing to do would be to call their bluff, and argue aggressively that we are safer with this issue behind us. But I don't have to agree with Obama to be grateful that he is the best president we have had since Clinton. I think that given time, I will end up saying that he is the best president in my lifetime.
I think Obama has taken this position because he knows that fear of terrorism is the most powerful card the Republicans have, and that doing the right thing in this context could be fatal politically. I think the best thing to do would be to call their bluff, and argue aggressively that we are safer with this issue behind us. But I don't have to agree with Obama to be grateful that he is the best president we have had since Clinton. I think that given time, I will end up saying that he is the best president in my lifetime.
Did Woodstock Matter?
Woodstock was in one important way, a radical counterexample to the basic tenets of Western Christian Morality. The assumption of that morality is that if people relax, follow their desires, and do what they like, there would be chaos. This is why sex and sin have always been linked together. What happened at Woodstock is that people had sex, did drugs, took off their clothes, did no productive work --and things turned out OK. Nobody got hurt, and people exhibited all the most important Christian virtues--kindness, generosity, patience--without being nasty and self righteous. This was scary to some people and exhilarating to others. John Calvin would have turned over in his grave, if he'd known.
Since then, of course, this kind of abandon and license has proved to be unsustainable. But for a few shining moments, it seemed that Rousseau was right--that if people just did what came naturally they would be good, and that traditional moral rules actually got in the way of goodness. Like all half-truths, this idea can be dangerous. But let us not be so sure that we are completely certain which half is true at this point in history.
Since then, of course, this kind of abandon and license has proved to be unsustainable. But for a few shining moments, it seemed that Rousseau was right--that if people just did what came naturally they would be good, and that traditional moral rules actually got in the way of goodness. Like all half-truths, this idea can be dangerous. But let us not be so sure that we are completely certain which half is true at this point in history.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Meta-dream
All kidding aside, this really happened to me a few nights ago.
I dreamed I was giving a philosophy lecture using two underlined books instead of lecture notes. As the lecture went on, I started having more and more trouble locating the quotes I needed. Soon the lecture was getting more and more confused, and the students were starting to get restless. A couple of my best students came up and complained that they really could have gotten more out of staying at home and studying than they were getting out of this lecture. Roger Bell, the department chair, appeared magically in the back of the room. He looked friendly, as always, but his presence made me feel I better get this lecture on track soon.
Then I got a flash of inspiration. I started telling the students that what I was going through was very similar to what psychologists call an anxiety dream, and that many people have similar dreams. I then began to describe one of my real anxiety dreams, if you'll pardon the oxymoron. (i.e. I didn't dream that I dreamed this, I really did dream it several years ago). In my anxiety dream, I am supposed to be playing drums with the Rock band Jethro Tull in a huge sold out arena, but as in real life, I can't play drums at all. I figure that I will make somewhat less of an idiot of myself if I can at least reach all of the drums and cymbals. I spend the entire dream rearranging the drumset with the band and audience staring at me patiently in dead silence. I tell the class that the one difference between the dream and my current situation is that in the dream I wake up before I have to play the drums. I remark that I wish I could get out of this situation the same way, which gets a good laugh. Great, I think, they're with me now. All I have to do is tie that story back to the subject matter of the lecture, and I'm home free. So I pick up the two books, and once again I get hopelessly lost trying to find the quotes I need.
At this point I realize that I'm dreaming, and that acknowledging this fact will create a meta-level that really will enable me to tie this story back to the course material. The connection is right on the tip of my tongue, however, so I mark time with a few qualifying clauses, hoping that I will soon be able to explain clearly how all of this meandering relates back to the lecture. Then I realize "Wait a minute! If I'm dreaming I don't have to finish the lecture. All I have to do is wake up." So I do.
I dreamed I was giving a philosophy lecture using two underlined books instead of lecture notes. As the lecture went on, I started having more and more trouble locating the quotes I needed. Soon the lecture was getting more and more confused, and the students were starting to get restless. A couple of my best students came up and complained that they really could have gotten more out of staying at home and studying than they were getting out of this lecture. Roger Bell, the department chair, appeared magically in the back of the room. He looked friendly, as always, but his presence made me feel I better get this lecture on track soon.
Then I got a flash of inspiration. I started telling the students that what I was going through was very similar to what psychologists call an anxiety dream, and that many people have similar dreams. I then began to describe one of my real anxiety dreams, if you'll pardon the oxymoron. (i.e. I didn't dream that I dreamed this, I really did dream it several years ago). In my anxiety dream, I am supposed to be playing drums with the Rock band Jethro Tull in a huge sold out arena, but as in real life, I can't play drums at all. I figure that I will make somewhat less of an idiot of myself if I can at least reach all of the drums and cymbals. I spend the entire dream rearranging the drumset with the band and audience staring at me patiently in dead silence. I tell the class that the one difference between the dream and my current situation is that in the dream I wake up before I have to play the drums. I remark that I wish I could get out of this situation the same way, which gets a good laugh. Great, I think, they're with me now. All I have to do is tie that story back to the subject matter of the lecture, and I'm home free. So I pick up the two books, and once again I get hopelessly lost trying to find the quotes I need.
At this point I realize that I'm dreaming, and that acknowledging this fact will create a meta-level that really will enable me to tie this story back to the course material. The connection is right on the tip of my tongue, however, so I mark time with a few qualifying clauses, hoping that I will soon be able to explain clearly how all of this meandering relates back to the lecture. Then I realize "Wait a minute! If I'm dreaming I don't have to finish the lecture. All I have to do is wake up." So I do.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Why we need the Humanities
The Sciences teach us how to deal with machines and mechanisms. Even Psychology is primarily interested in what we have in common with Rats and Pigeons. The Humanities, as the name implies, deal with what makes us uniquely human. Any job that requires us to deal with humans as humans is best prepared for by studying the humanities. This is because humans, unlike machines, cannot be understood fully by reducing them to mathematical algorithms. You learn to understand people by hearing stories about them: in History and in Literature. In Philosophy, you learn about the relationship between these different ways of understanding people and the mechanical world. If you don't learn to step back from the assumptions that are made while viewing the world scientifically--something all of the greatest scientists knew how to do--you end up treating everything, including people, as machines that are only there to serve your ends.
Society needs for everyone to be able to take that kind of broader perspective. That is why a college education is designed to teach you not only how to do a job, but to think carefully about what sort of job you ought to do. I think one of the reasons for the present financial and moral collapse is that the richest and most powerful people never took courses--or at least never took them seriously-- that forced them to ask questions of that sort. This produced a group of people who grew up with a value system that no sane person would ever embrace seriously if they took the time to question it: "He who dies with the most toys wins." Unfortunately, that is the value system subconsciously adopted by those who never question their value system. They got their toys and we lost.
Society needs for everyone to be able to take that kind of broader perspective. That is why a college education is designed to teach you not only how to do a job, but to think carefully about what sort of job you ought to do. I think one of the reasons for the present financial and moral collapse is that the richest and most powerful people never took courses--or at least never took them seriously-- that forced them to ask questions of that sort. This produced a group of people who grew up with a value system that no sane person would ever embrace seriously if they took the time to question it: "He who dies with the most toys wins." Unfortunately, that is the value system subconsciously adopted by those who never question their value system. They got their toys and we lost.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Sura 4:89
Both extremist fundamentalists and Islamaphobes like to use this passage to prove that the Koran requires that apostates should be killed.
They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. (4:89)
This is not, however, the only interpretation accepted by orthodox Muslims. Osama Abdallah attacks this interpretation at great length on his website http://www.answering-christianity.com and also cites several orthodox Islamic scholars as rejecting this interpretation. His response is based partly on Dr. Munir Munsey’s translation, which clarifies that the quote refers, not to apostates, but to hypocrites.
The hypocrites wish that you would reject faith just like they have. Then, you will (descend down to their level and) be equal to them. Therefore, do not choose them as friends unless they (emigrate and) leave their homes in the path of Allah. If they revert (to open hostility), then seize and slay them wherever you see them. Do not take them as friends or protectors, nor as helpers. (4:89)
The hypocrites are explicitly mentioned in the previous sura, so there is no question that they are the ones being discussed here. According to Abdallah, the hypocrites referred to in the quote were Jewish and Christian Arabs who pretended to convert to Islam for a while, then left and rejoined their own tribes. This would mean the people being discussed are not people who changed their minds and decided to leave Islam, but rather people who PRETENDED to convert to Islam. At the very least, this means that the injunction cannot apply people who were born Moslems and decided to convert to another religion. But more importantly, it does not refer to anyone who sincerely believes that they should convert to another religion. Consequently, this verse is fully consistent with the famous passage that says “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”
Abdallah says that these Jewish and Christian Arabs pretended to convert to Islam so they could make the religion look bad when they left. But I think a more likely explanation is that they were spies trying to gather military information. It is important to remember that the word ‘Moslem’ in the Koran refers to a small community under constant aggressive military attack. At that time, leaving Islam didn’t mean going down the street to another place of worship. It meant joining another army that was actively trying to kill Muhammad’s people. How would an American general in World War II respond to a soldier in his battalion who had joined the Nazis? Wouldn’t the most likely response be to have him shot?
However, Muhammad’s response was in fact much more lenient that my hypothetical general. The two passages that come immediately after this one show that this quote has been taken radically out of context.
Except for those (hypocrites) who find refuge with a nation with whom you have a treaty! Or unless they come to you such that their hearts cringe and neither allow them to fight you, nor their own people. Had Allah willed, He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. Therefore, if they stay aloof and do not fight you, or if they make overtures of peace, then Allah has given you no reason to commit aggression against them. (4:90) (My Italics)
You will find other hypocrites who seek to stay safe from you, as well as from their people. But, (as soon) as they are tempted with a lure, they plunge headlong into mischief. If they do not stay neutral, and do not make overtures of peace towards you, and do not restrain their hands, then seize and slay them wherever you see them. In their case, we have given you a clear sanction. (4:91)
The first passage gives exceptions to the rule for killing hypocrites, which clearly show that if the hypocrites don’t cause trouble, they should not be hunted down and killed. If they are far away in another non-aggressive country, or if they have surrendered, or if they are not aggressively attacking Muhammad’s community, they should be ignored. The second passage does advise caution in dealing with the hypocrites who are still living within that community. But it also reiterates (in the contrapositive) the previous passage’s admonition that the hypocrites should be killed only if they are actively aiding the community’s enemies.
Thus the so-called “death to apostates” sura does not refer to sincere apostates at all, and does not advocate death except as a response to violent aggression. It’s amazing what taking a quote out of context can do.
They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. (4:89)
This is not, however, the only interpretation accepted by orthodox Muslims. Osama Abdallah attacks this interpretation at great length on his website http://www.answering-christianity.com and also cites several orthodox Islamic scholars as rejecting this interpretation. His response is based partly on Dr. Munir Munsey’s translation, which clarifies that the quote refers, not to apostates, but to hypocrites.
The hypocrites wish that you would reject faith just like they have. Then, you will (descend down to their level and) be equal to them. Therefore, do not choose them as friends unless they (emigrate and) leave their homes in the path of Allah. If they revert (to open hostility), then seize and slay them wherever you see them. Do not take them as friends or protectors, nor as helpers. (4:89)
The hypocrites are explicitly mentioned in the previous sura, so there is no question that they are the ones being discussed here. According to Abdallah, the hypocrites referred to in the quote were Jewish and Christian Arabs who pretended to convert to Islam for a while, then left and rejoined their own tribes. This would mean the people being discussed are not people who changed their minds and decided to leave Islam, but rather people who PRETENDED to convert to Islam. At the very least, this means that the injunction cannot apply people who were born Moslems and decided to convert to another religion. But more importantly, it does not refer to anyone who sincerely believes that they should convert to another religion. Consequently, this verse is fully consistent with the famous passage that says “Let there be no compulsion in religion.”
Abdallah says that these Jewish and Christian Arabs pretended to convert to Islam so they could make the religion look bad when they left. But I think a more likely explanation is that they were spies trying to gather military information. It is important to remember that the word ‘Moslem’ in the Koran refers to a small community under constant aggressive military attack. At that time, leaving Islam didn’t mean going down the street to another place of worship. It meant joining another army that was actively trying to kill Muhammad’s people. How would an American general in World War II respond to a soldier in his battalion who had joined the Nazis? Wouldn’t the most likely response be to have him shot?
However, Muhammad’s response was in fact much more lenient that my hypothetical general. The two passages that come immediately after this one show that this quote has been taken radically out of context.
Except for those (hypocrites) who find refuge with a nation with whom you have a treaty! Or unless they come to you such that their hearts cringe and neither allow them to fight you, nor their own people. Had Allah willed, He would have given them power over you, and they would have fought you. Therefore, if they stay aloof and do not fight you, or if they make overtures of peace, then Allah has given you no reason to commit aggression against them. (4:90) (My Italics)
You will find other hypocrites who seek to stay safe from you, as well as from their people. But, (as soon) as they are tempted with a lure, they plunge headlong into mischief. If they do not stay neutral, and do not make overtures of peace towards you, and do not restrain their hands, then seize and slay them wherever you see them. In their case, we have given you a clear sanction. (4:91)
The first passage gives exceptions to the rule for killing hypocrites, which clearly show that if the hypocrites don’t cause trouble, they should not be hunted down and killed. If they are far away in another non-aggressive country, or if they have surrendered, or if they are not aggressively attacking Muhammad’s community, they should be ignored. The second passage does advise caution in dealing with the hypocrites who are still living within that community. But it also reiterates (in the contrapositive) the previous passage’s admonition that the hypocrites should be killed only if they are actively aiding the community’s enemies.
Thus the so-called “death to apostates” sura does not refer to sincere apostates at all, and does not advocate death except as a response to violent aggression. It’s amazing what taking a quote out of context can do.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
What Obama Said
A few posts back I created a paragraph of what I thought Obama should say in response to those who want to continue to compromise our rights in the name of security. Here is what he actually said in his inaugural address. Pretty darn close, actually.
"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint."
"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake. And so to all the other peoples and governments who are watching today, from the grandest capitals to the small village where my father was born: know that America is a friend of each nation and every man, woman, and child who seeks a future of peace and dignity, and that we are ready to lead once more.
Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint."
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Money for the Arts
The so-called 'moderates" in the Senate are now demanding that items that don't stimulate the economy be removed from the stimulus bill. High on their list is 50 million new dollars for the National Endowment for the Arts. This is less than a thousandth of a percent of the entire package, and less money than the City of Vienna spends each year on Opera alone. So apparently it's not the money, it's the principle of the thing. These people think that art must not be good for the economy because artists don't make money-making their first priority. The fact of the matter is, however, that money spent on the arts probably delivers more stimulus per dollar than almost any other investment. Here are two reasons why.
1) To have a long term effect, the work funded in a stimulus program has to create not just jobs but wealth. Bridges to nowhere won’t create any new wealth. Bridges that increase commerce, and energy plants that create new energy, do create wealth. Art is wealth producing. Picasso regularly took about twenty dollars worth of paint and canvas, and used his skill to transform it into millions of dollars worth of art. This is an extreme case, of course, but every artist transforms raw materials into valuable pieces of craftsmanship. That creates new wealth.
2) One of the biggest problems with stimulus funding is that businesses often don’t do what they are contracted to do. Companies are given tax breaks, even outright cash, to start a business in a location that needs jobs, then they close their local factory because they can make more money elsewhere. Banks are given money to lend, and instead spend it on bonuses, mergers, and thousand dollar parchment trash cans. The way to solve this problem is to give the money to people who would do the work you want them to do EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT BEING PAID AT ALL. Artists are the only productive workers in that category. They will work on their projects on their own time, invest their own money into them, and and will continue to work even when no money is coming in. Because of all the personal capital and sweat equity they have already invested, most artists need just a little bit more capital to take their work to the next level where it can be financially productive.
I'm not talking about artists who allegedly make paintings only in garrets and then never show them to anybody. Every artist I've known actively seeks audiences, and most eventually find them. Those audiences pay them money for their work--just not enough for them to consistently make a profit. (They're rather like automobile manufacturers that way.) A few well-placed grants can turn these artists into productive businesses, that generate jobs for countless other people. A successful concert generates work for ticket salesman, tee shirt vendors and food concessions, creates advertising revenue for newspapers and magazines—the list goes on and on. The fact that art is an essential part of what makes human, and enriches the human spirit, should not cause us to forget that it has many other uses as well.
1) To have a long term effect, the work funded in a stimulus program has to create not just jobs but wealth. Bridges to nowhere won’t create any new wealth. Bridges that increase commerce, and energy plants that create new energy, do create wealth. Art is wealth producing. Picasso regularly took about twenty dollars worth of paint and canvas, and used his skill to transform it into millions of dollars worth of art. This is an extreme case, of course, but every artist transforms raw materials into valuable pieces of craftsmanship. That creates new wealth.
2) One of the biggest problems with stimulus funding is that businesses often don’t do what they are contracted to do. Companies are given tax breaks, even outright cash, to start a business in a location that needs jobs, then they close their local factory because they can make more money elsewhere. Banks are given money to lend, and instead spend it on bonuses, mergers, and thousand dollar parchment trash cans. The way to solve this problem is to give the money to people who would do the work you want them to do EVEN IF THEY WERE NOT BEING PAID AT ALL. Artists are the only productive workers in that category. They will work on their projects on their own time, invest their own money into them, and and will continue to work even when no money is coming in. Because of all the personal capital and sweat equity they have already invested, most artists need just a little bit more capital to take their work to the next level where it can be financially productive.
I'm not talking about artists who allegedly make paintings only in garrets and then never show them to anybody. Every artist I've known actively seeks audiences, and most eventually find them. Those audiences pay them money for their work--just not enough for them to consistently make a profit. (They're rather like automobile manufacturers that way.) A few well-placed grants can turn these artists into productive businesses, that generate jobs for countless other people. A successful concert generates work for ticket salesman, tee shirt vendors and food concessions, creates advertising revenue for newspapers and magazines—the list goes on and on. The fact that art is an essential part of what makes human, and enriches the human spirit, should not cause us to forget that it has many other uses as well.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Said Ali al Shihri
It was bound to happen. A Guantanamo prisoner named Said Ali al Shihri was released, and is now apparently actively involved in terrorist activity in Yemen. Al Qaeda websites have gleefully announced this, and with good reason. They know that Guantanamo is one of the strongest propaganda tools they have, and anything they can do to delay the release of those prisoners is to their advantage. Al Qaeda's dysfunctional co-dependents, the Republican Noise Machine, will triumphantly exclaim that this justifies keeping these guys locked up forever.
If Obama were a Clinton, he would say something like "of course, we'll make sure that something like this never happens again." I'm hoping, however, that he will bite the bullet and say something like this.
"A Court of law found this man innocent, and so we released him. Perhaps he really was involved in terrorist activities before, and it was impossible to prove it. Perhaps he was innocent, and was so embittered by five years of torture and imprisonment that he became what we thought he was. Either way, this is an inevitable part of the rule of law, and must be accepted. Freedom doesn't come Free. The cost of Freedom is a willingness to live with uncertainty. If we lock up everyone who might commit a murder or a burglary someday, we might have fewer murders and burglarlies. But we also would lose the freedom that once made this country an inspiration to the rest of the world. If we are to earn that respect again, we must not retreat to a willingness to compromise all of our freedoms in order to acquire security. These sacred principles of justice under law must not be compromised, even if they do make us somewhat less safe.
However, equally importantly, it is likely that when we make such a compromise we are paying for something we are not going to get. It is highly plausible that every innocent prisoner creates a hundred new terrorists. To ignore this risk is to be not only immoral but impractical. Let us hope that if we return to the principles that we hold dear, the terrorists will lose the ability to recruit new members, and will be easier to manage and capture. This strategy does not have the satisfying simplicity of 'kill everybody who might be a bad guy". But it has a much greater chance of success, and promises us both liberty and security."
If Obama were a Clinton, he would say something like "of course, we'll make sure that something like this never happens again." I'm hoping, however, that he will bite the bullet and say something like this.
"A Court of law found this man innocent, and so we released him. Perhaps he really was involved in terrorist activities before, and it was impossible to prove it. Perhaps he was innocent, and was so embittered by five years of torture and imprisonment that he became what we thought he was. Either way, this is an inevitable part of the rule of law, and must be accepted. Freedom doesn't come Free. The cost of Freedom is a willingness to live with uncertainty. If we lock up everyone who might commit a murder or a burglary someday, we might have fewer murders and burglarlies. But we also would lose the freedom that once made this country an inspiration to the rest of the world. If we are to earn that respect again, we must not retreat to a willingness to compromise all of our freedoms in order to acquire security. These sacred principles of justice under law must not be compromised, even if they do make us somewhat less safe.
However, equally importantly, it is likely that when we make such a compromise we are paying for something we are not going to get. It is highly plausible that every innocent prisoner creates a hundred new terrorists. To ignore this risk is to be not only immoral but impractical. Let us hope that if we return to the principles that we hold dear, the terrorists will lose the ability to recruit new members, and will be easier to manage and capture. This strategy does not have the satisfying simplicity of 'kill everybody who might be a bad guy". But it has a much greater chance of success, and promises us both liberty and security."
Monday, January 19, 2009
I just saw two articles that unconsciously conflicted with each other in the New York Times. One was Stanley Fish's review of a book written by one of his former students. It basically said that the humanities degree was finished, that colleges of the future would do nothing but teach "practical" course to prepare people for the business world. One bit of self-contradiction in the article: It was filled with historical references going back to the 19th century that supported his claim that this an inexorable trend which is finally reaching its fulfillment. What the author didn't notice was that the only way he could have discovered that trend was to do the sort of research done in an academic history department. Like the Logical Positivists, he was presenting an argument whose premises contradicted his conclusion.
The second article was about Obama's extensive knowledge of literature and history, and how he used that knowledge to become who he is today. One reason Obama is so persuasive is that he has read great literature, and learned how to write from it. The reason he is so skillful politically is that he has learned things from studying the great politicians of the past.
The difference between so-called Academic studies and so-called Practical studies is not the difference between the useless and the useful. it is between short term usefulness and long term usefulness. People with nothing but business degrees are more likely to follow in the steps of Madof and Enron. Reading the humanities makes us take the long view, asking not only what will help us achieve or goals, but what goals are worth achieving. If a few more people in business and finance had taken that long view, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.
When the world is changing as fast as it is now, today's "practical" knowledge is tomorrow's useless relic. What is essential to survival in the modern world is knowing how to think, not what to think. Only a broad academic education can give you that. Skills like being able to do research, construct arguments, write persuasively, and being familiar with the historical trends that shape the modern world will not come from only reading a hastily written paperback on hotel management. But contact with the minds of the greatest thinkers of all time can be an exemplar of how one can behave both skillfully authentically in the world. The transfer process doesn't work as smoothly as it does in typing school. Every Socrates has his Alcibiades, but occasionally he also produces a Plato. Don't understand that reference? Too bad, you might have learned something useful if you had.
The second article was about Obama's extensive knowledge of literature and history, and how he used that knowledge to become who he is today. One reason Obama is so persuasive is that he has read great literature, and learned how to write from it. The reason he is so skillful politically is that he has learned things from studying the great politicians of the past.
The difference between so-called Academic studies and so-called Practical studies is not the difference between the useless and the useful. it is between short term usefulness and long term usefulness. People with nothing but business degrees are more likely to follow in the steps of Madof and Enron. Reading the humanities makes us take the long view, asking not only what will help us achieve or goals, but what goals are worth achieving. If a few more people in business and finance had taken that long view, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now.
When the world is changing as fast as it is now, today's "practical" knowledge is tomorrow's useless relic. What is essential to survival in the modern world is knowing how to think, not what to think. Only a broad academic education can give you that. Skills like being able to do research, construct arguments, write persuasively, and being familiar with the historical trends that shape the modern world will not come from only reading a hastily written paperback on hotel management. But contact with the minds of the greatest thinkers of all time can be an exemplar of how one can behave both skillfully authentically in the world. The transfer process doesn't work as smoothly as it does in typing school. Every Socrates has his Alcibiades, but occasionally he also produces a Plato. Don't understand that reference? Too bad, you might have learned something useful if you had.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)