Classics and the Western Canon discussion

The S/N debates continue. Who will win the allegiance of HC? (Or neither??) Meanwhile, Joachim has had enough, explodes, and leaves. How will HC cope alone, no Joachim, no Chauchat?

I have only read though to some of the S/N debates and it does at times take some sifting to sort it all out. S stated morality is based upon social contract / N states morality based upon divine guidance and in that stance, N seems to argue religious fundamentalism (N furthermore believes in terror to enforce the divine will). Also interestingly N believes in communism which later of course, becomes separate from religion. So the juxtapose of the two (religion and communism) within N is curious indeed in our retrospect (e.g. Marx calling religion the opium of the people). But apparently christian communism was important in the early development of communism. Also curious is that TM seems to liken the appearance of N as Jewish (but in an unflattering manner) yet in fact he is a Jesuit. Also the dichotomy of N's digs to his stated beliefs...later explained. So many seeming contradictions in this new comer.

Any particular reason for combining these 2 - 3 sections (depending on how you consider them)? Does anyone else feel as if they might like them as two? I can't exactly put words on that feeling tonight, but it seems to me as if Joachim's departure may deserve its own discussion?

Lily wrote: "Any particular reason for combining these 2 - 3 sections (depending on how you consider them)? Does anyone else feel as if they might like them as two? I can't exactly put words on that feeling to..."

No reason other than people expressing reluctance early on to go for too many topics. If there's the desire, I can split them.

"HANS CASTORP was in his loggia, studying a plant which, now that the astronomical summer had begun, and the days were shortening, flourished luxuriantly in many places: the columbine or aquilegia, of the ranunculus family, which grew in clumps, with long stalks bearing the blue, violet, or reddish-brown blossoms, and spreading herbaceous foliage. They grew everywhere, but most profusely in that quiet bottom where, nearly a year ago, he had first seen them: that remote and wooded ravine, filled with the sound of rushing water, where on the bench above the foot-bridge, that ill-risked, ill-timed, ill-fated walk of his had ended. He revisited it now and again." (p 265 online Lowe-Porter, pp 458-9 in Woods.)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31583019/Th...



Many more types and colors: http://www.picsearch.com/Aquilegia-pi...

I did not realize the columbine is part of the ranunculus family, which I associate with these: http://www.fotosearch.com/photos-imag... or http://photobucket.com/images/ranuncu...

Classification here: http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?s...

Sue wrote: "Also the dichotomy of N's digs to his stated beliefs...later explained. So many seeming contradictions.."

Dualism seems to be a major theme throughout MM, and though I enjoyed the exchange between S and N, it seems to me to be philosophically contrived. Mann pits thesis against antithesis so repetitively that I'm starting to wonder where the synthesis will come in. Are we waiting for Hegel? Will HC step up and take that role?

Sue wrote: "So the juxtapose of the two (religion and communism) within N is curious indeed in our retrospect (e.g. Marx calling religion the opium of the people)."

Communism has often been compared to middle age christianity: There is a hierarchy, there is a holy book (Karl Marx), there is the belief of (earthly) salvation, and who denies faith is burned to death. Lenin is buried like a saint. Propaganda is religious service. It is a collective view of the world, no individualism. Communism is indeed a kind of belief, a dogmatized system, you cannot argue against it because everybody has to accept that it is true. Resistance is sin against the alleged good. Communists are so sure of their cause that they justify violence on others. Communism as a kind of "translation" of Christian believes on a materalist level.
There are so many Web links on this, e.g.:
http://www.infidels.org/kiosk/article...

I offer a ramble on a couple of issues. This seems an apt place for it now that N. has been introduced and given Thorwald's comment above and in another thread: "By the way: In the discussions with Naphta it becomes quite clear, now, that Settembrini is *not* a leftist or communist, he is a classical liberal, though a naive classical liberal, maybe, and one without soul."

Background: coincidentally, I am reading Eric Hobsbawm's The Age of Revolution 1789-1848. The "age" reflects the consequences of the "dual revolutions:" the French revolution and the industrial revolution. The one bred Jacobinism and the other the "classical liberal" as Thorwald characterizes S.

I can't begin to do justice to a summary of Hobsbawm's thesis about this. (He died an unrepentent Communist a couple of months ago.) But he did make one point that is relevant here. He notes that without the "triumph" of classical liberalism, there would have been no place for Marxism. It could not have grown beyond the string of fringe utopian idealisms that have characterized all societies.

This relates to MM and out thoughts about Time. I think we have to be very careful as we read the book and try to digest the competing politico-ethical debates. We should remember that all books operate on three dimensions of time: the time portrayed, the time it was written and the time we are reading it.

In this instance, at the time of the story the "flatland life" is the product of the "triumph" of classical liberalism (which is not liberal at all as we use the word). However, at the time Mann wrote, that whole world has been turned over by WWI--most strikingly, the faith that human experience always reflects "progress." As he wrote, the Russian revolution is the most recent expression of Jacobinism. Finally, reading in 2013, we have to be very careful not to insert our own knowledge of what it turned in to. We need to read N's arguments in the context of the first decade of the 20th century.

It is on the mountain that all of these assumptions are being questioned. And Hans Castorp is trying to make sense of them.

So am I. He's having more luck than I am.

Zeke wrote: " He notes that without the "triumph" of classical liberalism, there would have been no place for Marxism."

I doubt this connection. Marxism is clearly not a product of the working class. Marxism (ab-)uses the working class, only, as background for its illusions.

The real working class movement is not Marxism but the unions which fought for a pragmatic betterment step-by-step without any deeper revolutionary approach.

For me, Marxism is a product of semi-education. Marxists understood certain things of this world (such as: church and monarchy not for the good of the people), whereas they stubbornly did not understand certain other things (such as: the true nature of human being and society, freedom, economy, ethical foundations without Christianity, science theory), and this very special combination of errors brings about: Marxism.

Marxism is similar pseudo-scientific and low-level philosophy as National Socialism. The similarities both in methodology and content cannot be overlooked. Only that Marxism argues on a higher level, look and feel are nicer, so intellectuals prefer this over that.

PS:
Hm, Marxism is a by-product of Enlightenment. Having understood what is not true (any more), does not mean that everybody has understood what is true (instead). On the way of finding alternatives to the middle ages philosophy many mistakes were made, and Marxism is only one of many.

PS II: Maybe it is legitimate to consider Marxism as "exemplary" or "typical" for by-products of the enlightenment process, because it is stuck to certain Christian ideas.

There are similar examples, such as the "City of the Sun" of Tommaso Campanella in 1602.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_City...
Campanella surely was no Marxist but the similarities are striking. Why this? Because the Renaissance was the first step of Enlightentment and since then the "Marxist" ideas occur repeatedly. Maybe the word "communism" is the better description.

PS III: I am sure that Naphta would like Campanella's City of the Sun.

It is difficult to unpack "Christian" because it can be used to refer to such disparate things.

Lily wrote: "It is difficult to unpack "Christian" because it can be used to refer to such disparate things."

I agree. Concerning Naphta, the Christianity of the middle ages is meant. The character of Christianity changed a lot with Martin Luther, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, open-minded Christians profited a lot from the Enlightentment.

Naphta would call these changes and developments heresies, I am sure, whereas he welcomes communism, because of its similarities to the middle age concept of Christianity.

Thomas Mann has chosen difficult, important and very basic topics and questions as theme for his novel, and the discussions on them are not over ... will never be over, I assume.

After the "easy" first part around Mme Chauchat this is quite a surprise to find these topics in the 2nd part, isn't it?

Thorwald wrote: "Sue wrote: "So the juxtapose of the two (religion and communism) within N is curious indeed..."

Communist elements are not really rare in Christianity - though I believe it's not a very common view for a Jesuit. I was thinking of the Anabaptists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptist) as a well-known example of a radical - in some ways communist - Christian movement. But there must be many more.

We should take care though not to mistake Naphta for a Marxist. First because Mann does not tell us so (he only mentions that he read Marx), and second because Marx's pseudo-science must have been very disagreeable for a man with Naphta's temperament. More in general I think marxism is almost as disparate as Christianity.

I argued before that Settembrini is an anachronism (reminding one of the generation of 1848), but in look&feel Naphta seems to go even further back in time. I guess Mann felt he needed some distance between his characters and the contemporary political debate - nonetheless it feels very dated.

Wendel wrote: "I argued before that Settembrini is an anachronism (reminding one of the generation of 1848), but in look & feeling Naphta seems to go even further back in time. I guess Mann felt he needed some distance between his characters and the contemporary political debate - still it feels very dated."

To be honest: I think, Thomas Mann took a high risk with this novel. Such personifications of ideas can easily become too simple, untrue, not convincing.

And we have our difficulties to sort out what the author intended ... maybe too many difficulties than a good author should leave to his readers?

Wendel wrote: "...I argued before that Settembrini is an anachronism (reminding one of the generation of 1848), but in look & feeling Naphta seems to go even further back in time...."

Wendel or Thorwald -- can/would you say more for us non-European readers unfamiliar with the significance of 1848 as you see it relating to MM? I am listening at the moment to The Teaching Company's Modern Civilization CDs, and while 1848 comes through loud and clear, I'm not grasping the core significance, beyond the challenges to monarchy, feudal and gild structures, and possibilities of broader (male) suffrage.

Wendel wrote: "Thorwald wrote: "Sue wrote: "So the juxtapose of the two (religion and communism) within N is curious indeed..."

Communist elements are not really rare in Christianity - though I believe it's not ..."

We know from the letters of Paul that very early Christians (1st and 2nd century) lived communally, and I take this to be where Naphta's "communism" comes from. Naphta's Christianity seems to me to be much older than the Middle Ages even. It comes close in its stark dualism to Gnosticism, but I don't think he can be a Gnostic. His theology seems more Pauline than anything. Even Aquinas had some respect for the material world as the creation of God, but Naphta seems to believe that the material world exists only as a foil for the Spirit. But still, he enjoys his cake...

Lily wrote: "and while 1848 comes through loud and clear, I'm not grasping the core significance, beyond the challenges to monarchy, feudal and gild structures, and possibilities of broader (male) suffrage."

In 1848/49 the liberal movement tried a revolution in Germany, Austria, etc., and failed. This has many aspects.

Maybe the key problem is: It would have been better not to try this revolution and to let the time work silently for modernity - or to have full success in this revolution. But to try a revolution *and* fail creates a lot of disappointment and destroys self-confidence. For the character of a people this is devastating. Many Germans went to America after 1849, simply because there was no hope for them in Germany. The spirit of those who left was missing, later.

That is one of the reasons why the 1989 "peaceful revolution" is considered so important: It was the first successful revolution - allegedly. (IMHO you can doubt this because the communist rulers receded without fight, it was more that the rulers handed over power than that the people took it. Like 1918 with the monarchs: Also this no "real" revolution. Self-confidence is still scrunched in Germany. A difficult discussion.)

By the way: Because of the Euro crisis a new political party has been founded in Germany which refers to the spirit of 1848. Since all traditional political parties vote more or less for the same leftist policies, this party wants to offer real choice in elections, therefore the name: "Alternative für Deutschland", i.e. "Alternative for Germany" AfD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternat...

Lily wrote: "Wendel wrote: "...I argued before that Settembrini is an anachronism".. the significance of 1848 as you see it relating to MM."

The significance of 1848 is the utter defeat of the liberals. Not because the reaction was so strong, but because the liberals themselves were so ineffective. It is this legacy that makes Settembrini a somewhat ridiculous figure - at least in the first part of the MM. The question is whether this will change in the second part of the book.

And now I have to hurry, tomorrow we will - at last - leave for Tuscany. Will be back in a few weeks, maybe I will be able to take part in the evaluation of the MM.

Wendel wrote: "And now I have to hurry, tomorrow we will - at last - leave for Tuscany. Will be back in a few weeks, maybe I will be able to take part in the evaluation of the MM. ..."

We will miss you. Have a good holiday/vacation!

Wendel wrote: "And now I have to hurry, tomorrow we will - at last - leave for Tuscany. Will be back in a few weeks, maybe I will be able to take part in the evaluation of the MM. "

Now this is really bad news because we both played so nice "pro" and "contra" ...

Enjoy your holiday in Tuscany!
This is life as it should be ...

The background on 1848 is really helpful. However, it would help me if someone could clarify the way the term "liberal" is being used. I am getting confused. Here is USA it is casually used (and misused as a pejorative) to mean left wing. However, my understanding is that it's original meaning is more "laissez-faire" or freeing industry and business from constraints.

Thus, for example, the "liberal consensus" of the 20th century is a pro-development and free trade agenda; not necessarily values shared by those concerned with human values.

Zeke wrote: "The background on 1848 is really helpful. However, it would help me if someone could clarify the way the term "liberal" is being used. I am getting confused. Here is USA it is casually used (and mi..."

I understand this, the US use of "liberal" confuses me, too.

Classical liberalism means personal freedom (human rights), free market economy, democracy, separation of religion and state, personal responsibility rather than social welfare, etc. So it simply means the basics of our modern Western world. When we talk of 1848 this kind of liberalism is meant.

After these things are achieved, all are liberals! But a word which applies to everybody looses its meaning. Then the meaning of the word changes.

In Europe it is narrowed down to the meaning of freeing economy, in the US the meaning shifted to the meaning of the political left wing, whereas freeing economy is rather a "conservative" issue. But the original meaning exists, too, so you never know what is meant if somebody just talks of "liberal".

Thanks Thorwald.

Now my impression (from reading Hobsbawm)is that even before 1848 everyone understood that "liberalism" was going to triumph; the only questions were when and how and how much influence the monarchs and churches could retain.

Yet the 1848 revolutions fail and things don't really change until the catastrophe of WWI? Why is this? (Hobsbawm's next book The Age of Empire goes into this, but I am not going to get to it for some time!)

I won't even pretend to have the background knowledge to contribute to this discussion, but regarding Marx, for those who might be interested, I am in the middle of reading a long review of a new biography of him by Jonathan Sperber titled Karl Marx: A Nineteenth-Century Life in which, the reviewer says, "Sperber's aim is to present Marx as he actually was--a nineteenth-century thinker engaged with the ideas and events of his time. If you see Marx in this way, many of the disputes that raged around his legacy in the past century will seem unprofitable, even irrelevant..." (John Gray, "The Real Karl Marx," NY Review of Books, May 9)

Zeke wrote: "Yet the 1848 revolutions fail and things don't really change until the catastrophe of WWI? Why is this?..."

Zeke -- if your library has it, you might enjoy listening to the Teaching Company course on Europe and Western Civilization in the Modern Age, Part II, with Thomas Childers, UofPA. It addresses the questions you ask, even if not perhaps answering them.

(Lectures 13-24) http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/co...

Kathy wrote: " to present Marx as he actually was--a nineteenth-century thinker engaged with the ideas and events of his time. If you see Marx in this way, many of the disputes that raged around his legacy in the past century will seem unprofitable, even irrelevant..." (John Gray, "The Real Karl Marx," NY Review of Books, May 9) "

I agree, the most funny interpretation of Marx is, to see him as a Romantic, a child of romanticism. An odd idea at first glance, but it turns out to be very correct.

Zeke wrote: "However, it would help me if someone could clarify the way the term "liberal" is being used."

Liberalism in the late 19th century was almost the opposite of what liberalism in the US today stands for. I just finished a Coursera course on the modern world from 1760 to the present (excellent, it it's repeated I recommend it, free to all), and the prof spent considerable time explaining (in general terms, of course, given the scope of the course) the beliefs and principles of the various strands of political thought.

Basically, as I understood him, liberals were for modern ideas, moving away from the monarchies and dictatorships of the time to more democratic ideals (as in the French and American revolutions). They were for the liberty of the individual. They were in favor of free trade, in the tradition of Adam Smith. They were against big government, big business, and big labor. They supported individuals forming cooperatives (as in the burial societies) to help each other out through cooperative organizations rather than through government. Very different ideas from modern American liberalism.

For a bit more detail, here are some excerpts of the transcripts of his lectures, what he says of liberalism in the mid to late 1800s, (and what I think would still be closer to the liberalism of Hubert Humphrey than the modern American use of the term):

We'll use this presentation to just talk a little bit about what liberalism meant in the 1860's when it was reaching it's zenith of popularity. Liberalism is really about the open-minded pursuit of progress....We are now in a dynamic age where things are constantly changing. We have to be open to scientific ideas, open to new things. We need to enlarge our community to include a lot of people who will become part of our nation....let's look at what liberal ideas would look like in politics. First, liberals would be against despotism. They'd be against tyrants, for reasons that we've spent a lot of time discussing in previous presentations. Indeed, to liberals, the opposite of a liberal society is a tyrannical society. On the other hand, liberals also are very worried about the tyranny of the mob, of mob rule. In the 1860s and especially into the 1870s, the symbol for them of mob rule is what had just happened in Paris in 1871....They tend to align themselves with people of property, and they also tend to align themselves with the ideal of the new nation state....What liberals in this era fear most are tyrants. In other words, the state that is too strong. A lot of this is actually born of reactions against the old fiscal military state of the 1700's. They against the state monopolies. They're against state protectionism and high tariffs that are bringing in money to enrich the rulers, to build large armies, that then create the threat of tyranny. And indeed, in commercial life, they tend to be in favor of a light hand of government. Liberals tend to be supportive of free trade, partly because they think free commerce between free people is bound to be a good thing, but partly because, when the government controls trade, it stifles off the natural growth of human potential, and it enriches itself to become too powerful. Also they're against too much regulation in commercial life. Adam Smith's original argument back in the 1770's when he was promoting the virtues of capitalism was that if a state just had peace easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice, then all would be happy and prosperous....What mid nineteenth century Liberalism did do is encourage private citizens to bond together in free associations or cooperatives, to increase their political and economic strength....In religious belief the liberals are in favor of tolerance and against government establishment of a single religion....

Thanks Everyman. This is just the kind of clarity I was hoping we could get as a foundation.

It is a source of consternation to me that today a lot of free market "liberals" like to cite Adam Smith but they only cite Wealth of Nations without regard to Theory of Moral Sentiments.

For example: “Though our brother is upon the rack, as long as we ourselves are at ease, our senses will never inform us of what he suffers. They never did and never can carry us beyond our own persons, and it is by the imagination only that we form any conception of what are his sensations...His agonies, when they are thus brought home to ourselves, when we have this adopted and made them our own, begin at last to affect us, and we then tremble and shudder at the thought of what he feels.”