The Wonder of the Human Person - A Book to Ponder VIII
War and its Consequences
The twentieth century was arguably the most violent century in human history, certainly in terms of the number of people killed. Those numbers vary, of course, according to the source cited. A cursory search on Google yields the following figures: 203 million (M. Cherif Bassouni), 167 - 175 million (Zbigniew Brzezinski), and 203 million (Matthew White: Historical Atlas of the Twentieth Century, 2010)). See Necrometrics for further estimates. One way or another, the numbers are in the hundreds of millions. An interesting question to ask ourselves here is the age-old one: What have we learned from our mutual destruction? The purpose of historical inquiry, according to most historians, is not simply to present facts but to search for an interpretation of the past. They are attempting to find patterns and establish meaning through the rigorous study of documents and artifacts left by people of other times and other places.
According to the source you look up you will find that oft-quoted aphorism "Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" attributed to Sir Winston Churchill or to George Santayana, the Harvard intellectual, who said roughly the same thing in different words though he seems to be suggesting some inability or amnesia on the part of the subject: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” One way or another, the quotation is useful to focus our minds. It is questionable indeed if this statement was, is or could ever be true given mankind's predilection for war and mass destruction. (I use "mankind" here in its generic sense, of course, though I do prefer the term "humankind". However, I feel the former term is more apt, despite its being used generically, insofar as men not women are the makers of wars for the most part!) The on-going and pervasive occurrence of war surely belies such a seemingly true statement as that of Churchill and Santayana.
Ethical and Moral Concerns
However, it is the ethical and moral issues that are raised by war that is my concern here. I have recently been re-reading a classic on this issue by the contemporary philosopher Jonathan Glover. The book I am discussing here is his wonderfully erudite and morally challenging Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century (Pimlico, 2001). In short, this book raises questions that should stir both the heart and head of any thinking and feeling human being. It asks questions like: How could humanity have descended to such all-time lows like that of the destruction and decimation of Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Or indeed the bombing of Dresden, though possibly not as horrific, when the Germans were patently beaten and about to capitulate? How can we explain that all-time low of the Nazi attempted genocide of the Jews ? Or the horrific Stalinist purges? Or the Chinese Cultural Revolution? Further, Pol Pot's Cambodia with its countless pictures of countless skulls? Or Rwanda? Then Bosnia? Or a more contemporary atrocity, the thousands of deaths of innocents in Syria as we write or read these words? While the geographical canvas of these atrocities is wide, our moral and ethical questions are the more pointed. How could so-called civilized mankind let all these atrocities happen, and how come we apparently never learn from our mistakes?
Development and Evolution
Other words we have heard trotted out a lot in the past hundred or so years have been those of "development" and "evolution." Naively, before the Great Wars of the twentieth century taught us otherwise, we were all firm believers in ever-onward development and progress. Rationality was apparently in the ascendant and ever-onward progress was its essential hallmark before such catastrophes brought us to our senses and knocked us off our over-rational and optimistic pedestals. Human beings are not just rational machines, they are also animals with passions and hatreds. These latter emotions are not easily conquered by neat and precise reasoning. And so we are forced to learn that we are simply not as great or indeed as good as we like to think ourselves. The Myth of Universal Progress (of wonderful developments: that is, the ever-increasing Good), humankind now learned at the cost of hundreds of millions of lives, was just that, a myth, and that it was and is still evidently counter-balanced by another age-old myth, the Myth of Original Sin (Evil).
Glover in this wonderful book never invites us to despair at the depths and heights of our own savagery to our fellows, but rather to look closely and squarely at the monsters inside our own psyche as individuals and nations, and in so doing attempt to tame those monsters. This is what we need to do if we are to have any success in our task.
This is a book which it took Glover ten years to complete and one can understand why - his canvas is very broad both geographically and historically and then, only when he has marshalled his facts can he attempt to draw any philosophical or ethical conclusions. I loved the simple statement which he makes early on that "[t]his book is an attempt to give ethics an empirical dimension." (Op. cit., p. xii) So, the emphasis is on the ethics we must draw forth from history if we are to survive as a race.
His quotation from Philip Larkin's poem MCMXIV (1914) is most apt as it captures the naiveté and innocence of those who lined up in their hundreds at recruiting stations in every little town all around the UK on the eve of War when the prevailing feeling truly was "dulce et decorum est pro patria mori." However, the harsh experience of War soon put paid to that innocence, as Larkin was later to remark: "Never such innocence again." (Quoted, ibid., p.3) Glover invites his reader like all good philosophers, and indeed all good historians "to interrogate nature, not like a pupil, but like a judge," (ibid., p 4). Apparently, the preceding injunction was one recommended by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). In all of this, our ethicist is insisting that we "keep things real" by underscoring the importance of the experiences of those who have survived war, or at least gave accounts of what it was like before they were eventually killed in battle. The primacy of experience is an important note struck in this book as Glover wants to encourage the idea of "ethics as a more empirical subject." (Ibid., p. 6) It is somewhat obscene in this age of high-tech computer games to watch war as if it were an elaborate game from the comfort of our armchairs. This is all-too-common possibility in our modern age.
Glover, while keeping his book very real indeed is at pains to avoid gross pessimism: "Yet, although this book contains much that is exceptionally dark, the message is not one of simple pessimism. We need to look hard and clearly at some monsters inside us. But this is part of the project of caging and taming them." (Ibid., p. 7) In a sense, then, this is an effort to bring ethics and psychology into close contact and into a mutual debate.
Glover deals insightfully with the influence of Nietzsche on twentieth century thinking. The voice of Friedrich Nietzsche is, I believe, in many ways the voice of modern man, so I'll discuss Glover's contentions somewhat at length here. Like most modern human beings, Nietzsche sought an authority within the human person rather than an authority from without, namely from a superhuman or supernatural God. Mankind should only look to himself for his values, values which were firmly rooted in his autonomy and independence from any concept of a being beyond, like God. This, of course, is the source of Nietzschean doctrine of "the re-evaluation of values."
It is trendy, and indeed all too common today, to point out that Nietzsche's ideas were distorted much and made to appear all too racist because they are all too open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. While accepting that there was a highly selective and distorted version of his work promulgated by his opponents, Glover argues that these critics "explain away too much." Indeed, our author wants us to realise that Nietzsche's work is not all harmless. There is intermittent racism, a sustained misogyny and a definite belief in "the ruthless struggle for power" in this philosopher's work. (See ibid., p 11)
It is commonplace now to quote Nietzsche's famous remark that "God is dead." Indeed, as a sentence it has long been one used even by graffiti artists. He was completely sceptical of external objective truth. Glover argues, with no little sense, that the German philosopher's belief that "self-creation is possible comes from his scepticism about objective truth (his 'perspectivism')." (Ibid., p. 13) In a world where patently, he argues, no meaning at all exists, or ever can be discovered objectively, it is up to mankind to make his own meaning. And so he struggles constantly in this task to "make meaning", and the image of "self-creation" is therefore one of such constant struggle.
(As an aside here, let me say that it is hard to understand how any feminist could be enamoured of the work of Nietzsche as it is so misogynistic, and it serves no purpose here to quote any of his male chauvinist views.)
One should never be "soft" on oneself according to Nietzsche. In fact, one had to be peculiarly and particularly stoic in dominating the passions, keeping them in control, but never denying, dismissing or weakening them. Self-creation requires exacting discipline. Altruism, pity, mercy, of course, are signs of weakness in Nietzsche's scheme of things, a weakness very apparent in Judaism and its offspring in Christianity. These inferior feelings are also abundant qualities in women. Indeed, when so-called religious believers show concern for others through pity or compassion they, he argues, are very people who are too feeble to override others or disagree with them. In short, he believes that they "disguise their weakness as moral virtue." (Ibid., p. 15)
Nietzsche, was a man of many contradictions. While he excoriated the work of Darwin, he firmly believed in the principles of social Darwinism. There are weaker peoples and races (no wonder that Nazis could appeal to Nietzschean thought) and indeed many races must provide slaves for the good of morally stronger nations: "Accordingly, we must agree to the cruel sounding truth that slavery belongs to the essence of culture;... the wretchedness of struggling men must grow still greater in order to make possible the production of a world of art for a small number of Olympian men." He further argues that there are whole peoples who are downright failures.(Quoted ibid., p. 15) In other words, societies and groups are engaged in a constant struggle for survival, in which the strong would win and the weak would perish, and such is simply the way of things. One can easily see how the racism and the extermination machine built upon it found fertile soil in these extreme words.
The modern philosopher, according to Nietzsche, like the ubermensch needs, like the sculptor, the "hardness of the hammer" to bring out what is truly good in him. Glover points particularly to Nietzsche's command to the strong-willed: "And, if your hardness will not flash and cut, and cut to pieces: how can you one day create with me? For creators are hard..." (Quoted ibid., p. 16).
One is more than tempted to agree with Glover that this Nietzschean ideal world is nothing short of a dystopia, a veritable world of "nightmare" where struggle, egoism, dominance, slavery, the masses excoriated and disenfranchised, peoples as failures, hardness, the festival of cruelty and the replacement of compassion for the weak by their elimination rule supreme. Save us from such a so-called utopia.
I realise all too well that I have emphasized the contribution of Nietzsche, but I have done so because, with Glover, I believe that it has been his pervading influence, along with the gross misinterpretation of his work by others with a fascist and racist mission that have brought about a certain modern devaluation of life and in so doing created the atmosphere is which hatreds grow.
Glover deals in detail with the actual historical events of the twentieth century like My Lai, Hiroshima, Rwanda, Tribalism, WW I and WW II, Hitler and Stalin , Mao's Utopian Project, and Cambodia and so on. He captures the history well by quoting extensively from contemporary sources and interviews with people who were present. He then proceeds to tease out the moral and ethical implications of such actions. In chapter 24 he deals with the burning question as to how moral or culpable bystanders are who have witnessed atrocities being committed and do nothing about it. That chapter makes interesting reading.
All in all, this is a superb book, ideal for dipping into from time to time as each chapter can be read as a stand-alone account. Of course, the book also is ideal for a continuous read, too. It is, in short, an invitation to each one of us to look closely and squarely at the monsters inside our own psyche as individuals and nations, and in so doing attempt to tame those monsters. This is what we need to do if we are to have any success in our task of learning from the evils we have perpetrated on on fellows in the past. Only then, will history play its most important role in our lives: the promotion of goodwill among all humankind.
Glover deals insightfully with the influence of Nietzsche on twentieth century thinking. The voice of Friedrich Nietzsche is, I believe, in many ways the voice of modern man, so I'll discuss Glover's contentions somewhat at length here. Like most modern human beings, Nietzsche sought an authority within the human person rather than an authority from without, namely from a superhuman or supernatural God. Mankind should only look to himself for his values, values which were firmly rooted in his autonomy and independence from any concept of a being beyond, like God. This, of course, is the source of Nietzschean doctrine of "the re-evaluation of values."
It is trendy, and indeed all too common today, to point out that Nietzsche's ideas were distorted much and made to appear all too racist because they are all too open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. While accepting that there was a highly selective and distorted version of his work promulgated by his opponents, Glover argues that these critics "explain away too much." Indeed, our author wants us to realise that Nietzsche's work is not all harmless. There is intermittent racism, a sustained misogyny and a definite belief in "the ruthless struggle for power" in this philosopher's work. (See ibid., p 11)
It is commonplace now to quote Nietzsche's famous remark that "God is dead." Indeed, as a sentence it has long been one used even by graffiti artists. He was completely sceptical of external objective truth. Glover argues, with no little sense, that the German philosopher's belief that "self-creation is possible comes from his scepticism about objective truth (his 'perspectivism')." (Ibid., p. 13) In a world where patently, he argues, no meaning at all exists, or ever can be discovered objectively, it is up to mankind to make his own meaning. And so he struggles constantly in this task to "make meaning", and the image of "self-creation" is therefore one of such constant struggle.
(As an aside here, let me say that it is hard to understand how any feminist could be enamoured of the work of Nietzsche as it is so misogynistic, and it serves no purpose here to quote any of his male chauvinist views.)
One should never be "soft" on oneself according to Nietzsche. In fact, one had to be peculiarly and particularly stoic in dominating the passions, keeping them in control, but never denying, dismissing or weakening them. Self-creation requires exacting discipline. Altruism, pity, mercy, of course, are signs of weakness in Nietzsche's scheme of things, a weakness very apparent in Judaism and its offspring in Christianity. These inferior feelings are also abundant qualities in women. Indeed, when so-called religious believers show concern for others through pity or compassion they, he argues, are very people who are too feeble to override others or disagree with them. In short, he believes that they "disguise their weakness as moral virtue." (Ibid., p. 15)
Nietzsche, was a man of many contradictions. While he excoriated the work of Darwin, he firmly believed in the principles of social Darwinism. There are weaker peoples and races (no wonder that Nazis could appeal to Nietzschean thought) and indeed many races must provide slaves for the good of morally stronger nations: "Accordingly, we must agree to the cruel sounding truth that slavery belongs to the essence of culture;... the wretchedness of struggling men must grow still greater in order to make possible the production of a world of art for a small number of Olympian men." He further argues that there are whole peoples who are downright failures.(Quoted ibid., p. 15) In other words, societies and groups are engaged in a constant struggle for survival, in which the strong would win and the weak would perish, and such is simply the way of things. One can easily see how the racism and the extermination machine built upon it found fertile soil in these extreme words.
The modern philosopher, according to Nietzsche, like the ubermensch needs, like the sculptor, the "hardness of the hammer" to bring out what is truly good in him. Glover points particularly to Nietzsche's command to the strong-willed: "And, if your hardness will not flash and cut, and cut to pieces: how can you one day create with me? For creators are hard..." (Quoted ibid., p. 16).
One is more than tempted to agree with Glover that this Nietzschean ideal world is nothing short of a dystopia, a veritable world of "nightmare" where struggle, egoism, dominance, slavery, the masses excoriated and disenfranchised, peoples as failures, hardness, the festival of cruelty and the replacement of compassion for the weak by their elimination rule supreme. Save us from such a so-called utopia.
I realise all too well that I have emphasized the contribution of Nietzsche, but I have done so because, with Glover, I believe that it has been his pervading influence, along with the gross misinterpretation of his work by others with a fascist and racist mission that have brought about a certain modern devaluation of life and in so doing created the atmosphere is which hatreds grow.
Glover deals in detail with the actual historical events of the twentieth century like My Lai, Hiroshima, Rwanda, Tribalism, WW I and WW II, Hitler and Stalin , Mao's Utopian Project, and Cambodia and so on. He captures the history well by quoting extensively from contemporary sources and interviews with people who were present. He then proceeds to tease out the moral and ethical implications of such actions. In chapter 24 he deals with the burning question as to how moral or culpable bystanders are who have witnessed atrocities being committed and do nothing about it. That chapter makes interesting reading.
All in all, this is a superb book, ideal for dipping into from time to time as each chapter can be read as a stand-alone account. Of course, the book also is ideal for a continuous read, too. It is, in short, an invitation to each one of us to look closely and squarely at the monsters inside our own psyche as individuals and nations, and in so doing attempt to tame those monsters. This is what we need to do if we are to have any success in our task of learning from the evils we have perpetrated on on fellows in the past. Only then, will history play its most important role in our lives: the promotion of goodwill among all humankind.
Comments
Post a Comment