Пет морални есета

by Umberto Eco, Умберто Еко, Ирена Кръстева (Translator)

"Събраните в тази книга есета - "Да се мисли войната", "Вечният фашизъм", "За печата", "Когато на сцената излиза другият", "Миграции, търпимост и нетърпимо" - имат две общи характеристики. Те са преди всичко случайни, родени като лекции или актуални изложения. И въпреки разнообразието на темите, имат етически характер, тоест засягат онова, което би било добре да се прави, което не би трябвало да се прави или не може да се прави на никаква цена." (Умберто Еко)

Genres: Nonfiction, Philosophy, Essays, Politics, History, Italy, Literature

88 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1997

About the author

Umberto Eco was an Italian medievalist, philosopher, semiotician, novelist, cultural critic, and political and social commentator. In English, he is best known for his popular 1980 novel The Name of the Rose, a historical mystery combining semiotics in fiction with biblical analysis, medieval studies and literary theory, as well as Foucault's Pendulum, his 1988 novel which touches on similar themes.

Eco wrote prolifically throughout his life, with his output including children's books, translations from French and English, in addition to a twice-monthly newspaper column "La Bustina di Minerva" (Minerva's Matchbook) in the magazine L'Espresso beginning in 1985, with his last column (a critical appraisal of the Romantic paintings of Francesco Hayez) appearing 27 January 2016. At the time of his death, he was an Emeritus professor at the University of Bologna, where he taught for much of his life. In the 21st century, he has continued to gain recognition for his 1995 essay "Ur-Fascism", where Eco lists fourteen general properties he believes comprise fascist ideologies.

Reviews

[Велислав Върбанов · Rating 5 out of 5]

Есетата на Умберто Еко са изключително стойностни, непреходни и събуждащи любопитство към засегнатите в тях теми! Благородно завиждам на италианските читатели, за които сигурно е било наслада за душата да си разгърнат новия вестник и прочетат актуална статия от големия интелектуалец... Прекрасно е, че литературата приютява истински значимите статии или лекции, които след време достойно заемат мястото си в книги! „Петте морални есета“ много ми харесаха, но от тях най-силно ме впечатли „Вечният фашизъм“...





„Мусолини нямал никаква философия: имал само реторика. Той започнал като атеистичен активист, за да подпише после конкордата с Църквата и да симпатизира на епископите, които благославяли фашистките флагове. Според една правдоподобна легенда в първите си антиклерикални години той поискал веднъж от Бога да го порази с гръм на място, за да докаже своето съществуване. Бог очевидно бил разсеян. През следващите години Мусолини винаги споменавал в речите си Божието име и не се свенял да иска да го наричат „човека на Провидението“. Може да се каже, че италианският фашизъм е бил първата дясна диктатура, господствала в европейска страна, и че всички аналогични движения намерили впоследствие един вид общ архетип в режима на Мусолини. Италианският фашизъм първи създал военна литургия, фолклор и даже начин на обличане — успявайки да има по-голям успех в чужбина от Армани, Бенеттон или Версаче.“


„Традиционализмът включва отказа от модерността. Както фашистите, така и нацистите обожавали технологията, докато мислителите традиционалисти обикновено отказвали технологията като отрицание на традиционните духовни ценности. Въпреки това, макар че фашизмът се гордеел със своите индустриални успехи, неговата възхвала на модерността била само повърхностният аспект на базирана върху „кръвта“ и „земята“ (Blut and Boden) идеология. Отказът от модерния свят бил прикрит като осъждане на капиталистическия начин на живот, но засягал основно отхвърлянето на духа на 1789 г. (или очевидно на 1776 г.). Просвещението, векът на Разума се разглеждали като начало на модерната поквара.“


„Никоя форма на синкретизъм не може да приеме критиката. Критичният дух извършва разграничения, а разграничаването е знак за модерност. В модерната култура научната общност разбира разногласието като инструмент за напредък на познанията. За Ур-фашизма разногласието е предателство.“

[Heba]

يضم هذا الكتاب خمس مقالات تطرح عداً من القضايا التي تتعلق بالوجود والسلوك الانساني ..
التفكير في الحرب ، الفاشية ، الصحافة في ايطاليا، الأناوالآخر ، والتسامح وغير المسموح به .
جميع المقالات لا تدعو الى اخلاق بعينها وتعارض نقيضها بل هى تحمل ثيمة اخلاقية وطابع انساني.
هناك عدداً من الاصطلاحات والمفاهيم التي تعرفت عليها للمرة الاولى ( التوتاليتارية ، الاصولية ، التمامية ، الفرق بين النزوح والهجرة ...) ..
بالطبع اختلفت معه في عدد من الاراء ولكن ان كان ما سأتفق معه بشأنه فهو علينا ان نتقبل اختلافنا مع الآخر وفقاُ لضوابط الانسانية .
اخيراً لدى رسالة قصيرة للمترجم " يا سيدي الكريم لقد ترجمت عدداً كبيراً من أعمال "ايكو" ولابد وانك اعتدت أسلوبه وطرحه النقدي ، وعليه لا يمكن ان تكون الترجمة هكذا ، هنالك خلل في الصياغة ، جمل غير مكتملة ، ولا مترابطة ، وماذا يعني ان تتركني في فراغ من نقاط متتالية بين الكلمات في المقطع الواحد ...؟!!!😠
اتدري يا سيدي تبين لي حقيقة هامة وهو انك تتقن التحدث عن اعمال ايكو في مقدمة أي كتاب له اكثر من ترجمتها...

[Jonfaith · Rating 3 out of 5]

We shall not get out of this circle until it is decided that when exceptional events occur, humanity cannot afford to apply the laws currently in force, but must shoulder the responsibility of sanctioning new ones.

Five Moral Pieces is another collection of Eco's essays and lectures, these are from the 1990s and as suggested by the title refer to plotting a moral course in a world revising its codes and transmitting mediums. The first few weren't encouraging, focusing o a new virtual definition f war and whether it was possible to for the godless to be good. Interesting as always, my spirits were not encouraged until the final two essays: Ur-Fascism and Migration, Tolerance and the Intolerable. Both appear to a response to our daily headlines and the clamor for expulsion from Charlotte to Hamburg.

[Steven Godin · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars

The essays that make up Five Moral Pieces - Reflections on war, When the Others Appear on the Scene, On the Press, Ur-Fascism, and Migration, Tolerance, and the Intolerable, make me now realise that I prefer Eco's nonfiction to his fiction. I believe he was a better theorist than a novelist. While I found Ur-Fascism, which offers a series of keen discriminations between Mussolini’s fascism and Hitler’s Nazism, the highlight for me here, the other four pieces did least make for challenging and interesting reading. I have another collection of his essays to read in the not too distant future.

[Nawal Al-Qussyer · Rating 2 out of 5]

دائما أردد مع نفسي: لاترفعي سقف توقعاتك لكتاب ما.. أي كتاب.. قد يتدخل ذلك في رؤيتك للكتاب إن كان أقل من سقف التوقعات فترينه لا يستحق الاهتمام

هذا ماحدث معي حين قرأت دروس في الأخلاق لأمبرتو ايكو.. كنت أشعر بحماس لقرائته وأشعر أني على موعد مع وجبة فلسفية لذيذة حتى وإن كانت صعبة.. لكن للأسف خابت توقعاتي

أتمنى أن تتنبه أخي القارئ لهذه المراجعة.. أن مراجعتي يتدخل فيها بعض الشيء خيبة أمل وإحباط لتدني مستوى الكتاب عما ظننته. فقد يقرأه أحد بدون توقعات عالية ويرى فيه مايستحق أكثر مني..

الكتاب مترجم من الإيطالية ثم إلى الفرنسية ومنها إلى العربية،، مما سبب ضعفا كبيرا في نظري في الكتاب.. أمر على صفحة كاملة ولا أفهم كثيرا منها بسبب ركاكة الأسلوب وانفصال الجمل والمعاني بشكل ملحوظ بالنسبة لي.
أقدر جهد المترجم لكنها وبصراحة لم تكن الترجمة التي تشعر معها أن الكتاب لم يكتب إلا بالعربية..
غير أن هناك ضعف في الجمل بدا واضحا بالنسبة لي مما أدى إلى ضعف المعنى بطبيعة الحال..
الكتاب هو مجموعة مقالات لأمبرتو يتناول فيها بعض الأخلاق بشكل متوازن وبموضوعية شبه تامة.. ويستشهد بالعديد من المواقف والأشخاص والأحداث التاريخية وبما الحديثة أيضا

التفكير في الحرب
الفاشية الأبدية
حول الصحافة
الأنا والآخر
النزوح والتسامح وغير المسموح به

وربما اخر فصلين هما الأكثر فائدة

بالنسبة لي لا أستطيع اتخاذ قرار عن أي أحد بقراءة الكتاب أو لا.. لكني شخصيا لن أضمنه من مجموعة كتبي التي سأنصح بها الجميع.

[سماح عطية]

40 _ 52

[Sara Jesus · Rating 4 out of 5]

Umberto Eco descreve estes ensaios como " de carácter ético, ou seja, dizem respeito ao que seria conveniente fazer-se, ao que não se deveria fazer e ao que não se pode fazer sob pretexto algum"

Encontra-se dividido em 5 partes:
- " Pensar a guerra", aborda as grandes guerras e as suas ideologias;
- " Fascismo eterno" , aborda o fascismo e o nazismo ;
- " Quando entre em cena o outro", aborda a liberdade de escolha
- " Migrações, tolerância e intolerável", discute o crescimento do racismo, da xenofobia e da intolerância

Para além destes temas também dialoga sobre a impressa televisiva e de jornais. Para mim este foi a parte mais interessante por estar relacionado com a minha licenciatura. Considero que estes textos serem mais do que ensaios, também possuem traços biográficos do escritor e opiniões pessoais sobre a sua Itália.

[Rise · Rating 5 out of 5]

In his introduction, Umberto Eco writes that the five essays in this book are occasional pieces and ethical pieces. Their occasional nature arises from their being speeches given at some conference or articles commissioned for publication. Their ethical nature is what makes them moral pieces: “they treat of what we ought to do, what we ought not to do, and what we must not do at any cost.”

What we ought to do, or what fans of Eco ought to, is read this short book – a mere 111 pages. I read it in two sittings. It is by no means an essential or a required Eco. In fact these are only slight pieces – meaning they are short and minor essays, yet with big themes. And, I hasten to add, they are highly readable pieces, even if they are structured to be knotty moral-philosophical arguments.

The essays are not of uniform quality. Some strike me as well thought out, others are just plain fillers. “Reflections on War” (1991) was written at the start of the Gulf War – “just as Allied troops enter Kuwait City” – but its relevance surpasses its time. Not only because war is timeless in the first place, but because the issues still resonate on the previous/current “war on terror” and the next wave of war in Iraq that George W. Bush architected and justified by lying through his teeth. The principles given in this first polemical essay are prescient as they apply to modern warfare in general. Eco discusses the role of technology in modern war and why this makes obsolete and revises the art of war given by Clausewitz.

Eco’s reflections in this first essay, and in all others following it, are not really too focused or too tight. Yet his conclusions and assertions, even if predictable in parts, are nonetheless powerful and explored creatively. This is because he arrived at them obliquely. Eco has this unique style of circling around ideas playfully before confronting the issues full frontal.

The essay that I consider the weakest, and which I find too theoretical, is “Ur-Fascism.” The essay defines several hybrids of fascism and Nazism and differentiates between and among these types. It is the sort of essay that is limited by its geographic experience and scope (Europe) though not by its subjects (racism and intolerance).

What we ought not to do is dismiss offhand Eco’s arguments. They are well developed, free-ranging thoughts. They skim on several surfaces and make some surprising turns and dives. Since these are short pieces, Eco goes to the nib of an idea without being laborious. The labor of reading constitutes only in the wonderment at a quick change in register, quite unlike his fiction. Eco’s novel The Island of the Day Before, for example, despite being great, contains stultifying passages that can bore the hell out of an "addled reader" (reader with ADD). What these essays share with his fiction is the living wit behind the prose.

“When the Other Appears on the Scene” is another playful essay, constructed as real correspondence to a priest, a cardinal. It reminds me of The Creation by E. O. Wilson. While The Creation is concerned about the cultivation of an environmental ethic, Eco’s essay briefly sketches the foundation of a “lay ethic”, or ethics for the laity, specifically that for nonbelievers. One of Eco’s striking arguments goes like this: a nonbeliever also has a lot to fear for sinning and has a lot to repent because, at the back of his mind, he is not so lucky to have a god who can forgive him his sins.

I’m not sure if Eco is an atheist (not sure if Google will say), but his letter points to this absentee kind of religious preoccupation. Eco eventually arrives at what he calls “natural ethic” which he believes “can find common ground with the principles of an ethic founded on faith in transcendence.” This reminds me of Wilson’s book because that book is also addressed as a letter to a man of religion, a pastor, and also seeks to find common ground between two supposedly contending institutions, that of pragmatic science and dogmatic religion.

“On the Press” demonstrates Eco as a credible academic, blasting the Italian press for the seemingly shallow coverage of non-substantial news. He has mustered evidence from the news articles themselves to validate his claims and in the end, he suggests practical solutions to promote the integrity of journalism. This essay broadly anticipates scandals and controversies of public political figures in the press.

The last essay in a way serves to encapsulate the basic idea of the whole book. This is not just a conflation of disconnected pieces after all; they can also try to cohere. The essay is about intolerance, a basic feature of the modern world, now that we are global and globalized, and multiculturalism is the state of nature. This last essay is a bit distracted and diffused also but it contains philosophical gems. There is, for example, a rule of thumb proposed to justify the decision of nations who are faced with a choice of whether or not to interfere or intervene in another nation’s seemingly intolerable acts. This is a very thorny contemporary issue. (Just think of the recent bloodshed in Myanmar and the challenge of democracy in Honduras: Should nations act decisively in such cases, despite directly threatening the sovereignty of the erring nations, or should they just watch events unfold on TV?) But again, the soundness and power of Eco’s solution is morally apt. For as long as nations are mulling decisions in the international arena, and individuals in their personal lives, choices have to be made in black and white. Suffer the consequences later, or as Eco phrased it, be “ready to pay the price of error.”

What we ought not to do, and what we must not do at any cost is lead immoral lives, however that is done. Eco shows some hints, insights, and bases of “the certainty and necessity for moral action.” His pieces on war and war crimes, religion and disbelief, freedom of the press, tolerance, and fascism, uphold basic decency as the sturdy rope that knots into a strong moral fiber. This book of essays may be occasional and slight and fleeting but they clarify a lot of things. If we listen, we can filter the noise and din from the explosions of war, intolerance, and libel. The line must be drawn and the cord pulled down. Living is simply choosing. The sound of our confidence is hidden in trying journeys.

It tolls for thee.

[Ferda Nihat Koksoy · Rating 4 out of 5]

BEŞ AHLAK YAZISI
-ENTELEKTÜELLİK DÜRÜSTLÜK, gerçeğin inanılan şeklinin eleştirel olarak, hem de bağlılık ve yoldaşlık dinlemeyecek şekilde, doğrucu Davut misali, ortaya konmasıdır.

-Artık SAVAŞ, çok uluslu kapitalizmin doğası gereği, savaşan cephelerde kalamaz; herkesin cephe gerisi düşmanları ve ortakları vardır. Bilgi teknolojisi hiçbir diktatörün kısıtlayamayacağı boyutta şeffaflığa zorlar. İktidarlar tek merkezli ve tek uluslu değildir; savaş, silah tüccarlarına kar sağlarken, turizm ve ithalat/ihracat sektöründekilerin çoğuna zarar verir.

Ensestin açmazlarını anlamamız ve tabu ilan etmemiz için binlerce yılın geçmesi gerekmiştir; savaşın zararlarını anlamak için bu kadar zamanımız yoktur ve bir an önce tabu ilan edilmelidir. Başka bir çıkar olmadığı görülse bile, savaşın tabu olduğunu söylemek, entelektüel dürüstlüktür. Savaşa taraf olmak, insanlığı daha da alçaklığa çekmektir.

-FAŞİZM, gelenekçi, modernizm ve din karşıtı, entelektüellik ve eleştiriden hazzetmeyen, farklı olana duyulan doğal korkuyu kullanan, ırkçı, düş kırıklığındaki ortasınıflara hitabeden, barışı sevmeyen, sürekli eylemi kutsayan, hiyerarşik yapısından dolayı alttakini hor görmeye dayalı, kitlesel seçkinci, ölümle taçlanan kahramanlık kültürüne sahip, kadını küçümseyen ve bekârlığa/homoseksüelliğe varabilen düzeyde maço tavırlı, birey hakkını küçümseyen, teatral bir lider sözcülüğünde somutlanan, parlamentoyu gereksiz bulan bir ideolojidir.

Günümüzde, faşist ideolojinin TV-internet üzerinde açıkça gösterilmeyen yüzüne dikkat etmeliyiz. Çok az kelimeli, basit gramerli Orwell tarzında dil kullanan faşistler, sivil giysileri içerisinde, demokrasi ve refah toplumunun işlememesi halinde doğacak fırsattan yararlanıp, bilinen giysilerini giymeye hazır şekilde beklemektedirler.

-Bizi tanımlayan ve biçimlendiren, ÖTEKİ’dir, BAŞKALARI’dır. Başkaları olmasa, yani ormana bırakılan bebek olsak, insanlaşamayız. Herkes bize yokmuşuz gibi davransa, çıldırır veya ölürüz.

-Hoşgörüsüzlüğe, başkalarını kabule yönelik, çok küçük yaşlardan başlayan ve sürekli devam eden bir eğitim gereklidir. Avrupa önümüzdeki dönemde bunu gerçekleştirip, ÇOK IRKLI-ÇOK RENKLİ BİR TOPLUM olmak zorundadır. Bu, hoşa gitmese ve çatışmalara neden olsa da gerçekleşecektir.

[Diego · Rating 3 out of 5]

Lo encontré por casa y me lo leí porque incluye el ensayo "El fascismo eterno", donde el bueno de Eco explica para universitarios americanos las características que definen el espíritu de un movimiento fascista. Por supuesto, se ha sacado a relucir con TROMP y demás, pero merece la pena notar que ni una sola vez usa la palabra "populismo". Gracias, Umberto. 5 estrellas.

El resto de ensayos no están mal, pero producen la sensación insatisfactoria que daría leerlos en un periódico de hace 20 años (que es donde se escribieron, claro). El mundo de los "intelectuales" ha muerto, y aunque por un lado da pena haber perdido mentes como la de don Umberto, por otro lado es de agradecer el poquísimo viejunismo de las opiniones de un señor que escribió esto con casi 70 años y siendo respetadísimo.

Aunque sí que menciona la "political correctness" (así, en inglés). Nadie es perfecto.

[Musab · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eco’nun kendi deyimiyle “etik nitelikli” 5 yazısını okuyoruz bu kitapta. Bu 5 yazının konuları ise şunlar: savaş, faşizm, basın, öteki kavramı ve göç. Eco bu yazıları güncel meseleleri yorumlamak üzere yazdığını söylüyor. En yakın tarihli yazının bile üzerinden yaklaşık 25 yıl geçmiş. Ancak buna rağmen hala geçerliliğini koruyan, günümüzde de yaşadığımız sorunlara ışık tutacak düşünceler ve çok değerli tespitler barındırıyor yazılar. Özellikle faşizm, savaş ve öteki meseleleri üzerine yazılan yazılar benim için öne çıkanlardı. Faşizmin olası arketiplerini sıraladığı 14 maddelik liste mutlaka okunmalı.

Eco’dan okuduğum ilk kurgu dışı kitap oldu. Son olmayacak...

[ecem]

Kitabı anlamaya benim zeka ve bilgi birikimi yetmedi maalesef

[Mohamedridha Alaskari محمد رضا العسكري · Rating 5 out of 5]

هل سبق لك انك قلت هذا ما احاول قوله وفعله بالضبط؟

هل قلت في يوم ما بأنني احاول قول شيء ما لكن لا اجد الكلمات المناسبة؟

لكل منا تواجهه هذه المواقف ويبدأ مشوار البحث عن ما يريد قوله وفعله وفجأة يجد ما يبحث عنه وتصيبه الدهشة حينها. هكذا كان شعوري عندما بدأت بقراءة هذا الكتاب، ببساطة أُصِبت بالدهشة والذهول لأن كل ما اريد قوله وفعله وجدته بهذه التحفة لملهمي العالم العظيم امبرطو ايكو.

في هذا الكتاب الذي هو عبارة عن خمس مقالات عبارة عن دروس، ليس دروسا وحسب وانما استحضار لتحارب تاريخية ودراستها وتأملها. فهو هنا لا يمجّد أخلاقا، ولايحط من أُخرى، بل ينظر الى الفرد بإعتبارهِ مسؤولاً عن سلوكه. يعني مسؤولاً عن حريته ويحمل على عاتقه هذا العالم.

كل هذه المقالات الخمس تضرب وبعمق الوجود الانساني و قضايا الاخلاق والعلمانية والتديّن والثقافة والمثقف والعلاقة بالآخر (العلاقة بالآخر - محاورة بينه وبين الكاردينال نشرتها الصحف الايطالية وتُرجمت للعربية ونشرتها دار ابكالو ٢٠١٩).

وتبقى التساؤلات حول مقولة الاخلاق هي محور هذا الكتاب. فالمقولات الاخرى مثل سوء الفهم، والجهل بخصوصيات الآخر، والدونية الحضارية والتفوق العلمي والاقتصادي وحتى السياسي وكلها تندرج ضمن الاخلاق التي تعتمد على الحكم على الاخر وتصنيفه.

والـ "نحن" تعتبر كلمة غامضة جدا لانها تقوم على عدة عوامل وبسببها شُنّت حروب وأُقصي الكثير..

[Haydar Almaateeq · Rating 4 out of 5]

على أننا بعيدون عن الجو الإيطالي الثقاقي والسياسي والتاريخي، وهذه المقالات متأخرة زماناً عنا، إلا أنَّ الاستفادة من عملاق كـ امبرتو ايكو في مقالاته لا تخلو دائماً من واقعية يعيشها الجميع، المقالات تناولت حال الصحافة والسياسيين والإعلام، وأفضل المقالات الأنا والآخر حيث ينظّر الأخلاق في نفس الملحد.

شكراً لهذه الآفاق،

[فهد الفهد · Rating 2 out of 5]

دروس في الأخلاق

يتبين من التقييم أن الكتاب لم يعجبني كثيراً، حتى ولو كان ايكو هو مؤلفه، الكتاب عبارة عن مقالات خمسة، تتناول الحرب (حرب الخليج وحرب كوسوفو)، والفاشية والصحافة والأنا والآخر، والهجرة واللا تسامح.

[أيمن مشانة · Rating 3 out of 5]

دروس في الأخلاق - أمبرتو إيكو .
المقالات الخمس التي وضعها المفكر الإيطالي أمبرتو إيكو في هذا الكتاب؛ تتناول سلسلة من القضايا الخاصة بالوجود الإنساني، منها الأخلاق والعلمانية والتدين والثقافة والمثقف والعلاقة مع الآخر وغيرها من الموضوعات ذات الطابع القيمي العام .
المقالات في الكتاب لم تكن غنية بما فيه الكفاية!
إلا أن هناك مقالتين عبقريتين فعلااً يمكن منهما أن نبني فهما شاملا للكتاب:

1-الفاشية الأبدية : كيف وقفت الفاشية على أرض هشة فكريا على عكس النازية رغم خروجهما من أصولية واحدة، إذ يضع إيكو نقدا لاذعا للفاشية التي كان الحذر من المثقف دليلا دائما على فاشية أصلية أو كما عبر غوبلز - وزير الدعاية في حكومة هتلر - "حين أسمع كلمة مثقف أتحسس مسدسي!" وهو -إيكو- حينها يضع مناخا للفصل بين المثقف والسياسي الذي يبني موقفه ضمن " تراتبية السلطة أو تراتبية الحزب " أما المثقف فعليه حسب إيكو أن يكون فاعلا أخلاقيا لا يتقيد بحالات انتماء زائل لهذا الموقف أو ذاك، ولا بحالات التصنيف “العفوي” ضمن أصل “عرقي” هو بالضرورة من باب الوهم المضلل، أو من باب التصنيف الثقافي المسبق الذي لا يمكن، رغم وجوده الفعلي، أن يحل محل كل القيم النبيلة التي أفرزتها الممارسة الإنسانية الممتدة عميقاً في التاريخ. لقد مات سقراط دفاعاً عن حق الإنسان في التفكير الحر، ورفض الفرار من سجنه لكي لا يشمت به أعداؤه أو يشككون في مبادئه" فهو لا يهتم سوى بالقيم التي تحمي الإنسان من الظلم والانتقاص من حريته وكرامته !

2- النزوح والتسامح واللامسموح به : من خلال الكلام عن مقولات مقثل سوء الفهم والجهل بخصوصيات الآخر والحكم بالدونية في عملية تصنيف الآخر وفي الإنحياز إلى " نحن" المتفوقة بديهيا وتمت على هذا في كثير من مراحل التاريخ مقاضاة الآخرين ومحاربتهم مجسدة " عبء الرجل الأبيض" المكلف بتحضير الأجناس الأقل حضارة المهمة التي أعلنت عن نفسها في عصر ما بعد الحداثة في شكل مهمة تفكيك الأنظمة اللادينقراطية في بلدان العالم االثالت دون أن نناقش أن أجدى وسيلة هي أعذار من قبيل الحرب على الارهاب ، حماية الاقليات، تخليص الشعوب من الأنظمة "الشريرة" بتعبير باومان.

إذا ما انتقلنا إلى جانب آخر من الكتاب نجد إيكو يناقش من وجهة نظر لادينية (هل يمكن أن تقف العلمانية على أخلاق بعيدا عن الدين)؛ في إجابة عن السؤال الذي طرحه الكاردينال كارلو ماريا مرتيني: ما هي الأسس اليقينية وضرورتها الأخلاقية لتي يعتمدها ذاك الذي يود تأسيس المطلق الاخلاقي، دون الاستنجاد بمبادئ ميتافيزيقية أو على الأقل بأمور مطلقة مقبولة كونيا؟" إيكو في هذا الكتاب يستحضر تجارب التاريخ ويتأملها لذا فالحكم الأخلاقي ينبع أحيانا من وجهة نظر ذاتية صرفة.

[Mohamed Nabil · Rating 4 out of 5]

كتاب جميل مكون من مقالات متفرقة لإمبرتو أيكو عن الأنا والأخر والصحافة والفاشية...من وجهة نظري مقال الفاشية الأبدية هو أكثرها أهمية.

[Dustin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Umberto Eco, Five Moral Pieces (New York: Harcourt, Inc., 2001), translated by Alastair McEwen. Pp. 111. Hardcover $23.00.

I had never read anything by Umberto Eco, and I knew that he is a leading thinker of our time. This was the book I picked up to read to acquaint myself with his philosophy and writing style.

It's a fairly short book. It's comprised of five chapters, which are essentially five independent essays. The essays are: Reflections on War, When the Other Appears on the Scene, On the Press, Ur-Fascism, and Migration, Tolerance, and the Intolerable. This review will comment on two of the essays, and then conclude with some general remarks.

The first essay I want to comment on is Reflections on War. Eco starts the essay by arguing that intellectuals have an obligation to speak out about war. And if they choose to remain silent, then they have an obligation to say why it is that they are silent.

He then progresses to his argument as to why war is not a good option for modern society. This probably comes as no surprise to those familiar with Eco; what did surprise me, however, was the way he made is argument. One would expect an anti-war (pro-peace?) argument to proceed along the lines of how unjust war is due to its inhumanity; however, Eco's argument is more along the lines of how modernity has changed the rules so much that war isn't war anymore. Allow me to list his points:

1 - Nuclear weapons, if used, mean that no one would win. They would only destroy the planet.

2 - War no longer has two clear cut sides. Each side's media can be reporting news from behind 'enemy' lines, which makes it harder to 'demonize' the enemy (e.g., Americans reporting in Baghdad when the U.S. was attacking Iraq). Also, because America is a melting-pot, people who may identify with the enemy may be living among you.

3 - Modern technology and communication means that anyone can communicate (and thus sympathize) with the enemy.

4 - A global economy (and global consumer base) means that war plays havoc with the market.

5 - Modern technology means that war is no longer like a chess game (your enemy moves, and then you move, and so on). Now, it's as if both sides are moving randomly (all at the same time), and may even be attacking pieces of the same color.

Eco concludes that warfare is no longer practical. Instead, we need to evolve a new way to 'war' with one another. He suggests that the new way be a 'cold war.' He writes that is has, "proved a very humane and mild solution in terms of casualties, and cold warfare can even boast victors and vanquished." A very interesting idea.

The other essay I want to comment on is On the Press. This was a very interesting essay, mostly focused on the Italian media. He's arguing that television has destroyed the ability of the media to have engaging conversations and inform the public of important issues. The problem started when people turned to television for their news instead of newspapers. Newspapers, faced with a declining readership, changed its structure to that of the dailies (more entertainment driven, rather than news driven); the dailies respond by changing their structure, as do the monthlies, and so on. It gets so bad, that papers are reporting on what the television, and other papers, are saying about the news, rather than simply reporting the news. He goes on and lists the way the structure inhibits the media from really reporting the news.

He gives two conclusions as to how to solve the issue of the media. He suggests that papers go back to simply reporting a few lines about important events around the world. This way, each reader can be informed about the basic facts of news from around the world. The other solution is to stop treating the papers as a source of entertainment news, and cover events from around the world with in-depth articles. However, he admits that both these solutions require an educated readership to be able to determine what's important for them.

I wish conclude with a few brief comments about this work overall. I greatly enjoyed his arguments, and I found them easy to follow. I did notice that Eco's style of writing and expounding his arguments was similar to C.S. Lewis's. Though they would, no doubt, come to different conclusions, the feel of the argument, for me, was similar. Go figure. At any rate, I recommend this book.

[Bookish Dervish · Rating 3 out of 5]

كما عرفنا أمبيرتو إيكو كروائي و كناقد و باحث في العصر الوسيط، نتعرف عليه في هذا الكتاب كمتفلسف يحاول مقاربة موضوع الأخلاقيات.
خمس مقالات يشرح فيها إيكو رؤاه عن الحرب، علاقات التدين بالعلمانية، الثقافات الإنسانية، شبح الحرب خاصة حرب الخليج الثانية (أم المعارك) و حرب كوسوفو، الصحافة و ارتباطها بالمواطن العادي و أيضا نقاشات المتخصصين بشأنها. ال(نحن) و ال(هُم) الذي يستدعي الدونية و الإقصاء الذي قد يصل إلى الشوفينية كحالة الفاشية الإيطالية.

[Hosam Diab · Rating 2 out of 5]

هو وجبة خفيفة لا يستمر مذاقها في فمك أكثر من عدة دقائق، كالبسكويت المملح. هناك كتب أكثر عمقا وأهمية لإيكو. ينصح به بشدة لقراءات تخفيف العبء أو خلال الرحلات الطويلة.

[Ahmed Eid · Rating 1 out of 5]

مجموعة مقالات لم أحبها
لم ترق لي فلسفة ايكو

[Guilherme Smee · Rating 3 out of 5]

Umberto Eco é um escritor e um estudioso fantástico. Um dos primeiros semióticos a aproximar a academia da cultura pop em textos que reverberam até hoje. Este livro, Cinco escritos morais, foi lançado na Itália em 1997 e, por isso, muitos deles, como os que tratam da imprensa, sobre a guerra e sobre a alteridade parecem extremamente datados. Contudo, os textos "O Fascimo Eterno" e "As migrações, a tolerância e o intolerável" me parecem incrivelmente atuais. Principalmente o texto em que ele cria o termo ur-fascismo, que é um tipo de ideologia que durará para sempre e se repetirá de temos em tempos na nossa sociedade, como uma memética. É muito assustador como um texto que foi escrito há vinte e cinco anos atrás diz tanto sobre a contemporaneidade e como Eco, que viveu o fascismo original na sua infância na Itália, percebe esses elementos na sociedade no limiar do segundo milênio. Apavorante, mas ao mesmo tempo muito fascinante.

[Erwann Seroux · Rating 5 out of 5]

Où Eco décrit son expérience en tant qu’enfant avec le fascisme italien, pour ensuite démontrer que le fascisme peut revêtir plusieurs formes (car, contrairement au nazisme ou au stalinisme, le fascisme n’avait pas de philosophie propre). Et donc, comment reconnaître le fascisme (titre du livre en français par ailleurs, ils voulaient être sûrs qu’on captait ce qu’on lisait) ?

Eco avance quatorze caractéristiques:
- Culte de la tradition
- Refus du modernisme
- Culte de l’action pour l’action
- Considère que le désaccord est trahison
- Peur de la différence
- Appel aux classes moyennes frustrées
- Obsession du complot (xénophobe)
- Considère que les ennemis du régime sont à la fois trop fort (matériellement) et trop faibles (moralement)
- Le pacifisme est une collusion avec l’ennemi
- Mépris pour les faibles
- Culte du héros, et de la mort
- Machisme (vu que la guerre c’est dur faut bien se défouler)
- Anti-parlementarisme
- Novlangue

Comme le dit Eco dans sa conclusion: Liberté et Libération sont un devoir qui ne finit jamais. Telle doit être notre devise: "N’oubliez pas."

[Leandro Oliveira · Rating 5 out of 5]

A escrita sempre inteligente e acessível de um dos maiores intelectuais do pós-guerra, aqui sobre temas os mais atuais - a questão migratória, a estrutura do fascismo, a imprensa e sua função no nosso tempo... Acho que um livro que envelheceu muito bem, e hoje talvez se ache ainda mais pertinente que à ocasião de seu lançamento.

[Mahmoud Aghiorly · Rating 2 out of 5]

مقتطفات من كتاب دروس في الاخلاق للكاتبر أمبرتو إيكو

-------------
إن المواجهة الاعلامية بين مكونات الاغلبية الناطقة كانت تشير الى ان كل طرف يستحق اتهامات الاخر .. فمناصروا الحرب وضرورتها نُعتوا بالمتدخلين الذين ما زالوا ينتمون الى المدرسة القديمة .. اما مناصرو الحل السلمي فكانوا يُتهمون بأنهم يودون استلام طرف ثمناً لانتصار الآخر
-------------
على المثقف ألا يكون بوقاً للثورة لا لأنه يتهرب من الاختيار بل لأن لحظة الفعل اذا كانت تقتضي التدقيقات والالتباسات فإن وظيفة المثقف تكمن في الكشف عن الالتباسات تلك !
-------------
قد يحدث ان يختار المثقف الصمت خوفاً من خيانه أهله مقدراً ان هؤلاء وبغض النظر عن اخطائهم يعدون مصدراً للخير
------------
الولاء مقولة اخلاقية اما الحقيقة مقولة نظرية
-----------
إنه اختيار أخلاقي أن يعبر المرء عن خلاصاته أو السكوت
-----------
ليس على أحد ممارسة بطولة الفضيلة !
-----------
لقد اقنعت الاسلحة النووية العالم ان صراعا نوويا لن يكون فيه اي غالب وسيكون فيه مغلوب واحد هو كوكبنا الارضي
------------
منطق الصناعة الاعلامية يكمن في بيع الخبر ويستحسن ان يكون هذا الخبر مأساوياً لا لان الصحافة ترفض ان تكون بوقاً للحرب .. بل هي فقط بيانو ميكانيكي يقوم بتنفيذ انغام موسيقية مدونة على لوحة لدرجة ان الكل يجد نفس في الحرب مع العدو
------------
ان الحرب الاعلامية تعطي الخصم الكلمة باستمرار وتدفع المواطنين الى التشكيك في حكوماتهم
-----------
ان كل الحروب الماضية كانت تقوم على مبدأ يقول ان المواطنين الذي يعتقدون بان الحرب عادلة كانوا يحترقون شوقاً الى تدمير العدو اما الان فالاخبار تزعزع ثقة المواطنين بل اكثر من ذلك انها تشككهم في قناعاتهم و في امكانية موت العدو , لم يعد الامر يتعلق باحداث بعيدة و غامضة بل ببداهة بصرية لا يمكن تحملها
------------
لقد كانت الحرب القديمة عبارة عن لعبة شطرنج حيث يحاول كل لاعب التهام اكبر عدد من القطع من رصيد خصمه ويحاول في الدفع به الى الفشل الكلي وبالمقابل فان الحرب الحديثة هي مباراة في لعبة الشطرنج حيث يلتهم اللاعبان قطعة واحدة و من اللون نفسه .. فالحرب لعبة تدمير ذاتي
------------
السياسة التي تعقب الحرب هي التي ستكون دائماً استمراراً للمقدمات التي وضعتها الحرب
-----------
ان كانت الانسانية لعشرات الالاف من السنين قد مارست الحرب باعتبارها حلا لحالات اللاتوازن فان هذا ليس اكثر منطقية من ان هذه الانسانية ذاتها وفي الفترة ذاتها قررت ان تقدم حلا للاختلالات النفسية من خلال الاتجاه الى الكحول او مواد لها المفعول المدمر نفسه
-----------
ما يعتبره البعض صمتاً للمثقفين حول الحرب قد يكون مرده الخوف من اعلان موقف متسرع في الصحافة لان الصحافة تعد جزءاً من هذه الحرب و أدواتها ولذلك لا يجب التعامل معها باعتبارها طرفاً محايداً
-----------
ان الوظيفة الثقافية تمارس دوما بشكل استباقي او بشكل متاخر ولا تحلل الا نادراً ما يجري بشكل مباشر
----------
التدخل الدولي يعني مجموعة من الدول تبين لها ان الوضعية في مكان ما من العالم وصلت الى حد لا يمكن التسامح حوله و قررت التدخل من اجل وضع حد لما يعتبره الضمير المشترك جريمة
-----------
ان الفلسفة السياسية الحديثة تخبرنا انه من اجل تجنب جرب شاملة على الدولة ان تمارس نوعا من العنف ضد الافراد
-----------
عادة ما تعتقد مجموعة ما أنها تمتلك قيماً واسعة الانتشار .. انها تقيم حدوداً حول ما تراه أنه أمر لا يمكن التسامح معه .. ولكن إن هذا الذي لا يمكن التسامح بشأنه هو كذلك في عرفنا نحن ! وليس في عرفهم هم !
-----------
من يقول لي أني أملك الحق في ممارسة العنف من أجل ما أعتبره عدالة منتهكة ؟ ففي عرف الذي يعارض هذا العنف ليس هناك أبداً ما يبرر حدوث ثورة ! أما في عرف الذي ينخرط فيها فإنه يعتقد أن فعله له ما يبرره
-----------
لنقل أنه أمر عادل أن نمارس العنف من اجل تجنب جريمة من قبيل التطهير العرقي ولكن التحدي هو في معرفة ما اذا كانت نوعية العنف الذي سنمارسه يمكن أن يقينا فعلاً من وبال عنف أشد
-----------
ان الخطاب حول لا جدوى الحرب صعب ... لانه يدفع الى الاعتقاد ان صاحبه ينحاز الى الظلم الذي تحاول الحرب الوقاية منه !
-----------
إن سلبية الحرب الجديدة هي أن هناك من يموت دون أن يكسب الحرب
-----------
ان النخبوية هي مظهر نوعي للإيديولوجيا الرجعية لانها في عمقها ارستقراطية وفي التاريخ ارتبطت كل النزعات النخبوية الارستقراطية وذات النزعة العسكرية باحتقار الضعفاء
-----------
ان الزعيم الذي يعرف ان سلطته لم تكن انتخابا بل انتزعها بالقوة يعرف ايضا ان القوة مبنية على ضعف الجماهير .. وان الجماعير ضعيفة لدرجة تستحق رجلاً مهيمناً او هي في حاجة اليه
-----------
ان الحرية والتحرر هما واجب لا ينتهي أبداً !
-----------
ان وظيفة السلطة الرابعة تكمن في مراقبة وانتقاد السلطات التقليدية الثلاث الأخرى
-----------
ان وسائل الاعلام لا يمكنها التأثير في الحياة السياسية لبلد ما الا من خلال بلورة رأي عام
-----------
ان النقد شرط من شروط السير السليم لمجتمع ديمقراطي تعرف فيه الصحافة كيف تحاسب نفسها وتعيد النظر فيها
-----------
لا وجود لخبر موضوعي على الاطلاق عدا النشرة الجوية
-----------
ان اختيار الخبر في ذاته وطريقة تقديمه يشكلان في ذاتهما حكماً ضمنياً
-----------
أنا متأكد انه حتى بدون إيمان بإله محدد وسماوي هناك اشكال من التدين وتبعاً لذلك هناك نوع من المقدس والحدود والتساؤل عن المصير و الارتباط مع شيء يتجاوزنا
-----------
ان وجود البعد الاخلاقي مرتبط بظهور الآخر .. فالغاية من كل قانون - أخلاقي أو حقوقي - هي تنظيم العلاقات بين الافراد بما فيها العلاقة مع آخر هو من يفرض هذا القانون
-----------
اعتقد ان اخلاقاً طبيعية - محترمة في عمقها الديني الذي يحركها - يمكن ان تكون في مواجهة مبادىء اخلاق مؤسسة على ايمان بالتسامي وهذا الايمان سيقود لا محالة الى الاعتراف أن المبادىء الطبيعية تم نحتها في قلبنا انطلاقا من برنامج للخلاص .. واذا ظلت هناك وستظل بالتاكيد هوامش تتطابق مع ذلك البرنامج .. فان الامر لن يكون مختلفاً عن قضية المواجهة بين مختلف الاديان .. فما يجب ان يؤخذ به في صراح الاديان هو الرحمة و الحذر
-----------

[Thomas Wells · Rating 4 out of 5]

Worth it for "Ur-Fascism" alone

[Lucas Ezequiel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Algunos artículos que están aquí ya los leí anteriormente.

[سلمان · Rating 5 out of 5]

امبرتو ايكو علامة فارقة، تجده يكتب ما بداخلك تماما ً

[Bart · Rating 4 out of 5]

Umberto (ik mag papa zeggen) heeft heel erg veel goede meningen maar ze zijn allemaal langs me heen gegaan omdat ik 16 uur lang met slaaptekort onderweg was

[Mark · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is the first work by Eco which I have read, and it was pretty meh. The writing style he took swung between highly studied and intelligent distinctions (as in the first two essays) and a "logistics story" smoothbrain, NPC, "I'm going to talk about advertisements all day" of the middle essay.

The first essay, "Reflections on War", was written at the time of the Gulf War. Eco started by pointing out the "ritual exorcism" that proponents and opponents of wars seem to always make where they feel obligated to admit the cruelties of their perspective, but then launch into their argument. Eco saw the role of intellectuals to add nuance to such situations, and the role of "decision makers" is to strip away that nuance and make a definite decision. He argues that though we have a notion of World War today, there are several things that make such a war impossible today, such as nukes, multinational capitalism, freedom of speech/not massacring the opposition afterwards, etc. The element of surprise is largely lost in our era of instant communication, and "war can no longer be frontal, because of the very nature of multinational capitalism". In other words, we have a much harder time wiping a civilization off the face of the map, because we are all tied to each other in many ways, economic and social. War used to be more of a chess game, Eco argues, while today it's a parallel game, where rules cannot be distinguished from data. Continuing the chess metaphor, today's game involves players taking pieces of the same color, because of our interconnectedness. If incest can become a tabboo, so can war, he argues. Instead, we have found an "excellent alternative to war, and that is cold war". Such proxy wars tend to be the norm now, with the major powers not being so stupid as to actually be direct. This seems to be indicative if our era, of a lack of directness. We don't have advertisements which list the features of a product, we have people trying to make a skit with the product featured in it, or "organically" bring up the product. To our own peril, we have blurred the lines between entertainment and advertising, just like we have blurred the lines between war and economic games.

The second essay, "When the Other Appears on the Scene", was part of an exchange between Eco and Carlo Maria Martini. It was still a very interesting letter that illuminated Eco's agnostic appreciation of Catholicism (and his deep understanding of it as well), but I ultimately didn't find it that convincing. Eco begins by approaching things via his specialty, semantics (related to semiotics). Here, he begins by interrogating what universals we share as humans, coming up with a modest body-based ethic. He begins in directions and orientations that humans as embodied beings innately understand across cultures (though I do know of some cultures who don't have a right/left, but do have things like "towards the mountain" and "away from the mountain", etc.). Largely, his first point holds water, and it's eerie how much it echoed the body-based ethics of "The Body is not an Apology", which I was reading simultaneously with this one. These rights of the body might have prevented genocides and other atrocities, but they only work in a social context; Eco disregards the personally ethical, the lying to yourself (which can do massive damage), in favor of the interpersonal. Eco, using a paradoxical anectdote (one of his religious friends saying "Pope John must be an atheist. Only a man who does not believe in God can love his fellowman so much!") to clarify that "The strength of an ethic is judged on the behavior of saints, not on the foolish one cujus deus venter est [whose god is their belly]". Ultimately, Eco doubts the possibility of a strong atheism (i.e. without transcendent experiene), just as he admits the often extremely worldly disposition of "believers". After all, even atheist philosophers leave their writings behind in some belief it will help future generations.

Even if Christianity is a lie and Christ didn't rise from the dead, Eco finds the ability of the human race to ocme up with such a sublime, divine example to be worth praising, and this is an interesting approach. I've often thought to myself that it's hard to conceive of a non-deity coming up with such a paradoxically beautiful ethic as Christ's, which simultaneously fulfills the OT law while establishing an even more rigorous NT law (and providing free forgiveness all the while). I think this is a nice thesis, but it begs the question of why Eco doesn't knock, since he's standing at the door.

The third essay is easily the worst, comprised of dated nitpicking about "dailies" and "weeklies", of which I actually forgot daily newspapers existed, since in my lifetime most papers have shrunk to the weekly-only model. True, we don't have as much overt censorship, it's mostly brave new world/1984-style media, which could be mostly negated if people were media literate. Like many other media-analyses of the day, he bemoans how the visual mediums like TV have impacted the written mediums like newspapers, who now feel the need to sensationalize to stay competative. Eco did helpfully point out how reviews have morphed into interviews, so instead of being told if a work is good or bad (and the reasons for that valuation), instead we are given an advertisement of the work from the author's/artist's point of view. I find this to be part of a larger inability for our generations to make value judgements, instead only making descriptive explanations about the work or the author's feelings when making it. Eco bemoans the idea of personalized news, because, as opposed to the old newspapers (which showed you a range of items, some of which may upset you or otherwise not be sought out, i.e. not be as tasty), the new tactic of personalized news obviously tends toward echo chambers and confirmation bias (as social media has so plainly taught us).

The fourth essay, "Ur-Fascism", was a great exploration of the squishy term (from an Italian's perspective, no less!), and it began with Eco's childhood, which was during WWII. When it was over, he was shocked to find that there were political choices, not just one party, and that freedom actually meant something, that it had quantitative ramifications, that you could hear varying opinions, not just THE opinion (of the head of state, which, in a sly turn, replaces the voice of the people, thus making the people voiceless). Eco very helpfully points out how varying fascism is depending on the location and time, since it's a cultural/national ideology. For some reason, the term "Fascist", out of all the other terms (Nazi, etc.) survived as the one describing this loose grouping of movements.

The confusing thing isn't just the diversity in the movements (and thus their inter-contradictions, but their intra-contradictions), such as the atheistic Mussolini invoking Providence. A good way to explain this is that "fascism was philosophically unsound, but on an emotional level it was anchored to certain archetypes". Eco lays out 14 basic features of fascistic movements that are shared by most. Highlights include the cult of traditionalism (which often entails contradictory fusions of politically expedient authors or movements, and I would argue that makes it actually anti-traditional, a mockery of tradition), irrationalism (i.e. being against rationalism, a return to other rhetorical modes, especially pathos), the fear of difference (discussed slightly more in the last essay), an obsession with conspiracies (especially international ones), life as a permanent war (which brings with it machismo, misogyny, etc.), and lastly the loss of the voice of the people (as I alluded to earlier, with the dictator instead allegedly speaking for the populous). Eco ends the essay with a fitting poem by Franco Fortini.

The last essay in the collection I believe misses the mark, instead focusing on why we tolerate or don't tolerate certain things, specifically "war crimes", whereas I think he could do better with defining what toleration is in the first place. Eco begins the essay belaboring a mostly moot point about the year 2,000 AD and other calendars. Yada yada, I get it, other calendars exist, duh, move along. He next makes a helpful distinction between "immigration" and "migration", the first of which is controlled, while the second spills over so to speak, and is an overflow of people from one area to another. The first involves acculturation to the destination, while the former doesn't. Next we move to fundamentalism and "integralism", or ethic-related theocratic tendencies. Eco wisely sticks to just a Christian context, leaving the Islamic and Judaic versions to "the experts". He largely sees this springing from America and protestantism, somehow absolving catholicism of the taint because it doesn't obey one book, but a whole heirarchy and tradition (as if protestantism ever actually jettisoned all that tradition?).

Interestingly, Eco doesn't see political correctness as a means of slowing down intolerance, but merely of letting people talk in discriminating ways with the correct pronouns (as well as discriminating against those who can't keep up with the frustratingly fast movement of politically correct terminology). I think Eco misses the mark when he discusses intolerance of "difference", but he doesn't bring up the tolerance (and intolerance) of evil. The only groups that don't tolerate any difference are extremist and radical groups, whereas most people will tolerate what they percieve as mere difference. I find the issue lies in defining difference vs evil (i.e. things so outrageous that they take on a moral character), and how much evil we must tolerate, since to live socially is to tolerate some level of evil. He finds the most dangerous intolerance to be that which lacks a logical doctrine to back it up (i.e. is irrational), while I find the most dangerous kind to be the unexamined contrast between what one group calls mere "difference," and another calls "evil". Lastly, Eco points to the scientific, systematic, and worldwide nature of the Nazi project to be the ultimate example of what we should never tolerate, and I agree with him.

Overall, I find the conversation surrounding toleration to be lacking because it doesn't make that same distinction I do; merely calling intolerance an inability to tolerate difference begs the question of what is difference, and how we define, for example, Eco's closing example of the Nazis, as "evil", and furthermore as an evil not to be tolerated. Perhaps that's just the work cut out for me. I didn't learn much from these essays, but they were good launching points, and occasionally they made interesting points. I probably won't read more from this guy haha. Toodles.