|
|
Article7
Response to Article1
By
DDD
Here is
ghandchi’s response to DDD:
*************************************************************
Below,
what I have previously written is marked with "S", and
DDD's
response is marked with "D"
S) I am
presenting a new angle in my whole posting and my
S)
angle is to view our history from the viewpoint of someone who
S)
thinks everyone has had choices; and has made right and wrong
S)
choices; rather than seeing things as inevitable.
D) Mr.
Ghandchi wrote an interesting posting on the sensationalist
D)
trend of Iranian intellectuals. I should add that I have a
D)
deterministic view on this free will theory. We should realize how
D) a
dictatorship brutalizes and radicalizes its opposition. A
D)
dictatorship doesn't give room for liberal personalities to grow.
I agree
with you that dictatorship doesn't give room for liberal
personalities
to grow and thus radicalizes the opposition.
It is like a
cult
that does not let a liberal approach to counter the brainwash of
its
members to succeed; and helps the growth of extremism among
the
cult's opposition. And we both agree
that the latter, after
success,
will in turn become something similar to the former.
Now my
alternative is to forgo rapid success. Yes,
just accept that
your
efforts may not even make a difference.
But know that if even
partially
successful, the result will be of a more lasting kind in the
conscience
of the society. True if the social
conditions internally and
externally
are more favorable to moderation, you have more chances
to
succeed.
Also
true, that if extreme dictatorship prevails, the majority of the
people
may go for the radical alternative anyway; and afterwards no
one
will even remember people like you ever existed. But if more
people
be carefree about all this disdain; and just follow liberalism
for
believing in it, one day, their society may actually become a
moderate
society.
In
Renaissance,
Reformation, and a long period of liberal action. Still,
the
French Revolution brought tyranny.
You may
ask me that in the
problems
of colonialism and slavery; and still the country did not fall
into a
dictatorial rule afterwards. I would say
that the European
immigrants
had their liberalism exercised and foundation layed
out
long before coming to the States.
Moreover,
the immigrants had mostly escaped
persecution. Also in the American colonies, they worked
for a
moderate
solution for a long time, e.g. House of Burgess. Actually
efforts
of the founding fathers, before resorting to a radical solution.
justify
the Revolution. The preceding liberalist
work was actually so
strong
that it restrained the post-revolutionary states in every
sphere. I think if otherwise, their radical solution
would have given
the
same result as the revolution of many other colonies where
dictatorship
resulted from independence.
D) If
we look at Bolsheviks in
D) only
people with organizatory capabilities under its dictatorship
D) to
rise among the social democrats. It was Stalin who sat
D) with
the organisatory responsibilities and power and not
D)
people like Pelkhanov. It was because only brutal personalities
D) like
Stalin could organize under that brutal circumstances.
D) This
gave Stalin after the revolution the leverage to
D) wipe
out any moderate personality. So Tsarism carries a lot
D) of
responsibility for how the opposition came to develop.
You are
right. I couldn't have put it any
better. Definitely Plekhanov
would
never have had the slightest chance of a success that his
colleagues
in
like
Amir Kabir or Torgot (French intellectual of Amir Kabir’s Caliber
before
1789 Revolution); and couldn’t he have stood up for liberalism,
although
without fully succeeding.
True he
did stand up to Lenin and he did say that Lenin's Bolshevik
path
would end up in tyranny. But his own
ideology (Marxism) also
was far
from Liberalism (please refer to Kolakowski's
CURRENTS
OF MARXISM, Daniel
Kenneth
Galbraith's THE ANATOMY OF POWER, and Alvin Toffler's
PREVIEWS
AND PREMISES for detailed analysis).
Needless
to say, in a place like
of
Marxism were dropped and its social justice aspects were
highlighted. Whereas in places like
aspects
were highlighted as pre-requisites for any justice. For
example,
Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Program, not a major work,
but its
admiration for theory of dictatorship of the proletariat was
highlighted
by Lenin, Stalin, and many other Russian and Chinese
Communists. Whereas many of the European Marxists such as
Kautsky
tried to hide it [Marx’s Critique of Gotha Program], and
many
other European Marxists openly opposed the theory of the dictatorship
of the
proletariat.
D) The
same is true during the Shah time and among many
D)
D)
liberal personalities are inherently more difficult to
D)
organize and less adventurist and courageous than extremists.
Again I
agree. But I still think that even in
the worst conditions one
has a
choice to follow the road of Amir Kabir or the road of Mirza
Reza
Kermani.
D) Let
us see what is happening in
D) for
radicalizing and brutalizing Palestinian
opposition.
D) When
even the liberal literature was forbidden under Shah's
D)
regime we could not expect more of our illiterate and uninformed
D)
intellectuals! of Course the transitory nature of our economy
D) had
also created a lot of social classes in movement which
D)
itself made extremism a more natural choice.
Again I
agree with you that extremism has a much much better
chance
to succeed than liberalism in highly polarized societies such
as
between
the two ears and find the third, fourth, ... alternatives. The
choices
do not have to be collaboration versus extremism.
I
actually, as you have perceived, strongly believe in free will. My
belief
is not just philosophical, although it has been brought up even
centuries
ago by our own intellectuals Avicenna and Farabi.
I also
have reviewed some recent biological research, which argues
that
the more a species is advanced in its nervous system, the more
distance
exists between what evolution is genetically expected, and
what
the organismic evolution is in real life.
They say the difference
is due
to the impact of the brain and its ability to make choices that
are not
genetically pre-determined [Please see a good report on this
in the
Scientific American See THE MOLECULAR
BASIS OF
EVOLUTION
in Scientific American, 10/95, Vol253, No4.]
The
above is why I always stress what we all have between our two
ears,
and what a difference it would make to us and to our world, if
we also
believed that to think about more choices in response to any
situation
and not caving in to the paths that we have invisibly
always
accepted, and this can a make a whole world of difference in
our
future.
D) I
believe those who have lead a people towards victory against
D) a dictatorship
aren't always qualified to run the country after
D) the
overtaking of the power.
Again I
agree. That if a revolutionary path is
chosen and a new state
is
formed, one should not sit down and regret.
One can again try for
the
growth of liberalism. It has taken at
least four centuries for
How
long will it take for
I just
would like to add another point. Many
times the significance
of
Renaissance, Reformation, and Industrial Revolution are
understood
very well when examining the growth of liberalism in
the
start of rationalism in the Catholic Church itself and specifically
the
role of St. Thomas Aquinas in it.
St.
Thomas Aquinas was one of the highly respected fathers of the
Church. Jesuits pay a lot of tribute to his works
[see the superb
work of
History of Philosophy (9 volumes) by Jesuit Father
FREDERICK
COPLESTON for morv edetails.]
St.
Thomas Aquinas highlighted the rational dialogue in the Catholic
Church. What I see some of our supporters of IRI are
doing
nowadays,
which I welcome. Why? If you see in the European
history,
Luther who was the leader of Protestantism, was more
hardheaded
in his approach to rationalism and science than the Pope.
For
example, Luther strongly opposed the Copernican Theory, on
biblical
basis, and was always against rational discussions about
religion. In his theories, the religious beliefs were
accepted as truths
of
heart and not because of rational discussions .
What centuries
later,
one even sees in Jean-Jacques Rousseau's path of heart, yet in
secular
form. In contrast Voltaire, although
again a secular writer,
for the
same issues, similar to the St. Thomas Aquinas, but centuries
later,
appealed to reason and mind rather than appealing to the
path of
heart.
But the
rationalists of the Catholic Church, such as early father St.
Augustine
(very much like our Imam Mohammad Ghazali), and later
on the
St. Thomas Aquinas, pioneered discussions of religious issues
in a
rationalist fashion. These people, in
contrast to the Protestant
Revolutionaries,
contributed the most to the growth of rationalism
and
liberalism in the future Europe. Their
impact on the scholarly
works
of Jesuits is undeniable to this day.
Pay a visit to the
University
of Santa Clara in the South of the SF Bay Area to see it for
yourself.
I place
a very high value in rationalist discussions of many of our
theologians
in Ghom. Am I asking for a flame? :).
Regards,
- SG