"The most dangerous is not the outlawed murderer, who only slays men, but the rebellious philosopher; for he destroys worlds.
"Darkness and the chill glitter of stars, Bo Jonsson crouched on a whirling speck of stone and waited for the man who was coming to kill him."
-Poul Anderson, Cold Victory (New York, 1982), p. 112.
Is the first sentence necessary? Or appropriate? Should the story not make its point so that the reader realizes it at the end without having to be told it, especially not at the beginning? Is the omniscient narrator moralizing instead of unobtrusively imparting fictional "facts"? Darkness and stars are what Jonsson sees but does he also reflect on slayers of men and destroyers of worlds? In fact, how many rebellious philosophers have destroyed worlds?
Ideas can become destructive if (a) they gain a mass following and (b) they generate conflict. But, on the basis of recent posts, I question whether conflictive ideas would gain a mass following in the utopian economy of the Solar Union. Instead, the conflicts described in "Quixote and the Windmill" would die out as new generations grew up accustomed to the changed social conditions - which, to them, would be not "changed" but normal, just as we accept democracy and the market whereas our ancestors accepted hierarchy and serfdom.
4 comments:
One thing to admire about Anderson is his combination of adventure stories with deep thoughts. How many rebellious philosophers have actually destroyed worlds? It depends on how rigorously you define "destroy worlds." Marx and Lenin and Mao considered themselves philosophers, and their ideas led to the deaths of tens of millions of people. Nazism was at least to some degree based on the philosophies of Nietzsche and other Germans, and attracted Martin Heidegger to flatter the Fuehrer and his program with philosophical-sounding blather.
Best Regards,
Nicholas D. Rosen
Oh, and I intended to mention Abu Hamid Mohammad ibn Mohammad al-Ghazali as someone who contributed to stultifying his civilization by his philosophical -- or anti-philosophical -- ideas.
Best Regards again,
Nicholas D. Rosen
Kaor, Paul!
I would argue that it can be legitimately said a philosopher or religious founder "destroyed worlds" when their ideas and beliefs supplanted and replaced other beliefs/ideas.
Sean
kaor, Nicholas!
I've heard of this Muslim scholar you mentioned. If I'm recalling correctly what I read of Abu Hamid Mohammed ibn Mohammed al-Ghazali, he was reacting against the influence of Classical philosophy and Christianity. Esp. the notion that God (horrors!) would freely bind Himself to obeying the laws of nature He created.
Sean
Post a Comment