What do you think?
Rate this book
袙芯锌褉芯褋 芯 胁懈薪芯胁薪芯褋褌懈. 袨 锌芯谢懈褌懈褔械褋泻芯泄 芯褌胁械褌褋褌胁械薪薪芯褋褌懈 袚械褉屑邪薪懈懈
Shortly after the Nazi government fell, a philosophy professor at Heidelberg University lectured on a subject that burned the consciousness and conscience of thinking Germans. "Are the German people guilty?" These lectures by Karl Jaspers, and outstanding European philosophy, attracted wide attention among German intellectuals and students; they seemed to offer a path to sanity and morality in a disordered world.
Jaspers, a life-long liberal, attempted in this book to discuss rationally a problem that had thus far evoked only heat and fury. Neither an evasive apology nor a wholesome condemnation, his book distinguished between types of guilt and degrees of respoonsibilty. He listed four categories of guilt: criminal guilt (the commitment of overt acts), political guilt (the degree of political acquiescence in the Nazi regime), moral guilt (a matter of private judgement among one's friends), and metaphysical guilt (a universally shared responsibility of those who chose to remain alive rather than die in protest against Nazi atrocities).
146 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1946
78 people are currently reading
1,895 people want to read
About the author
Karl Jaspers
395听books355听followersJaspers was born in Oldenburg in 1883 to a mother from a local farming community, and a jurist father. He showed an early interest in philosophy, but his father's experience with the legal system undoubtedly influenced his decision to study law at university. It soon became clear that Jaspers did not particularly enjoy law, and he switched to studying medicine in 1902.
Jaspers graduated from medical school in 1909 and began work at a psychiatric hospital in Heidelberg where Emil Kraepelin had worked some years earlier. Jaspers became dissatisfied with the way the medical community of the time approached the study of mental illness and set himself the task of improving the psychiatric approach. In 1913 Jaspers gained a temporary post as a psychology teacher at Heidelberg University. The post later became permanent, and Jaspers never returned to clinical practice.
At the age of 40 Jaspers turned from psychology to philosophy, expanding on themes he had developed in his psychiatric works. He became a renowned philosopher, well respected in Germany and Europe. In 1948 Jaspers moved to the University of Basel in Switzerland. He remained prominent in the philosophical community until his death in Basel in 1969.
Jaspers' dissatisfaction with the popular understanding of mental illness led him to question both the diagnostic criteria and the methods of clinical psychiatry. He published a revolutionary paper in 1910 in which he addressed the problem of whether paranoia was an aspect of personality or the result of biological changes. Whilst not broaching new ideas, this article introduced a new method of study. Jaspers studied several patients in detail, giving biographical information on the people concerned as well as providing notes on how the patients themselves felt about their symptoms. This has become known as the biographical method and now forms the mainstay of modern psychiatric practice.
Jaspers set about writing his views on mental illness in a book which he published in 1913 as General Psychopathology. The two volumes which make up this work have become a classic in the psychiatric literature and many modern diagnostic criteria stem from ideas contained within them. Of particular importance, Jaspers believed that psychiatrists should diagnose symptoms (particularly of psychosis) by their form rather than by their content. For example, in diagnosing a hallucination, the fact that a person experiences visual phenomena when no sensory stimuli account for it (form) assumes more importance than what the patient sees (content).
Jaspers felt that psychiatrists could also diagnose delusions in the same way. He argued that clinicians should not consider a belief delusional based on the content of the belief, but only based on the way in which a patient holds such a belief (see delusion for further discussion). Jaspers also distinguished between primary and secondary delusions. He defined primary delusions as autochthonous meaning arising without apparent cause, appearing incomprehensible in terms of normal mental processes. (This is a distinctly different use of the term autochthonous than its usual medical or sociological meaning of indigenous.) Secondary delusions, on the other hand, he classified as influenced by the person's background, current situation or mental state.
Jaspers considered primary delusions as ultimately 'un-understandable,' as he believed no coherent reasoning process existed behind their formation. This view has caused some controversy, and the likes of R. D. Laing and Richard Bentall have criticised it, stressing that taking this stance can lead therapists into the complacency of assuming that because they do not understand a patient, the patient is deluded and further investigation on the part of the therapist will have no effect.
Most commentators associate Jaspers with the philosophy of existentialism, in part because he draws largely upon the existentialist roots of Nietzsche and Kierk
Jaspers graduated from medical school in 1909 and began work at a psychiatric hospital in Heidelberg where Emil Kraepelin had worked some years earlier. Jaspers became dissatisfied with the way the medical community of the time approached the study of mental illness and set himself the task of improving the psychiatric approach. In 1913 Jaspers gained a temporary post as a psychology teacher at Heidelberg University. The post later became permanent, and Jaspers never returned to clinical practice.
At the age of 40 Jaspers turned from psychology to philosophy, expanding on themes he had developed in his psychiatric works. He became a renowned philosopher, well respected in Germany and Europe. In 1948 Jaspers moved to the University of Basel in Switzerland. He remained prominent in the philosophical community until his death in Basel in 1969.
Jaspers' dissatisfaction with the popular understanding of mental illness led him to question both the diagnostic criteria and the methods of clinical psychiatry. He published a revolutionary paper in 1910 in which he addressed the problem of whether paranoia was an aspect of personality or the result of biological changes. Whilst not broaching new ideas, this article introduced a new method of study. Jaspers studied several patients in detail, giving biographical information on the people concerned as well as providing notes on how the patients themselves felt about their symptoms. This has become known as the biographical method and now forms the mainstay of modern psychiatric practice.
Jaspers set about writing his views on mental illness in a book which he published in 1913 as General Psychopathology. The two volumes which make up this work have become a classic in the psychiatric literature and many modern diagnostic criteria stem from ideas contained within them. Of particular importance, Jaspers believed that psychiatrists should diagnose symptoms (particularly of psychosis) by their form rather than by their content. For example, in diagnosing a hallucination, the fact that a person experiences visual phenomena when no sensory stimuli account for it (form) assumes more importance than what the patient sees (content).
Jaspers felt that psychiatrists could also diagnose delusions in the same way. He argued that clinicians should not consider a belief delusional based on the content of the belief, but only based on the way in which a patient holds such a belief (see delusion for further discussion). Jaspers also distinguished between primary and secondary delusions. He defined primary delusions as autochthonous meaning arising without apparent cause, appearing incomprehensible in terms of normal mental processes. (This is a distinctly different use of the term autochthonous than its usual medical or sociological meaning of indigenous.) Secondary delusions, on the other hand, he classified as influenced by the person's background, current situation or mental state.
Jaspers considered primary delusions as ultimately 'un-understandable,' as he believed no coherent reasoning process existed behind their formation. This view has caused some controversy, and the likes of R. D. Laing and Richard Bentall have criticised it, stressing that taking this stance can lead therapists into the complacency of assuming that because they do not understand a patient, the patient is deluded and further investigation on the part of the therapist will have no effect.
Most commentators associate Jaspers with the philosophy of existentialism, in part because he draws largely upon the existentialist roots of Nietzsche and Kierk
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews
December 1, 2024
No one is beyond the pale of human existence, provided he pays for his guilt.
In this book, Jaspers discusses different kinds of guilt (criminal, political, moral and metaphysical), focusing on post WWII Germany and the German citizens.
Blindness for the misfortune of others, lack of imagination of the heart, inner indifference toward the witnessed evil鈥攖hat is moral guilt.
But what about international guilt? Could the massacre of millions of people have been prevented if other nations were more alert? If they didn鈥檛 ignore the signs? If Hitler and the National Socialism were nipped in the bud in the early days?
鈥淚n 1933 the Vatican signed a concordat with Hitler.
In 1936 the world flocked to Berlin for the Olympic Games.
In 1936 Hitler occupied the Rhineland. France let it happen.
In 1938 Churchill to Hitler: 鈥淲ere England to suffer a national disaster comparable to that of Germany in 1918, I should pray God to send us a man of your strength of mind and will.鈥︹€�
In 1935 England signed a naval pact with Hitler.
In 1939 Russia made its pact with Hitler.
The world failed utterly to join hands for one common effort, for the quick extinction of the devilry.鈥�
In this book, Jaspers discusses different kinds of guilt (criminal, political, moral and metaphysical), focusing on post WWII Germany and the German citizens.
Blindness for the misfortune of others, lack of imagination of the heart, inner indifference toward the witnessed evil鈥攖hat is moral guilt.
But what about international guilt? Could the massacre of millions of people have been prevented if other nations were more alert? If they didn鈥檛 ignore the signs? If Hitler and the National Socialism were nipped in the bud in the early days?
鈥淚n 1933 the Vatican signed a concordat with Hitler.
In 1936 the world flocked to Berlin for the Olympic Games.
In 1936 Hitler occupied the Rhineland. France let it happen.
In 1938 Churchill to Hitler: 鈥淲ere England to suffer a national disaster comparable to that of Germany in 1918, I should pray God to send us a man of your strength of mind and will.鈥︹€�
In 1935 England signed a naval pact with Hitler.
In 1939 Russia made its pact with Hitler.
The world failed utterly to join hands for one common effort, for the quick extinction of the devilry.鈥�
January 29, 2024
Karl Jaspers examines the question of German guilt associated with the rise of Nazism. He distinguishes 4 types of 'guilt' - criminal, moral, metaphysical and political. This is one of the most honest attempts I have ever read dealing with this important issue. Needless to say there are many situations around the world today that make this book still very relevant.
June 2, 2023
There is an expression in German, called a compound noun, 痴别谤驳补苍驳别苍丑别颈迟蝉产别飞盲濒迟颈驳耻苍驳, describing the attempt to come to terms with the past. The Question of German Guilt, published in 1947 represents Karl Jaspers' endeavor to express this reckoning with the Holocaust & Germany's role in the decimation of European Jews, as well as Gypsies, those deemed to be mentally defective, everyone not representative of the "master race" ideal of Hitler's Reich.
Jaspers took a medical degree from Heidelberg University, worked in the field of psychiatry at Heidelberg Hospital, later teaching psychology at his alma mater, before eventually focusing on the field of philosophy. When Hitler came to power, Jaspers' liberal views were unacceptable & the presence of a Jewish wife forced him into retirement, with the couple under almost constant threat of deportation. They survived WWII before moving to the University of Basel in Switzerland in 1948.
Jaspers distinguishes "four concepts of guilt": Criminal guilt, Political guilt, Moral guilt & Metaphysical guilt. Personally, I found the declension of four forms of guilt a distraction but in this book Jaspers declares that:
Resistance to pervasive tyranny is never easy but there were cases like the 1943 Rosenstrasse protest in Berlin that did have a positive result without the loss of life.
However, Sophie & Hans Scholl, University of Munich students were executed in 1943 for their part in the White Rose movement, though they has initially participated in Nazi youth programs & their family had supported Hitler during the early days of the Reich. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor, theologian & anti-Nazi dissident was executed for his oppositional stance.
Many Lutheran & Roman-Catholic clerics did continue to protest both the treatment of Jews after Kristallnacht, the torching of synagogues in 1938 & the ensuing deportation of Jews, as well as the German euthanasia program for those deemed to be "defective". Thus, it seems that not every "imprisoned" German in Hitler's Reich gave up the fight for what they believed in and not all of those who did so perished as a result.
The question is whether a purely philosophical response to the Holocaust, such as the one by Karl Jaspers, can ever manage to confront the reality of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau & so many other death-camps and the annihilation of some 6 million people, most of them Jews.
Jaspers seems to describe German guilt as "metaphysical" & even innately human, rather than one of German origin; beyond that, he speaks of Germany's guilt as "the sacrificial substitute, for the catastrophe of the age, suffering for all & atoning for all."
But he also declares that "purification by redemption cannot be dodged" & that "without purification of the soul leading to a trans-illumination & transformation of the soul, there is no political liberty."
I read Karl Jaspers' book following a rereading of Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt, who knew Jaspers, with my intent to expand beyond the nature of guilt of a particular German man.
In an attempt to better comprehend the wide gulf between the philosophical renderings of Karl Jaspers & the reality of the Holocaust, I found a later (2000) version of Jaspers' book with an extended introduction by Joseph Koterski, S. J., who did his PhD dissertation on Jaspers. Among his comments is the following:
As a philosophical treatise, the book by Jaspers is obviously a well-formed statement; however, as a statement on guilt & the Holocaust, it is ultimately an unsatisfying response from a distinguished German scholar.
*Within my review are the images of Karl Jaspers, the destruction of Kristallnacht and the interior of a Nazi concentration camp.
Jaspers took a medical degree from Heidelberg University, worked in the field of psychiatry at Heidelberg Hospital, later teaching psychology at his alma mater, before eventually focusing on the field of philosophy. When Hitler came to power, Jaspers' liberal views were unacceptable & the presence of a Jewish wife forced him into retirement, with the couple under almost constant threat of deportation. They survived WWII before moving to the University of Basel in Switzerland in 1948.Jaspers distinguishes "four concepts of guilt": Criminal guilt, Political guilt, Moral guilt & Metaphysical guilt. Personally, I found the declension of four forms of guilt a distraction but in this book Jaspers declares that:
Germany under the Nazi regime was a prison. The guilt of getting into it was a political guilt. Once the gates were shut however, a prison break from within was no longer possible. Any discussion of the responsibility & guilt of the imprisoned arose thereafter, wherein one must consider what they could do. To hold the inmates collectively responsible for outrages committed by the prison staff is clearly unjust.I personally find the metaphorical suggestion that all Germans were imprisoned by their masters within the Third Reich unacceptable, especially since a great many of them consistently raised an affirming stiff right arm salute to the F眉hrer.
Resistance to pervasive tyranny is never easy but there were cases like the 1943 Rosenstrasse protest in Berlin that did have a positive result without the loss of life.
However, Sophie & Hans Scholl, University of Munich students were executed in 1943 for their part in the White Rose movement, though they has initially participated in Nazi youth programs & their family had supported Hitler during the early days of the Reich. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, a German Lutheran pastor, theologian & anti-Nazi dissident was executed for his oppositional stance.
Many Lutheran & Roman-Catholic clerics did continue to protest both the treatment of Jews after Kristallnacht, the torching of synagogues in 1938 & the ensuing deportation of Jews, as well as the German euthanasia program for those deemed to be "defective". Thus, it seems that not every "imprisoned" German in Hitler's Reich gave up the fight for what they believed in and not all of those who did so perished as a result.
The question is whether a purely philosophical response to the Holocaust, such as the one by Karl Jaspers, can ever manage to confront the reality of Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau & so many other death-camps and the annihilation of some 6 million people, most of them Jews.
Jaspers seems to describe German guilt as "metaphysical" & even innately human, rather than one of German origin; beyond that, he speaks of Germany's guilt as "the sacrificial substitute, for the catastrophe of the age, suffering for all & atoning for all."
But he also declares that "purification by redemption cannot be dodged" & that "without purification of the soul leading to a trans-illumination & transformation of the soul, there is no political liberty."
I read Karl Jaspers' book following a rereading of Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt, who knew Jaspers, with my intent to expand beyond the nature of guilt of a particular German man. In an attempt to better comprehend the wide gulf between the philosophical renderings of Karl Jaspers & the reality of the Holocaust, I found a later (2000) version of Jaspers' book with an extended introduction by Joseph Koterski, S. J., who did his PhD dissertation on Jaspers. Among his comments is the following:
Much of the discussion in Jaspers' book turns on questions of truth, freedom & ethics. On the issue of guilt & responsibility there are necessarily going to be conflicts of freedom & authority, of religion & philosophy, and of politics & academia. For Jaspers, these are areas in which the compelling certainties of scientific reason are unavailable and yet where choices must still be made, however the risk of failure.The Question of German Guilt involves an entry into the formal & the abstract, a place quite remote from a confrontation of the reality of the Final Solution, Zyklon-B, the horror of gas chambers and mankind's utter descent into inhumanity under Nazi Germany.
Jaspers insists that even failure or "shipwreck" can be philosophically significant in the discovery of the meaning of being. For Jaspers, guilt is not alien to freedom but comes precisely from being free, with non-action a kind of action, a result of choice.
As a philosophical treatise, the book by Jaspers is obviously a well-formed statement; however, as a statement on guilt & the Holocaust, it is ultimately an unsatisfying response from a distinguished German scholar.
*Within my review are the images of Karl Jaspers, the destruction of Kristallnacht and the interior of a Nazi concentration camp.
February 9, 2020
丕夭 賲丕爻鬲 賰賴 亘乇 賲丕爻鬲
"鬲賯乇蹖亘丕賸 讴賱 賲乇丿賲 噩賴丕賳 倬爻 丕夭 噩賳诏 噩賴丕賳蹖 丿賵賲貙 丌賱賲丕賳 賵 賲乇丿賲 丌賱賲丕賳 乇丕 賲賯氐乇 賯賱賲丿丕丿 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀� 賵 毓丿賴鈥屫й� 亘賴 噩賴鬲 丕蹖賳 鬲賯氐蹖乇 禺賵丕賴丕賳 賲噩丕夭丕鬲 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏� 亘賵丿賳丿. 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賲孬丕賱 丿乇 鬲丕亘爻鬲丕賳 爻丕賱 郾酃鄞鄣貙 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲蹖 卮賴乇賴丕 賵 乇賵爻鬲丕賴丕 亘乇 倬賵爻鬲乇賴丕蹖蹖 鬲氐丕賵蹖乇 賵 丕乇丿賵诏丕賴 讴丕乇 丕噩亘丕乇蹖 亘丕 噩賲賱賴鈥屰� 爻乇賳賵卮鬲鈥屫池ж� "鬲賯氐蹖乇 卮賲丕 亘賵丿" 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 蹖丕賮鬲."
賷丕爻倬乇爻 乇賵丕賳鈥屬矩藏蹿� 賵 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲 丌賱賲丕賳蹖貙 丿乇 丕賷賳 賰鬲丕亘 賲賷诏賴 賳丕夭賷爻賲 丿乇 賳賴丕賷鬲 趩賷夭賷 噩夭 亘丕胤賳 禺賵丿 丌賱賲丕賳賷 賴丕 賳亘賵丿. 丕賵 丕丿毓丕 賲賷 賰賳賴 丿乇 爻賴賲 鬲賯氐賷乇 卮賰賱 诏賷乇賷 丨賰賵賲鬲 賳丕夭賷賴丕貙 賴賲賴 丌賱賲丕賳賷賴丕貙 丕毓賲 丕夭 賷賴賵丿賷 賵 賲爻賷丨賷貙 賲賴丕噩乇 賵 爻丕賰賳貙 胤乇賮丿丕乇 賳丕夭賷爻賲 賷丕 賲禺丕賱賮 丌賳 賵 丨鬲賷 賮乇賷亘 禺賵乇丿賴 賴丕貙 賴賲賴 賵 賴賲賴 亘賴 賳賵毓賷 丿乇 賯亘丕賱 賮乇賷亘 禺賵乇丿賳 賵 丿賷诏乇 丕毓賲丕賱卮賵賳 亘賵丕爻胤賴 丕毓賲丕賱 賯亘賱 丕夭 倬丿賷丿丕乇卮丿賳 賳丕夭賷爻賲貙 卮乇賷賰賳丿 賵 倬匕賷乇卮 丕賷賳 賲爻丕賱賴 賵 賳鬲丕賷噩 丕賵賳 賲賷 鬲賵賳賴 亘賴 倬丕賱丕賷卮 丌賱賲丕賳 賵 丌賱賲丕賳賷 賵 乇爻鬲丕禺賷夭 丿賵亘丕乇賴 丌賱賲丕賳 賲賳噩乇 亘卮賴.
賯丕亘賱 鬲賵噩賴賴 禺賵丕賳卮 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 丕夭 鬲賯氐蹖乇 讴賲蹖 夭蹖丕丿賴 丕夭 丨丿 賮賱爻賮蹖賴 賵 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 丕诏乇 趩丕卮賳蹖 鬲丕乇蹖禺卮 讴賲蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賵丿貙 讴鬲丕亘 噩匕丕亘鬲乇蹖 賲蹖 卮丿.
诏夭丕乇卮賷 丕夭 禺賱丕氐賴 賰鬲丕亘 亘賴 乇賵丕賷鬲 禺亘乇诏夭丕乇蹖 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖乇丕賳 丕蹖亘賳丕
讴丕乇賱 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 讴鬲丕亘 賲爻卅賱賴 鬲賯氐蹖乇 乇丕 亘賴 爻丕賱 1946 丿乇爻鬲 夭賲丕賳蹖 讴賴 倬乇丿賴 丕夭 讴賱 噩賳丕蹖丕鬲 乇跇蹖賲 賳丕夭蹖 亘乇丿丕卮鬲賴 卮丿貙 亘賴 趩丕倬 乇爻丕賳丿. 鬲賲丕賲 鬲賱丕卮 賵蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲毓胤賵賮 亘賴 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴賲賵胤賳丕賳卮 乇丕 亘賴 倬匕蹖乇卮 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 賵 鬲賯氐蹖乇 丿乇 賯亘丕賱 賮噩丕蹖毓 亘賴 賵賯賵毓 倬蹖賵爻鬲賴貙 讴卮賮 乇蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 丌賳 賵 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 倬丕賱丕蹖卮 丿毓賵鬲 讴賳丿. 丕賵 丿乇 噩丕蹖蹖 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 氐乇丕丨鬲 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫池�: 芦丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賴賲賴 賲丕 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏� 亘賱丕 丕爻鬲孬賳丕 賲賱夭賲蹖賲 鬲丕 丌卮讴丕乇丕 亘賴 賲賱丕丨馗賴鈥屰� 賲爻卅賱賴鈥屰� 鬲賯氐蹖乇賲丕賳 亘倬乇丿丕夭蹖賲... 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 丌賳趩賴 噩賴丕賳蹖丕賳 丿乇亘丕乇賴 賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀屫促嗀� 亘蹖鈥屫佖з堌� 亘賵丿貙 趩乇丕讴賴 賲丕 禺賵丿 乇丕 噩夭卅蹖 丕夭 亘卮乇蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屫з嗃屬�: 賲丕 賳禺爻鬲 丕賳爻丕賳蹖賲 賵 爻倬爻 丌賱賲丕賳蹖. 倬乇爻卮 丕夭 鬲賯氐蹖乇 亘蹖卮 丕夭 丌賳讴賴 倬乇爻卮蹖 丕夭 噩丕賳亘 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 丿乇 禺氐賵氐 賲丕 亘丕卮丿貙 亘丕蹖丿 倬乇爻卮蹖 亘丕卮丿 讴賴 禺賵丿 賲丕 丕夭 禺賵蹖卮 亘倬乇爻蹖賲.禄
倬爻 丕夭 噩賳诏 噩賴丕賳蹖 丿賵賲 賲賳丕夭毓丕鬲 賲鬲毓丿丿蹖 丿乇 丌賱賲丕賳 亘乇 爻乇 賲爻卅賱賴鈥屰� 鬲賯氐蹖乇 卮讴賱 诏乇賮鬲. 讴丕乇賱 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲爻卅賱賴 倬乇丿丕禺鬲. 賵蹖 丿乇 鬲乇賲 夭賲爻鬲丕賳蹖 1946 賭 1945 爻賱爻賱賴 爻禺賳乇丕賳蹖鈥屬囏й屰� 丿乇 亘丕亘 賵囟毓蹖鬲 賮讴乇蹖 丌賱賲丕賳 丕蹖乇丕丿 讴乇丿 讴賴 亘禺卮 丕毓馗賲 丌賳 亘賴 賲爻卅賱賴 鬲賯氐蹖乇 丕禺鬲氐丕氐 丿丕卮鬲. 賴賲丕賳 胤賵乇 讴賴 禺賵丿 賵蹖 丿乇 賲賯丿賲賴 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫池� 賴丿賮卮 丕夭 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 丕蹖賳 鬲丕賲賱丕鬲 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 賲賯丕賲 丕賳爻丕賳 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 爻賴賲蹖 丿乇 鬲賱丕卮 亘乇 爻乇 丨賯蹖賯鬲 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿. 鬲賲丕賲 賴賲 賵 睾賲 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿乇爻 诏賮鬲丕乇 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏� 乇丕 亘賴 倬匕蹖乇卮 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 丿乇 賯亘丕賱 賮丕噩毓賴鈥屰� 亘賴 賵賯賵毓 倬蹖賵爻鬲賴貙 讴卮賮 乇蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 丌賳 賵 賮賴賲 賵囟毓蹖鬲 賮毓賱蹖 丌賱賲丕賳 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 鬲乇睾蹖亘 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丕賱亘鬲賴 賲賵賮賯蹖鬲 蹖丕 毓丿賲 賲賵賮賯蹖鬲 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 丿乇 丕蹖賳 夭賲蹖賳賴 亘丨孬 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丕爻鬲. 丕賵 禺賵丿 丿乇 賳丕賲賴鈥屫й� 亘丕 賱丨賳蹖 诏賱丕蹖賴鈥屬呝嗀� 亘賴 賴丕蹖丿诏乇 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫池� 讴賴 鬲賳賴丕 賲毓丿賵丿蹖 丕夭 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏� 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕賵 乇丕 禺賵丕賳丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賵 亘賴 賳馗乇 賲蹖鈥屫必池� 讴賴 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏� 賴賳賵夭 亘乇丕蹖 趩賳蹖賳 賲亘丕丨孬蹖 丌賲丕丿诏蹖 讴丕賮蹖 賳丿丕乇賳丿. 賴賲丕賳 胤賵乇 讴賴 禺賵丿 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 賴賲 丕賯乇丕乇 丿丕卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲 丿乇 丕賵丕蹖賱 丿賴賴 爻蹖 賵囟毓蹖鬲 賳丕爻蹖賵賳丕賱 賭 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 乇丕 趩賳丿丕賳 鬲賴丿蹖丿鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賳賲蹖鈥屫屫�. 趩賳丕賳 讴賴 趩丕倬 賳賵卮鬲賴鈥� 丕賵 亘丕 賳丕賲 芦賵囟毓蹖鬲 賮讴乇蹖 夭賲丕賳賴 賲丕禄 卮丕賴丿蹖 亘乇 丕蹖賳 丕賲乇 丕爻鬲.
亘賴 賴乇 丨丕賱 賵 丿乇 賲噩賲賵毓 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 亘賴 丕爻鬲孬賳丕蹖 亘乇禺蹖 丕賳鬲賯丕丿賴丕蹖 倬賳賴丕賳 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 芦賳蹖趩賴禄 丿乇 爻丕賱 1936貙 丿乇 胤賵賱 丿賵乇丕夭丿賴 爻丕賱 賴蹖趩 丕賯丿丕賲蹖 毓賱蹖賴 乇跇蹖賲 賳丕夭蹖 賳讴乇丿 亘賱讴賴 鬲賳賴丕 爻讴賵鬲 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 讴乇丿. 亘賴 毓賯蹖丿賴 丕賵 丕诏乇 丌賱賲丕賳 賵 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏� 亘禺賵丕賴賳丿 丿乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘乇 噩丕蹖 亘賲丕賳賳丿 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 诏丕賲 亘乇丕蹖 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賴丿賮 倬匕蹖乇卮 賵 賯亘賵賱 鬲賯氐蹖乇 丕夭 爻賵蹖 鬲讴 鬲讴 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏ж池�. 亘乇 倬丕蹖賴 賴賲蹖賳 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 賲爻卅賱賴 鬲賯氐蹖乇 乇丕 匕蹖賱 丿乇爻鈥屭佖ж臂� 丿乇 亘丕亘 賵囟毓蹖鬲 賮讴乇蹖 丌賱賲丕賳 賲胤乇丨 賲蹖鈥屫池ж藏�.
賳讴鬲賴 賲賴賲蹖 讴賴 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 丿乇 禺賱丕賱 丕蹖賳 賲亘丕丨孬 胤乇丨 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 亘丨孬 鬲賯氐蹖乇 噩賲毓蹖 丕爻鬲. 賵蹖 丿乇 亘禺卮 倬丕蹖丕賳蹖 丿乇爻 诏賮鬲丕乇 禺賵丿 亘賴 賲爻丕賱賴鈥� 乇賴丕蹖蹖 賵 倬丕賱丕蹖卮 丕夭 鬲賯氐蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏�. 亘賴 毓賯蹖丿賴 丕賵 夭賲丕賳蹖 賮乇丿 丕夭 鬲賯氐蹖乇 賵 丨爻 诏賳丕賴蹖 禺賱丕氐蹖 賲蹖鈥屰屫жㄘ� 讴賴 亘賴 賲丿丿 賮乇丕蹖賳丿 丿乇賵賳蹖 亘賴 倬丕賱丕蹖卮 禺賵蹖卮 亘倬乇丿丕夭丿.
趩賳丕賳趩賴 亘賴 賲乇賵乇 賰丕賲賱鬲乇 賵 鬲賵囟賷丨丕鬲 亘賷卮鬲乇 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 鬲乇噩賲賴 毓賱丕賯賲賳丿賷丿貙 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲 禺賵亘賷 丕夭 賱賷賳賰 夭賷乇 亘丿爻鬲 禺賵丕賴賷丿 丌賵乇丿.
"鬲賯乇蹖亘丕賸 讴賱 賲乇丿賲 噩賴丕賳 倬爻 丕夭 噩賳诏 噩賴丕賳蹖 丿賵賲貙 丌賱賲丕賳 賵 賲乇丿賲 丌賱賲丕賳 乇丕 賲賯氐乇 賯賱賲丿丕丿 賲蹖鈥屭┴必嗀� 賵 毓丿賴鈥屫й� 亘賴 噩賴鬲 丕蹖賳 鬲賯氐蹖乇 禺賵丕賴丕賳 賲噩丕夭丕鬲 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏� 亘賵丿賳丿. 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳 賲孬丕賱 丿乇 鬲丕亘爻鬲丕賳 爻丕賱 郾酃鄞鄣貙 丿乇 鬲賲丕賲蹖 卮賴乇賴丕 賵 乇賵爻鬲丕賴丕 亘乇 倬賵爻鬲乇賴丕蹖蹖 鬲氐丕賵蹖乇 賵 丕乇丿賵诏丕賴 讴丕乇 丕噩亘丕乇蹖 亘丕 噩賲賱賴鈥屰� 爻乇賳賵卮鬲鈥屫池ж� "鬲賯氐蹖乇 卮賲丕 亘賵丿" 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 蹖丕賮鬲."
賷丕爻倬乇爻 乇賵丕賳鈥屬矩藏蹿� 賵 賮蹖賱爻賵賮 丕诏夭蹖爻鬲丕賳爻蹖丕賱蹖爻鬲 丌賱賲丕賳蹖貙 丿乇 丕賷賳 賰鬲丕亘 賲賷诏賴 賳丕夭賷爻賲 丿乇 賳賴丕賷鬲 趩賷夭賷 噩夭 亘丕胤賳 禺賵丿 丌賱賲丕賳賷 賴丕 賳亘賵丿. 丕賵 丕丿毓丕 賲賷 賰賳賴 丿乇 爻賴賲 鬲賯氐賷乇 卮賰賱 诏賷乇賷 丨賰賵賲鬲 賳丕夭賷賴丕貙 賴賲賴 丌賱賲丕賳賷賴丕貙 丕毓賲 丕夭 賷賴賵丿賷 賵 賲爻賷丨賷貙 賲賴丕噩乇 賵 爻丕賰賳貙 胤乇賮丿丕乇 賳丕夭賷爻賲 賷丕 賲禺丕賱賮 丌賳 賵 丨鬲賷 賮乇賷亘 禺賵乇丿賴 賴丕貙 賴賲賴 賵 賴賲賴 亘賴 賳賵毓賷 丿乇 賯亘丕賱 賮乇賷亘 禺賵乇丿賳 賵 丿賷诏乇 丕毓賲丕賱卮賵賳 亘賵丕爻胤賴 丕毓賲丕賱 賯亘賱 丕夭 倬丿賷丿丕乇卮丿賳 賳丕夭賷爻賲貙 卮乇賷賰賳丿 賵 倬匕賷乇卮 丕賷賳 賲爻丕賱賴 賵 賳鬲丕賷噩 丕賵賳 賲賷 鬲賵賳賴 亘賴 倬丕賱丕賷卮 丌賱賲丕賳 賵 丌賱賲丕賳賷 賵 乇爻鬲丕禺賷夭 丿賵亘丕乇賴 丌賱賲丕賳 賲賳噩乇 亘卮賴.
賯丕亘賱 鬲賵噩賴賴 禺賵丕賳卮 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 丕夭 鬲賯氐蹖乇 讴賲蹖 夭蹖丕丿賴 丕夭 丨丿 賮賱爻賮蹖賴 賵 亘賴 賳馗乇賲 丕诏乇 趩丕卮賳蹖 鬲丕乇蹖禺卮 讴賲蹖 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賵丿貙 讴鬲丕亘 噩匕丕亘鬲乇蹖 賲蹖 卮丿.
诏夭丕乇卮賷 丕夭 禺賱丕氐賴 賰鬲丕亘 亘賴 乇賵丕賷鬲 禺亘乇诏夭丕乇蹖 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖乇丕賳 丕蹖亘賳丕
讴丕乇賱 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 讴鬲丕亘 賲爻卅賱賴 鬲賯氐蹖乇 乇丕 亘賴 爻丕賱 1946 丿乇爻鬲 夭賲丕賳蹖 讴賴 倬乇丿賴 丕夭 讴賱 噩賳丕蹖丕鬲 乇跇蹖賲 賳丕夭蹖 亘乇丿丕卮鬲賴 卮丿貙 亘賴 趩丕倬 乇爻丕賳丿. 鬲賲丕賲 鬲賱丕卮 賵蹖 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲毓胤賵賮 亘賴 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賴賲賵胤賳丕賳卮 乇丕 亘賴 倬匕蹖乇卮 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 賵 鬲賯氐蹖乇 丿乇 賯亘丕賱 賮噩丕蹖毓 亘賴 賵賯賵毓 倬蹖賵爻鬲賴貙 讴卮賮 乇蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 丌賳 賵 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 倬丕賱丕蹖卮 丿毓賵鬲 讴賳丿. 丕賵 丿乇 噩丕蹖蹖 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 氐乇丕丨鬲 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫池�: 芦丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賴賲賴 賲丕 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏� 亘賱丕 丕爻鬲孬賳丕 賲賱夭賲蹖賲 鬲丕 丌卮讴丕乇丕 亘賴 賲賱丕丨馗賴鈥屰� 賲爻卅賱賴鈥屰� 鬲賯氐蹖乇賲丕賳 亘倬乇丿丕夭蹖賲... 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 丌賳趩賴 噩賴丕賳蹖丕賳 丿乇亘丕乇賴 賲丕 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀屫促嗀� 亘蹖鈥屫佖з堌� 亘賵丿貙 趩乇丕讴賴 賲丕 禺賵丿 乇丕 噩夭卅蹖 丕夭 亘卮乇蹖鬲 賲蹖鈥屫з嗃屬�: 賲丕 賳禺爻鬲 丕賳爻丕賳蹖賲 賵 爻倬爻 丌賱賲丕賳蹖. 倬乇爻卮 丕夭 鬲賯氐蹖乇 亘蹖卮 丕夭 丌賳讴賴 倬乇爻卮蹖 丕夭 噩丕賳亘 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 丿乇 禺氐賵氐 賲丕 亘丕卮丿貙 亘丕蹖丿 倬乇爻卮蹖 亘丕卮丿 讴賴 禺賵丿 賲丕 丕夭 禺賵蹖卮 亘倬乇爻蹖賲.禄
倬爻 丕夭 噩賳诏 噩賴丕賳蹖 丿賵賲 賲賳丕夭毓丕鬲 賲鬲毓丿丿蹖 丿乇 丌賱賲丕賳 亘乇 爻乇 賲爻卅賱賴鈥屰� 鬲賯氐蹖乇 卮讴賱 诏乇賮鬲. 讴丕乇賱 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 丕賳丿蹖卮賲賳丿丕賳蹖 亘賵丿 讴賴 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賲爻卅賱賴 倬乇丿丕禺鬲. 賵蹖 丿乇 鬲乇賲 夭賲爻鬲丕賳蹖 1946 賭 1945 爻賱爻賱賴 爻禺賳乇丕賳蹖鈥屬囏й屰� 丿乇 亘丕亘 賵囟毓蹖鬲 賮讴乇蹖 丌賱賲丕賳 丕蹖乇丕丿 讴乇丿 讴賴 亘禺卮 丕毓馗賲 丌賳 亘賴 賲爻卅賱賴 鬲賯氐蹖乇 丕禺鬲氐丕氐 丿丕卮鬲. 賴賲丕賳 胤賵乇 讴賴 禺賵丿 賵蹖 丿乇 賲賯丿賲賴 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫池� 賴丿賮卮 丕夭 丕賳鬲卮丕乇 丕蹖賳 鬲丕賲賱丕鬲 丌賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 賲賯丕賲 丕賳爻丕賳 丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 丕賳爻丕賳鈥屬囏� 爻賴賲蹖 丿乇 鬲賱丕卮 亘乇 爻乇 丨賯蹖賯鬲 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿. 鬲賲丕賲 賴賲 賵 睾賲 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丿乇爻 诏賮鬲丕乇 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏� 乇丕 亘賴 倬匕蹖乇卮 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 丿乇 賯亘丕賱 賮丕噩毓賴鈥屰� 亘賴 賵賯賵毓 倬蹖賵爻鬲賴貙 讴卮賮 乇蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 丌賳 賵 賮賴賲 賵囟毓蹖鬲 賮毓賱蹖 丌賱賲丕賳 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 鬲乇睾蹖亘 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�. 丕賱亘鬲賴 賲賵賮賯蹖鬲 蹖丕 毓丿賲 賲賵賮賯蹖鬲 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 丿乇 丕蹖賳 夭賲蹖賳賴 亘丨孬 丿蹖诏乇蹖 丕爻鬲. 丕賵 禺賵丿 丿乇 賳丕賲賴鈥屫й� 亘丕 賱丨賳蹖 诏賱丕蹖賴鈥屬呝嗀� 亘賴 賴丕蹖丿诏乇 賲蹖鈥屬嗁堐屫池� 讴賴 鬲賳賴丕 賲毓丿賵丿蹖 丕夭 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏� 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕賵 乇丕 禺賵丕賳丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賵 亘賴 賳馗乇 賲蹖鈥屫必池� 讴賴 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏� 賴賳賵夭 亘乇丕蹖 趩賳蹖賳 賲亘丕丨孬蹖 丌賲丕丿诏蹖 讴丕賮蹖 賳丿丕乇賳丿. 賴賲丕賳 胤賵乇 讴賴 禺賵丿 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 賴賲 丕賯乇丕乇 丿丕卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲 丿乇 丕賵丕蹖賱 丿賴賴 爻蹖 賵囟毓蹖鬲 賳丕爻蹖賵賳丕賱 賭 爻賵爻蹖丕賱蹖爻賲 乇丕 趩賳丿丕賳 鬲賴丿蹖丿鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賳賲蹖鈥屫屫�. 趩賳丕賳 讴賴 趩丕倬 賳賵卮鬲賴鈥� 丕賵 亘丕 賳丕賲 芦賵囟毓蹖鬲 賮讴乇蹖 夭賲丕賳賴 賲丕禄 卮丕賴丿蹖 亘乇 丕蹖賳 丕賲乇 丕爻鬲.
亘賴 賴乇 丨丕賱 賵 丿乇 賲噩賲賵毓 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 亘賴 丕爻鬲孬賳丕蹖 亘乇禺蹖 丕賳鬲賯丕丿賴丕蹖 倬賳賴丕賳 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 芦賳蹖趩賴禄 丿乇 爻丕賱 1936貙 丿乇 胤賵賱 丿賵乇丕夭丿賴 爻丕賱 賴蹖趩 丕賯丿丕賲蹖 毓賱蹖賴 乇跇蹖賲 賳丕夭蹖 賳讴乇丿 亘賱讴賴 鬲賳賴丕 爻讴賵鬲 丕禺鬲蹖丕乇 讴乇丿. 亘賴 毓賯蹖丿賴 丕賵 丕诏乇 丌賱賲丕賳 賵 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏� 亘禺賵丕賴賳丿 丿乇 鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘乇 噩丕蹖 亘賲丕賳賳丿 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 诏丕賲 亘乇丕蹖 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賴丿賮 倬匕蹖乇卮 賵 賯亘賵賱 鬲賯氐蹖乇 丕夭 爻賵蹖 鬲讴 鬲讴 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏ж池�. 亘乇 倬丕蹖賴 賴賲蹖賳 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 賲爻卅賱賴 鬲賯氐蹖乇 乇丕 匕蹖賱 丿乇爻鈥屭佖ж臂� 丿乇 亘丕亘 賵囟毓蹖鬲 賮讴乇蹖 丌賱賲丕賳 賲胤乇丨 賲蹖鈥屫池ж藏�.
賳讴鬲賴 賲賴賲蹖 讴賴 蹖丕爻倬乇爻 丿乇 禺賱丕賱 丕蹖賳 賲亘丕丨孬 胤乇丨 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 亘丨孬 鬲賯氐蹖乇 噩賲毓蹖 丕爻鬲. 賵蹖 丿乇 亘禺卮 倬丕蹖丕賳蹖 丿乇爻 诏賮鬲丕乇 禺賵丿 亘賴 賲爻丕賱賴鈥� 乇賴丕蹖蹖 賵 倬丕賱丕蹖卮 丕夭 鬲賯氐蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж藏�. 亘賴 毓賯蹖丿賴 丕賵 夭賲丕賳蹖 賮乇丿 丕夭 鬲賯氐蹖乇 賵 丨爻 诏賳丕賴蹖 禺賱丕氐蹖 賲蹖鈥屰屫жㄘ� 讴賴 亘賴 賲丿丿 賮乇丕蹖賳丿 丿乇賵賳蹖 亘賴 倬丕賱丕蹖卮 禺賵蹖卮 亘倬乇丿丕夭丿.
趩賳丕賳趩賴 亘賴 賲乇賵乇 賰丕賲賱鬲乇 賵 鬲賵囟賷丨丕鬲 亘賷卮鬲乇 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 鬲乇噩賲賴 毓賱丕賯賲賳丿賷丿貙 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲 禺賵亘賷 丕夭 賱賷賳賰 夭賷乇 亘丿爻鬲 禺賵丕賴賷丿 丌賵乇丿.
December 18, 2018
丿乇 賯亘丕賱 卮賵乇亘禺鬲蹖 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘賴 讴賵乇蹖 夭丿賳貙賮丕賯丿 丕丨爻丕爻 賵 毓丕胤賮賴 亘賵丿賳 賵 亘蹖 鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖 丿乇賵賳蹖 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 賲氐蹖亘鬲蹖 讴賴 乇禺 丿丕丿賴貙趩蹖夭蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 噩夭 鬲賯氐蹖乇 丕禺賱丕賯蹖
August 2, 2020
亘賵丕爻胤踿 乇蹖賵蹖賵蹖 噩丿蹖丿蹖 讴賴 乇賵蹖 讴鬲丕亘 賳賵卮鬲賴 卮丿賴 亘賵丿 丿蹖丿賲 讴賴 賮賯胤 丿賵 爻鬲丕乇賴 亘賴 丌賳 丿丕丿賴鈥屫з�. 禺蹖賱蹖 賲鬲毓噩亘 卮丿賲.貙 趩賵賳 夭蹖乇 爻胤乇賴丕蹖 夭蹖丕丿蹖 丕夭 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 禺胤 讴卮蹖丿賴鈥屫з� 賵 鬲丕 亘賴 丨丕賱 趩賳丿 亘丕乇 亘賴 丌賳 乇噩賵毓 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з� 賵 丕鬲賮丕賯丕賸 賳丕賲踿 爻乇诏卮丕丿賴鈥屫з� 亘賴 丿讴鬲乇 胤亘丕胤亘丕蹖蹖 乇丕 賴賲 亘丕 爻胤乇蹖 丕夭 賴賲蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘賴 倬丕蹖丕賳 亘乇丿賴鈥屫з�. 禺賵丕賳丿賳卮 乇丕 賴賲 亘賴 丿賵爻鬲丕賳 賲禺鬲賱賮蹖 鬲賵囟蹖賴 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з�. 禺賱丕氐賴 丕蹖賳讴賴 丕乇夭卮诏匕丕乇蹖鈥屫з� 亘乇 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賮丕賯丿 賴乇 诏賵賳賴 丕乇夭卮 丕爻鬲!鈥�
May 27, 2021
Letto e finito con molta fatica, purtroppo non ho mai studiato filosofia e quindi ho potuto apprezzare solo in parte: quello che posso dire e' che non vorrei essere stata tedesca nel 1945.
January 14, 2023
today, in the days when Russian missiles destroy the homes of innocent people and doom millions of people to horror, today this book should become an instruction for self-awareness for every Russian. questions about the guilt and responsibility of every individual for the actions of the terrorist regime are again relevant and loudly asked. for me, this article by Jaspers has a therapeutic effect, the thoughts, expressed by the author, help me to consciously approach the questions asked of me, as a citizen of a terrorist state, about the degree of guilt for the actions of the state, it helps not to go to extremes: such as boundless self-abasement or complete justification. I think that I will re-read this book more than once in the coming years.
May 14, 2011
I found this timely and moving, though it was written in 1945. Jaspers explores the various internal responses that Germans had available to them in the aftermath of WW2.
What's timely and valuable to read now, as an American, is to see how powerful it is to reflect upon the actions of your country. The USA has worked itself into a position where it is utterly incapable of learning from its past. This is because the myth of American Exceptionalism must be preserved, and thus the US has never made any mistakes... or rather the only mistakes it has ever made were in being not warlike enough or not "American" enough (e.g. "We only lost in Vietnam because the politicians wouldn't let us really fight.").
A particularly chilling line in this book was when Jaspers, filled with gratitude that the world rose up to defeat Hitler (and thus, along with everything else, free the anti-Hitler Germans still trapped in Germany), warned that if a similar despot ever took power in the US, that all would be lost.
I'm not saying we're on the brink of fascism just yet, but there remain disturbing signs, and I'd feel a lot better about the way forward if I saw any ability in our leaders AND OUR PEOPLE to admit that we've made horrible mistakes and, yes, done horrible things as a nation, and that we must choose to make the US better each day, every day. It's absurd to think we're "destined for greatness"--we must work toward it.
What's timely and valuable to read now, as an American, is to see how powerful it is to reflect upon the actions of your country. The USA has worked itself into a position where it is utterly incapable of learning from its past. This is because the myth of American Exceptionalism must be preserved, and thus the US has never made any mistakes... or rather the only mistakes it has ever made were in being not warlike enough or not "American" enough (e.g. "We only lost in Vietnam because the politicians wouldn't let us really fight.").
A particularly chilling line in this book was when Jaspers, filled with gratitude that the world rose up to defeat Hitler (and thus, along with everything else, free the anti-Hitler Germans still trapped in Germany), warned that if a similar despot ever took power in the US, that all would be lost.
I'm not saying we're on the brink of fascism just yet, but there remain disturbing signs, and I'd feel a lot better about the way forward if I saw any ability in our leaders AND OUR PEOPLE to admit that we've made horrible mistakes and, yes, done horrible things as a nation, and that we must choose to make the US better each day, every day. It's absurd to think we're "destined for greatness"--we must work toward it.
February 2, 2018
Que lucidez extrema, que capacidade de ponderar enquanto a hist贸ria est谩 acontecendo.
August 1, 2017
In this book, a German professor speaks to German university students about guilt just after the Second World War had ended. The book is condensed from his lectures. There is some mention of the Holocaust, but it is not as central as I would have expected. To some extent, the question of this book is more "how are we still doing this -- going to class, listening to professors, being a nation?" and the answer seems to be through an exploration of guilt, which Jaspers breaks into four types: criminal, political, moral, and metaphysical.
February 17, 2018
This small book is obviously an occasional work, prompted by the uneasy relationship between Germans and the rest of the world after the War. Competing voices were present at that time: on the one hand, the pervasive charge on the Germans' being "guilty", as a people, for the war crimes and the holocaust by the Third Reich; on the other hand, the lamentation on the Germans' part about their sufferings after the war and the great burden on their lives. Jaspers wanted to address both, but to avoid their conflict by distinguishing among different level of consideration. The emphasis was not so much on the assessment of past crimes, or about deciding the just retribution, than about transforming the unique situation as an opportunity of fundamental inner-renewal of the Germans. In other words, the book embodied a specific project of "healing", not by forgetting what had happened, but precisely by remembering them and genuinely appropriating their meaning - although some of Jasper's own convictions were smuggled into what eventually turns out to be that meaning.
Jaspers saw the war memory as traumatic: people at the time tended to flee from what had happened, either by retreating into silence, or by simply reversing values of the Reich. Very few would give serious and patient consideration to the moral situation after the war. Faced with this, Jaspers urges people to reach out and to talk with each other. The idea behind is that discourse helps heal the trauma; it was precisely lack of communication that was the most enduring legacy of the war.
In order to do justice to the victims on the one hand and to reserve the possibility of recovery for the German people on the other, Jaspers distinguishes among four levels of guilt: the criminal, the political, the moral, and the metaphysical.
The criminal guilt was derived directly from the trials after the war. Jaspers noted that criminal guilt applied only to the individual criminals, not to the German people as a whole. This distinction was usually neglected, because the criminals were regarded as exemplary of the Germans in the Reich: "in their persons the people are also condemned" (46). But, as it shall become clear, this condemnation belongs more properly to another level.
By contrast, the political guilt was laid on the German people as a while. They shared the duty of compensating for the wrongs done by the Reich, and of standing all the consequent material scarcity. This judgment was supported by the idea of the pervasiveness of political affiliation. One could not simply claim zero participation in the crimes so as to exempt oneself from liability, because in a modern society, where technology links everyone together, it is simply impossible to stay aloof to the political situation. As everyone could have stopped the Nazi from seizing power, claiming to have been detached or impotent only betrayed a nihilistic pretense.
The third level, the moral guilt, was the locus of condemnation - and also of repentance. Instead of making it primarily public, however, Jaspers' version of moral guilt was primarily introvert: it arose in "the individual analyzing himself" (57). We can recognize a small act of revolt here: first, the moral guilt was supposed to be based on conversation and a minimal sense of mutual respect, so that there was no obligation to morally repent towards a dogmatic accuser (though political obligations held still); second, external accusation was not enough for the initiation and persistence pf moral repentance; what lied at the core, however, was an internally inspired wish to renew one's personality.
There are several elements in this renewal. First, the duty to one's fatherland should be distinguished from the duty to someone who happened to seize the power of the state. The latter is characterized as blind obedience, for after all it is only "the German character" (59), not any particular government, that matters. The inability to distinguish when hearing an "order" was part of the source of the tragedy.
Second, it is important not to be engaged in various kinds of self-deception. To wait until justice is done by whoever else, or to blame the allies so as to alleviate one's own moral burden, or worse to claim to have always been revolting despite every sign of obedience- there were symptoms of a generation that had been suffering under a totalitarian power. Self-deception had been a strategy of survival, but there was no point of retaining it when the war was over. If one flees when it is unnecessary to flee, she'll never face his own moral guilt, and hence cannot undergo the personal renewal.
The last kind of guilt was the metaphysical guilt. Jaspers defined it as "the lack of absolute solidarity with the human being as such" (65). It was attached to the fact that the holocaust was not just an occasional crime carried out by an evil people, but rather resulted from a fundamental deficiency in humanity. The Shoah rendered human being as a whole ashamed before God. In this sense, we should not just blame the German people, as if in this way we exempt ourselves from any kind of guilt. Rather, we should be aware that radical evil is inherent in human being, especially in a technocratic age. The metaphysical guilt is universal and inescapable.
Lying behind this distinction of levels of guilt was Jaspers' ambition to internalize the moral situation of German people after the war: instead of passively accepting the situation or dodging into self-deception, Jaspers urged the Germans to actively re-appropriate their identity. This, as he says, was "a common inspiring task - of not being Germans as we happen to be, but becoming German as we are not yet but ought to be, and as we hear it in the call of our ancestors rather than in the history of national idols." (75) Fundamentally, Jaspers did not believe that there was anything essentially wrong with the German character or its cultural heritage at large; once truthfully developed, it would fend people against delusions of national socialism. The whole project resonated the existentialist notion of authenticity, of truly becoming oneself when one has always already lost oneself.
Interestingly, Jaspers made the case by a comparison to the slave in Hegel's master-slave dialectics. He wrote: "the decision to stay alive in impotence and servitude is an act of life-building sincerity. It results in a metamorphosis that modifies all values." (103) Jaspers had in mind the harsh situation imposed on the Germans after the war as well as their choice, mostly implicit, to live in impotence rather than to die. Jaspers saw in this choice a positive opportunity: "it is the servant rather than the master who bears the spiritual future" (103), because the servant's character is more introvert and reflective. This is directly opposed to vengence, which "keep[s] reacting to every attack with a counterattack" (115). By distancing oneself from attacks and accusations, whether just or unjust, and by carrying out a self-examination of conscience, the slave makes her situation harmless and even productive.
This, however, is where Jaspers had his own Christian input. That "humility and moderation" (117) he proposed was actually a silent revolt, because external accusations were degraded to a mere means to reflection, and hence trivialized: regardless of whether there were accusations or not, the reflection would go on anyway - "we" need them only to the extent that "they enable us to check up on our own thought" (116). Here we find the Christian defiance of political values: it wouldn't even react to them, but instead only recreates them anew, making the original claim superfluous. To every "you should" it replies with an "I was about to". One might doubt whether such recreated value was faithful to the call of the time, as well as whether the tonality of a revival of German tradition run a risk of detachment from the rest of the world. At any rate, genuine communication was handicapped, not enhanced, by this introversion.
That being said, it remains true that Jaspers' observation of the psychology of post-war reactions had its intrinsic value, which could not be undermined by the occasional character of the whole book. For example, he talked about the "zeal to have the other admit guilt", about "the feeling of guiltlessness" which "holds itself entitled to hold others guilty" (100). The zeal arose from an escape from genuine repentance, because in this accusation, or in "an urge to confess" (101), the lustful will to power was all the more present. Confession in this case always carried with it an unjustified moment of empowerment.
Jaspers saw the war memory as traumatic: people at the time tended to flee from what had happened, either by retreating into silence, or by simply reversing values of the Reich. Very few would give serious and patient consideration to the moral situation after the war. Faced with this, Jaspers urges people to reach out and to talk with each other. The idea behind is that discourse helps heal the trauma; it was precisely lack of communication that was the most enduring legacy of the war.
In order to do justice to the victims on the one hand and to reserve the possibility of recovery for the German people on the other, Jaspers distinguishes among four levels of guilt: the criminal, the political, the moral, and the metaphysical.
The criminal guilt was derived directly from the trials after the war. Jaspers noted that criminal guilt applied only to the individual criminals, not to the German people as a whole. This distinction was usually neglected, because the criminals were regarded as exemplary of the Germans in the Reich: "in their persons the people are also condemned" (46). But, as it shall become clear, this condemnation belongs more properly to another level.
By contrast, the political guilt was laid on the German people as a while. They shared the duty of compensating for the wrongs done by the Reich, and of standing all the consequent material scarcity. This judgment was supported by the idea of the pervasiveness of political affiliation. One could not simply claim zero participation in the crimes so as to exempt oneself from liability, because in a modern society, where technology links everyone together, it is simply impossible to stay aloof to the political situation. As everyone could have stopped the Nazi from seizing power, claiming to have been detached or impotent only betrayed a nihilistic pretense.
The third level, the moral guilt, was the locus of condemnation - and also of repentance. Instead of making it primarily public, however, Jaspers' version of moral guilt was primarily introvert: it arose in "the individual analyzing himself" (57). We can recognize a small act of revolt here: first, the moral guilt was supposed to be based on conversation and a minimal sense of mutual respect, so that there was no obligation to morally repent towards a dogmatic accuser (though political obligations held still); second, external accusation was not enough for the initiation and persistence pf moral repentance; what lied at the core, however, was an internally inspired wish to renew one's personality.
There are several elements in this renewal. First, the duty to one's fatherland should be distinguished from the duty to someone who happened to seize the power of the state. The latter is characterized as blind obedience, for after all it is only "the German character" (59), not any particular government, that matters. The inability to distinguish when hearing an "order" was part of the source of the tragedy.
Second, it is important not to be engaged in various kinds of self-deception. To wait until justice is done by whoever else, or to blame the allies so as to alleviate one's own moral burden, or worse to claim to have always been revolting despite every sign of obedience- there were symptoms of a generation that had been suffering under a totalitarian power. Self-deception had been a strategy of survival, but there was no point of retaining it when the war was over. If one flees when it is unnecessary to flee, she'll never face his own moral guilt, and hence cannot undergo the personal renewal.
The last kind of guilt was the metaphysical guilt. Jaspers defined it as "the lack of absolute solidarity with the human being as such" (65). It was attached to the fact that the holocaust was not just an occasional crime carried out by an evil people, but rather resulted from a fundamental deficiency in humanity. The Shoah rendered human being as a whole ashamed before God. In this sense, we should not just blame the German people, as if in this way we exempt ourselves from any kind of guilt. Rather, we should be aware that radical evil is inherent in human being, especially in a technocratic age. The metaphysical guilt is universal and inescapable.
Lying behind this distinction of levels of guilt was Jaspers' ambition to internalize the moral situation of German people after the war: instead of passively accepting the situation or dodging into self-deception, Jaspers urged the Germans to actively re-appropriate their identity. This, as he says, was "a common inspiring task - of not being Germans as we happen to be, but becoming German as we are not yet but ought to be, and as we hear it in the call of our ancestors rather than in the history of national idols." (75) Fundamentally, Jaspers did not believe that there was anything essentially wrong with the German character or its cultural heritage at large; once truthfully developed, it would fend people against delusions of national socialism. The whole project resonated the existentialist notion of authenticity, of truly becoming oneself when one has always already lost oneself.
Interestingly, Jaspers made the case by a comparison to the slave in Hegel's master-slave dialectics. He wrote: "the decision to stay alive in impotence and servitude is an act of life-building sincerity. It results in a metamorphosis that modifies all values." (103) Jaspers had in mind the harsh situation imposed on the Germans after the war as well as their choice, mostly implicit, to live in impotence rather than to die. Jaspers saw in this choice a positive opportunity: "it is the servant rather than the master who bears the spiritual future" (103), because the servant's character is more introvert and reflective. This is directly opposed to vengence, which "keep[s] reacting to every attack with a counterattack" (115). By distancing oneself from attacks and accusations, whether just or unjust, and by carrying out a self-examination of conscience, the slave makes her situation harmless and even productive.
This, however, is where Jaspers had his own Christian input. That "humility and moderation" (117) he proposed was actually a silent revolt, because external accusations were degraded to a mere means to reflection, and hence trivialized: regardless of whether there were accusations or not, the reflection would go on anyway - "we" need them only to the extent that "they enable us to check up on our own thought" (116). Here we find the Christian defiance of political values: it wouldn't even react to them, but instead only recreates them anew, making the original claim superfluous. To every "you should" it replies with an "I was about to". One might doubt whether such recreated value was faithful to the call of the time, as well as whether the tonality of a revival of German tradition run a risk of detachment from the rest of the world. At any rate, genuine communication was handicapped, not enhanced, by this introversion.
That being said, it remains true that Jaspers' observation of the psychology of post-war reactions had its intrinsic value, which could not be undermined by the occasional character of the whole book. For example, he talked about the "zeal to have the other admit guilt", about "the feeling of guiltlessness" which "holds itself entitled to hold others guilty" (100). The zeal arose from an escape from genuine repentance, because in this accusation, or in "an urge to confess" (101), the lustful will to power was all the more present. Confession in this case always carried with it an unjustified moment of empowerment.
February 3, 2020
丌蹖丕 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏� 丿乇 賯亘丕賱 噩賳丕蹖鬲鈥屬囏� 丌賱賲丕賳 賳丕夭蹖 賲賯氐乇賳丿責 丕爻丕爻丕 賵賯鬲蹖 丕夭 丨讴賵賲鬲鈥屬囏й� 賮丕噩毓賴鈥屫①佖臂屬� 丨乇賮 賲蹖鈥屫操嗃屬� 鬲丕 趩賴 丨丿 丕丨爻丕爻 鬲賯氐蹖乇 賵 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲 乇丕 賲鬲賵噩賴 賲乇丿賲丕賳鈥屫ж� 賲蹖鈥屫з嗃屬呚� 丌蹖丕 賵賯鬲蹖 倬丕爻禺 丕毓鬲乇丕囟 賲乇丿賲 丿乇 賴賲趩賵 噩丕賲毓賴鈥屫й� 诏賱賵賱賴 丕爻鬲貙 賲蹖鈥屫ㄘй屫池� 丌賳鈥屬囏� 讴賴 爻丕讴鬲 賲丕賳丿賳丿 乇丕 賲賯氐乇 鬲賱賯蹖 讴乇丿責 丌蹖丕 丌賳賴丕 讴賴 丿乇 賲賵賯毓蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 亘丨乇丕賳貙 噩賱丕蹖 賵胤賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賲賯氐乇賳丿責 賵賯鬲蹖 丕夭 芦賮乇丕賲賵卮 賳讴乇丿賳禄 噩賳丕蹖丕鬲 丨乇賮 賲蹖鈥屫操嗃屬呚� 賲賳馗賵乇賲丕賳 亘賴 丿賵卮 讴卮蹖丿賳 睾賲蹖 丕亘丿蹖 丕爻鬲 蹖丕 爻毓蹖 丿乇 噩亘乇丕賳賽 鬲賯氐蹖乇責
蹖丕爻倬乇爻 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 倬丕爻禺 亘賴 丕蹖賳 爻賵丕賱丕鬲 讴賵卮蹖丿賴. 讴賵卮卮鈥屫ж� 乇丕 賴賲 亘丕 鬲賯爻蹖賲 鬲賯氐蹖乇 亘賴 趩賴丕乇 賳賵毓 卮乇賵毓 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 鬲賯氐蹖乇 噩夭丕蹖蹖貙 鬲賯氐蹖乇 丕禺賱丕賯蹖貙 鬲賯氐蹖乇 賲鬲丕賮蹖夭蹖讴蹖 賵 鬲賯氐蹖乇 爻蹖丕爻蹖.
讴賴 亘賴 胤賵乇 禺賱丕氐賴 蹖毓賳蹖 鬲賯氐蹖乇 丌賳丕賳蹖 讴賴 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮丕噩毓賴 賳賯卮 丿丕卮鬲賴鈥屫з嗀� 鬲賯氐蹖乇 丌賳丕賳蹖 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀池団€屫з嗀� 讴丕乇蹖 讴賳賳丿 丕賲丕 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 賲賳丕賮毓卮丕賳 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 噩賳丕蹖鬲 爻讴賵鬲 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 鬲賯氐蹖乇 兀賳丕賳蹖 讴賴 丕夭 鬲乇爻 噩丕賳卮丕賳 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 賲蹖賱 爻讴賵鬲 賵 蹖丕 噩賱丕蹖 賵胤賳 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賵 鬲賯氐蹖乇 讴卮賵乇賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇蹖 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀池団€屫з嗀� 賲毓丕丿賱賴 乇丕 亘乇 賴賲 亘夭賳賳丿 丕賲丕 鬲氐賲蹖賲 诏乇賮鬲賳丿 趩卮賲 亘乇 噩賳丕蹖丕鬲 賳丕夭蹖鈥屬囏� 亘亘賳丿賳丿.
蹖丕爻倬乇爻 鬲賲丕賲 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏� 賵 禺賵丿卮 乇丕 賲賯氐乇 (亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丿爻鬲賴鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴 鬲毓乇蹖賮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�) 鬲賱賯蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 丕賲丕 乇丕賴賽 噩亘乇丕賳 乇丕 讴賴 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲鈥屬矩佰屫臂� 賲蹖鈥屭柏必� 亘丕夭 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必�.
蹖丕爻倬乇爻 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 倬丕爻禺 亘賴 丕蹖賳 爻賵丕賱丕鬲 讴賵卮蹖丿賴. 讴賵卮卮鈥屫ж� 乇丕 賴賲 亘丕 鬲賯爻蹖賲 鬲賯氐蹖乇 亘賴 趩賴丕乇 賳賵毓 卮乇賵毓 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 鬲賯氐蹖乇 噩夭丕蹖蹖貙 鬲賯氐蹖乇 丕禺賱丕賯蹖貙 鬲賯氐蹖乇 賲鬲丕賮蹖夭蹖讴蹖 賵 鬲賯氐蹖乇 爻蹖丕爻蹖.
讴賴 亘賴 胤賵乇 禺賱丕氐賴 蹖毓賳蹖 鬲賯氐蹖乇 丌賳丕賳蹖 讴賴 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賮丕噩毓賴 賳賯卮 丿丕卮鬲賴鈥屫з嗀� 鬲賯氐蹖乇 丌賳丕賳蹖 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀池団€屫з嗀� 讴丕乇蹖 讴賳賳丿 丕賲丕 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 賲賳丕賮毓卮丕賳 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 噩賳丕蹖鬲 爻讴賵鬲 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 鬲賯氐蹖乇 兀賳丕賳蹖 讴賴 丕夭 鬲乇爻 噩丕賳卮丕賳 亘乇 禺賱丕賮 賲蹖賱 爻讴賵鬲 賵 蹖丕 噩賱丕蹖 賵胤賳 讴乇丿賴鈥屫з嗀� 賵 鬲賯氐蹖乇 讴卮賵乇賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇蹖 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀池団€屫з嗀� 賲毓丕丿賱賴 乇丕 亘乇 賴賲 亘夭賳賳丿 丕賲丕 鬲氐賲蹖賲 诏乇賮鬲賳丿 趩卮賲 亘乇 噩賳丕蹖丕鬲 賳丕夭蹖鈥屬囏� 亘亘賳丿賳丿.
蹖丕爻倬乇爻 鬲賲丕賲 丌賱賲丕賳蹖鈥屬囏� 賵 禺賵丿卮 乇丕 賲賯氐乇 (亘丕 鬲賵噩賴 亘賴 丿爻鬲賴鈥屬囏й屰� 讴賴 鬲毓乇蹖賮 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀�) 鬲賱賯蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 丕賲丕 乇丕賴賽 噩亘乇丕賳 乇丕 讴賴 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 賲爻卅賵賱蹖鬲鈥屬矩佰屫臂� 賲蹖鈥屭柏必� 亘丕夭 賲蹖鈥屭柏ж必�.
June 12, 2007
Jaspers tries to pin down what sorts of guilt can attach to people and peoples, and what the appropriate responses are 鈥� using the experience of the German people during the Nazi regime as his example.
There is an element of 鈥淚 am the professor, I鈥檓 in the front of the room, I have a theoretical edifice, you listen and write it all down good鈥� about all of this. Jaspers doesn鈥檛 really argue his position so much as he declares it, leaving it to stand or fall on how much it matches your own intuition.
I appreciate his attempt to separate categories of guilt, since no generic category seems capable of carrying all of the weight that the concept typically bears 鈥� this itself is enough to vault me to a new and more interesting level of confusion on the subject. And I especially like the way he links the inward work of taking responsibility and self-judging with the outward work of fighting for liberty in the political sphere.
There is an element of 鈥淚 am the professor, I鈥檓 in the front of the room, I have a theoretical edifice, you listen and write it all down good鈥� about all of this. Jaspers doesn鈥檛 really argue his position so much as he declares it, leaving it to stand or fall on how much it matches your own intuition.
I appreciate his attempt to separate categories of guilt, since no generic category seems capable of carrying all of the weight that the concept typically bears 鈥� this itself is enough to vault me to a new and more interesting level of confusion on the subject. And I especially like the way he links the inward work of taking responsibility and self-judging with the outward work of fighting for liberty in the political sphere.
June 11, 2022
This is one of the most relevant and most brilliant books I've read. The clarity of thought is on an unprecedented level. It's profound and kind (and very short!).
It's also a book that should have been a must read for all (European) politicians. It will also be a must read for all Russians once the war is over, not only to understand how to move forward in terms of guilt, responsibility, and purification but also in terms of how to live together, when all feel and reason differently. It is a must read already now for all the Russians who are feeling "something" and are trying to articulate that.
I'm very grateful that this book exists. It's terrible that it's of relevance again. And, unfortunately, it doesn't paint a bright future for the next several years.
It's also a book that should have been a must read for all (European) politicians. It will also be a must read for all Russians once the war is over, not only to understand how to move forward in terms of guilt, responsibility, and purification but also in terms of how to live together, when all feel and reason differently. It is a must read already now for all the Russians who are feeling "something" and are trying to articulate that.
I'm very grateful that this book exists. It's terrible that it's of relevance again. And, unfortunately, it doesn't paint a bright future for the next several years.
December 29, 2011
Although many years have passed Since Karl Jaspers wrote his book on 鈥楾he question of German guilt鈥�. The question on the responsibility of the civilians for their government acts (Whether the Government was elected in a democratic manner or not) is still applies today.
In an era where countries still deny their responsibilities for genocide (such as Turkey). In an era where Governments violently suppress their civilians (such as Libya, Syria), the question of personal responsibility Remains relevant and exceed the Holocaust original context.
In an era where countries still deny their responsibilities for genocide (such as Turkey). In an era where Governments violently suppress their civilians (such as Libya, Syria), the question of personal responsibility Remains relevant and exceed the Holocaust original context.
February 25, 2023
袨斜褟蟹邪褌械谢褜薪芯械 褔褌械薪懈械. 袘褘谢芯 薪械锌褉懈褟褌薪芯, 斜芯谢褜薪芯, 锌芯褋褌芯褟薪薪芯 褎谢械褕斜械褔懈谢芯 胁 胁芯褋锌芯屑懈薪邪薪懈褟 锌褉芯褕谢芯谐芯 谐芯写邪 (写邪, 褍卸械 谐芯写). 袧芯 褝褌芯 胁邪卸薪褘泄 懈 薪褍卸薪褘泄 褉邪蟹谐芯胁芯褉 芯 褌芯屑, 胁 泻邪泻芯泄 褋懈褌褍邪褑懈懈 芯泻邪蟹邪谢懈褋褜 薪械屑褑褘 泻邪泻 锌褉芯懈谐褉邪胁褕懈械 懈 泻邪泻邪褟 芯褌胁械褌褋褌胁械薪薪芯褋褌褜 懈 胁懈薪芯胁薪芯褋褌褜 斜褘胁邪械褌 胁 锌褉懈薪褑懈锌械. 袗 械褖褢 芯 褌芯屑, 泻邪泻 褋写械谢邪褌褜 褌邪泻, 褔褌芯斜褘 薪械 写芯锌褍褋褌懈褌褜 褝褌芯谐芯 胁薪芯胁褜.
January 23, 2018
Did you ever feel guilty because you belong to a group of people? Then this is a book for you...
October 29, 2019
Etikat枚rt茅neti szempontb贸l leny疟g枚z艖 茅s (rem茅lhet艖leg) megism茅telhetetlen pillanat lehetett, amikor Jaspers 鈥�46 janu谩rj谩ban a heidelbergi egyetemen fell茅pett a katedr谩ra, hogy filoz贸fiai 茅rtelemben megvizsg谩lja a n茅met b疟n枚ss茅g k茅rd茅s茅t. Tal谩n az els艖 ilyen ir谩ny煤 t枚rekv茅s volt 鈥� elk茅peszt艖 ez a felel艖ss茅g, nem is csoda, hogy nem tudott t枚k茅letesen megfelelni neki. (Persze egy ilyen feladatba alighanem mindenkinek belet枚rt volna a bicsk谩ja.) Jaspers kezd茅snek elk眉l枚n铆t n茅gy b疟nfogalmat: b眉ntet艖jogit, politikait, mor谩lisat 茅s metafizikait, az els艖ben 茅s a harmadikban felmenti a n茅meteket, mint nemzetet, a m谩sodikban meg a negyedikben pedig elmarasztalja. Sz贸val salamoni d枚nt茅st hoz. Itt els艖sorban az nem tetszett, ahogy a n茅metek mor谩lis 谩rtatlans谩g谩t bizony铆tja: arra hivatkozik, hogy mor谩lisan nem 铆t茅lhet艖 el az茅rt valaki, mert nem 谩ldozza fel az 茅let茅t egy rem茅nytelen 眉gy茅rt. Na ja, de ha nem pr贸b谩lja meg fel谩ldozni az 茅let茅t, akkor honnan tudja, hogy rem茅nytelen? Na j贸, tal谩n m谩shogy besz茅ln茅k, ha ezeket a k茅rd茅seket nekem k茅ne 茅lesben megv谩laszolnom egy kem茅ny diktat煤r谩n bel眉l*鈥� 脷gyhogy ugorjunk ink谩bb.
Enn茅l jobban zavar, hogy Jaspers arra hivatkozik, a sz枚vets茅gesek is r茅szesek a b疟nben, hisz nem akad谩lyozt谩k meg idejekor谩n Hitler gonosztetteit. Ezzel csak az a baj, hogy b谩r racion谩lis 茅rtelemben val贸ban okosabb lett volna (tal谩n) m谩r 鈥�38-ban odacs枚rd铆teni a n谩ciknak, de az m谩r kor谩ntsem egy茅rtelm疟, hogy mor谩lis 茅rtelemben is. Hiszen megf茅kezni a n谩cikat val贸sz铆n疟leg csak fegyveres er艖vel lehetett volna 鈥� vagyis minden bizonnyal (茅s t枚bbek k枚z枚tt) olyan n茅metek 茅lete 谩r谩n, akik (mint Jaspers lesz枚gezi, 茅s helyesen) kollekt铆ve nem b疟n枚sek Hitler tetteiben. Persze k茅s艖bb erre 煤gy is sor ker眉lt, de ha a h谩bor煤t a sz枚vets茅gesek kezdik 鈥� erk枚lcsi 茅rtelemben nem vesz铆tenek t枚bbet, mint 铆gy? Mindenesetre nem k枚nnyen megv谩laszolhat贸 k茅rd茅s.
Mindezzel egy眉tt nagyon fontos k枚nyv a kollekt铆v b疟n枚ss茅g fogalm谩r贸l. Egy k铆s茅rlet, hogy egy nemzet 煤jradefini谩lja 枚nmag谩t. Meg azt谩n Jaspers, ahogy azt az elej茅n is lesz枚gezi, nem tesz m谩st, mint p谩rbesz茅det ind铆t. Nem kinyilatkoztat, hanem v谩rja a reakci贸kat. 脡s ebben az esetben aligha tehet t枚bbet**. Ezt a p谩rbesz茅det innent艖l kezdve m谩soknak kell folytatnia 鈥� nemcsak N茅metorsz谩gban, de m谩sutt is. 鈥濰isz b疟n枚s枚k vagyunk mi, ak谩r a t枚bbi n茅p鈥� 鈥� 铆rta Radn贸ti 鈥�44-ben a kollekt铆v felel艖ss茅gr艖l, 茅s amikor azt mondta: mi, nem azzal a csoporttal azonos铆totta mag谩t, akiknek 鈥瀊疟nei鈥� miatt k茅s艖bb lakolnia kellett. Ha egy nemzet meg akarja hat谩rozni mag谩t, er茅nyeit 茅s eredm茅nyeit, gyarl贸s谩gait 茅s hib谩it egyk茅nt kell vizsg谩lnia. A torz, f茅loldalas 枚n茅rt茅kel茅s疟 nemzetek m谩sokban keresik meg azokat a b疟n枚ket, amiket 枚nmagukban eltagadnak, 茅s ez a t枚rt茅nelmi 谩lmosk枚nyv szerint semmi j贸t nem jelent.
(A k枚tet tartalmazza Hannah Arendt egy nagyon fontos cikk茅t a t茅m谩ban, valamint Csejtei Dezs艖 茅s Juh谩sz Anik贸 korrekt, 茅rtelmez艖 tanulm谩ny谩t.)
* Hannah Arendt erre jegyzi meg, hogy a XX. sz谩zad nagy b疟n枚z艖je a csal谩dapa, aki l茅tbiztons谩g 茅s a csal谩d 茅rdek茅ben megk枚ti a maga kompromisszumait, 茅s nem sz谩ll szembe a tot谩lis 谩llammal, mi t枚bb: legitim谩lja azt.
** M谩s k茅rd茅s, hogy k茅s艖bb elhagyta N茅metorsz谩got, 茅s ezzel valamilyen szinten maga szak铆totta meg a p谩rbesz茅d lehet艖s茅g茅t.
Enn茅l jobban zavar, hogy Jaspers arra hivatkozik, a sz枚vets茅gesek is r茅szesek a b疟nben, hisz nem akad谩lyozt谩k meg idejekor谩n Hitler gonosztetteit. Ezzel csak az a baj, hogy b谩r racion谩lis 茅rtelemben val贸ban okosabb lett volna (tal谩n) m谩r 鈥�38-ban odacs枚rd铆teni a n谩ciknak, de az m谩r kor谩ntsem egy茅rtelm疟, hogy mor谩lis 茅rtelemben is. Hiszen megf茅kezni a n谩cikat val贸sz铆n疟leg csak fegyveres er艖vel lehetett volna 鈥� vagyis minden bizonnyal (茅s t枚bbek k枚z枚tt) olyan n茅metek 茅lete 谩r谩n, akik (mint Jaspers lesz枚gezi, 茅s helyesen) kollekt铆ve nem b疟n枚sek Hitler tetteiben. Persze k茅s艖bb erre 煤gy is sor ker眉lt, de ha a h谩bor煤t a sz枚vets茅gesek kezdik 鈥� erk枚lcsi 茅rtelemben nem vesz铆tenek t枚bbet, mint 铆gy? Mindenesetre nem k枚nnyen megv谩laszolhat贸 k茅rd茅s.
Mindezzel egy眉tt nagyon fontos k枚nyv a kollekt铆v b疟n枚ss茅g fogalm谩r贸l. Egy k铆s茅rlet, hogy egy nemzet 煤jradefini谩lja 枚nmag谩t. Meg azt谩n Jaspers, ahogy azt az elej茅n is lesz枚gezi, nem tesz m谩st, mint p谩rbesz茅det ind铆t. Nem kinyilatkoztat, hanem v谩rja a reakci贸kat. 脡s ebben az esetben aligha tehet t枚bbet**. Ezt a p谩rbesz茅det innent艖l kezdve m谩soknak kell folytatnia 鈥� nemcsak N茅metorsz谩gban, de m谩sutt is. 鈥濰isz b疟n枚s枚k vagyunk mi, ak谩r a t枚bbi n茅p鈥� 鈥� 铆rta Radn贸ti 鈥�44-ben a kollekt铆v felel艖ss茅gr艖l, 茅s amikor azt mondta: mi, nem azzal a csoporttal azonos铆totta mag谩t, akiknek 鈥瀊疟nei鈥� miatt k茅s艖bb lakolnia kellett. Ha egy nemzet meg akarja hat谩rozni mag谩t, er茅nyeit 茅s eredm茅nyeit, gyarl贸s谩gait 茅s hib谩it egyk茅nt kell vizsg谩lnia. A torz, f茅loldalas 枚n茅rt茅kel茅s疟 nemzetek m谩sokban keresik meg azokat a b疟n枚ket, amiket 枚nmagukban eltagadnak, 茅s ez a t枚rt茅nelmi 谩lmosk枚nyv szerint semmi j贸t nem jelent.
(A k枚tet tartalmazza Hannah Arendt egy nagyon fontos cikk茅t a t茅m谩ban, valamint Csejtei Dezs艖 茅s Juh谩sz Anik贸 korrekt, 茅rtelmez艖 tanulm谩ny谩t.)
* Hannah Arendt erre jegyzi meg, hogy a XX. sz谩zad nagy b疟n枚z艖je a csal谩dapa, aki l茅tbiztons谩g 茅s a csal谩d 茅rdek茅ben megk枚ti a maga kompromisszumait, 茅s nem sz谩ll szembe a tot谩lis 谩llammal, mi t枚bb: legitim谩lja azt.
** M谩s k茅rd茅s, hogy k茅s艖bb elhagyta N茅metorsz谩got, 茅s ezzel valamilyen szinten maga szak铆totta meg a p谩rbesz茅d lehet艖s茅g茅t.
February 24, 2017
In the context of post-WWII denazification in Germany, and in light of the Nuremberg trials, Jaspers attempts to objectively understand an essential question - "Are the German people guilty?" - guilty for following military orders and federal law? guilty for allowing a Nazi political takeover? guilty for standing by and watching the systematic extermination of the Jewish people?
He does so through the creation of a four-part philosophical framework of guilt that explores what it means to be held accountable for both action and inaction.
His analyses ring chillingly relevant in today's political landscape.
"True, among our people many were outraged and many deeply moved by a horror containing a presentiment of coming calamity. But even more went right on with their activities, undisturbed in their social life and amusements, as if nothing had happened. That is moral guilt.
But the ones who in utter impotence, outraged and despairing, were unable to prevent the crimes took another step in their metamorphosis by a growing consciousness of metaphysical guilt."
-- "Guilt" (67)
He does so through the creation of a four-part philosophical framework of guilt that explores what it means to be held accountable for both action and inaction.
His analyses ring chillingly relevant in today's political landscape.
"True, among our people many were outraged and many deeply moved by a horror containing a presentiment of coming calamity. But even more went right on with their activities, undisturbed in their social life and amusements, as if nothing had happened. That is moral guilt.
But the ones who in utter impotence, outraged and despairing, were unable to prevent the crimes took another step in their metamorphosis by a growing consciousness of metaphysical guilt."
-- "Guilt" (67)
April 13, 2023
芯褔械薪褜 写胁芯泄褋褌胁械薪薪芯械 芯褖褍褖械薪懈械 芯褌 褝褌芯泄 泻薪懈谐懈. 褋 芯写薪芯泄 褋褌芯褉芯薪褘, 芯褔械薪褜 锌芯写褉芯斜薪褘泄 懈 锌芯谢械蟹薪褘泄 褉邪蟹斜芯褉 胁懈薪褘 懈 芯褌胁械褌褋褌胁械薪薪芯褋褌懈, 谢懈褔薪芯泄 懈 泻芯谢谢械泻褌懈胁薪芯泄, 屑芯褉邪谢褜薪芯泄 懈 屑械褌邪褎懈蟹懈褔械褋泻芯泄, 薪芯 械褋谢懈 胁褘 褋懈写懈褌械 胁 褌胁懈褌褌械褉械, 胁褘 胁褋褢 褝褌芯 褍卸械 锌褉芯褔懈褌邪谢懈 懈 薪械 芯写懈薪 褉邪蟹. 褔褌芯 屑械薪褟 谢懈褔薪芯 锌芯写斜械褕懈胁邪械褌, 褌邪泻 褝褌芯 褋褉邪蟹褍 褋 锌械褉胁褘褏 卸械 褎褉邪蟹 薪械芯斜褋褍卸写邪械屑芯械 薪邪谢懈褔懈械 斜芯谐邪. 懈 胁 褑械谢芯屑 泻薪懈谐邪 芯褔械薪褜 褍卸 锌芯褏芯卸邪 薪邪 锌褉芯锌芯胁械写褜, 锌褉芯锌芯胁械写褜 褋屑懈褉械薪懈褟, 薪褉邪胁褋褌胁械薪薪芯谐芯 锌械褉械褉芯卸写械薪懈褟 懈 锌褉.
褔褌芯 褏芯褉芯褕械谐芯, 褏芯褌褟 褝褌芯 泻芯薪械褔薪芯 "褏芯褉芯褕芯" 胁械褋褜屑邪 褍褋谢芯胁薪芯, 褋屑械褏 褋泻胁芯蟹褜 褋谢械蟹褘, 褌邪泻 褝褌芯 锌芯褉邪蟹懈褌械谢褜薪邪褟 锌芯褏芯卸械褋褌褜 褋 薪褘薪械褕薪械泄 薪邪褕械泄 褋懈褌褍邪褑懈械泄. 锌芯褏芯卸械褋褌褜 褔褌芯 胁 锌芯胁械写械薪懈懈 谐芯褋褍写邪褉褋褌胁, 褔褌芯 胁 芯斜褖械褋褌胁械薪薪芯屑 屑薪械薪懈懈, 写邪 写邪卸械 胁芯褌 褝褌芯 胁蟹邪懈屑薪芯械 芯斜胁懈薪械薪懈械 褍械褏邪胁褕懈褏 懈 芯褋褌邪胁褕懈褏褋褟 - 锌褉芯褋褌芯 褌芯 卸械 褋邪屑芯械, 褔褌芯 褟 褋械谐芯写薪褟 芯锌褟褌褜 锌褉芯褔懈褌邪谢邪 胁 褌胁懈褌械褉械.
泻芯谐写邪 薪懈斜褍写褜 谢褞写懈 懈蟹屑械薪褟褌褋褟?
褔褌芯 褏芯褉芯褕械谐芯, 褏芯褌褟 褝褌芯 泻芯薪械褔薪芯 "褏芯褉芯褕芯" 胁械褋褜屑邪 褍褋谢芯胁薪芯, 褋屑械褏 褋泻胁芯蟹褜 褋谢械蟹褘, 褌邪泻 褝褌芯 锌芯褉邪蟹懈褌械谢褜薪邪褟 锌芯褏芯卸械褋褌褜 褋 薪褘薪械褕薪械泄 薪邪褕械泄 褋懈褌褍邪褑懈械泄. 锌芯褏芯卸械褋褌褜 褔褌芯 胁 锌芯胁械写械薪懈懈 谐芯褋褍写邪褉褋褌胁, 褔褌芯 胁 芯斜褖械褋褌胁械薪薪芯屑 屑薪械薪懈懈, 写邪 写邪卸械 胁芯褌 褝褌芯 胁蟹邪懈屑薪芯械 芯斜胁懈薪械薪懈械 褍械褏邪胁褕懈褏 懈 芯褋褌邪胁褕懈褏褋褟 - 锌褉芯褋褌芯 褌芯 卸械 褋邪屑芯械, 褔褌芯 褟 褋械谐芯写薪褟 芯锌褟褌褜 锌褉芯褔懈褌邪谢邪 胁 褌胁懈褌械褉械.
泻芯谐写邪 薪懈斜褍写褜 谢褞写懈 懈蟹屑械薪褟褌褋褟?
Read
October 22, 2022Pro膷itao 2/3.
April 19, 2022
孝邪泻 褋褌褉邪薪薪芯 褋屑芯褌褉械褌褜 褋褌邪褉褘械 芯褌蟹褘胁褘 薪邪 褝褌褍 泻薪懈谐褍 懈 胁懈写械褌褜 芦芯褔械薪褜 锌褉芯褌懈胁芯褉械褔懈胁芯禄, 芦褋谢懈褕泻芯屑 屑薪芯谐芯 褋芯褎懈褋褌懈泻懈禄 懈 褌.写. 袙褋锌芯屑懈薪邪褞 泻邪泻 褋邪屑邪 褔懈褌邪谢邪 褝褌芯 谢械褌 写械褋褟褌褜 薪邪蟹邪写 懈 胁懈卸褍 斜芯谢褜褕褍褞 褉邪蟹薪懈褑褍. 袧械胁芯蟹屑芯卸薪芯 胁芯褋锌褉懈薪懈屑邪褌褜 褝褌芯 芯褌褋褌褉邪薪褢薪薪芯 胁 褋胁械褌械 胁芯泄薪褘. 袣褌芯-褌芯 屑械褋褟褑 薪邪蟹邪写 褋泻邪蟹邪谢, 褔褌芯 褝褌芯 芦写芯谢卸薪芯 褋褌邪褌褜 薪邪褋褌芯谢褜薪芯泄 泻薪懈谐芯泄 泻邪卸写芯谐芯 褉褍褋褋泻芯谐芯 褔械谢芯胁械泻邪禄, 懈 褟 褋 褝褌懈屑 褋芯谐谢邪褋薪邪. 袧芯 褟 斜褘 懈 褋泻邪蟹邪谢邪, 褔褌芯 褝褌芯 胁芯芯斜褖械 写芯谢卸薪芯 褋褌邪褌褜 薪邪褋褌芯谢褜薪芯泄 泻薪懈谐芯泄 写谢褟 屑薪芯谐懈褏, 泻褌芯 薪械 胁胁褟蟹邪薪 胁芯泄薪褍 薪械锌芯褋褉械写褋褌胁械薪薪芯 胁 2022-屑, 锌芯褌芯屑褍 褔褌芯 携褋锌械褉褋 谐芯胁芯褉懈褌 芯 胁褋褢屑 屑懈褉械, 芯斜 芯褕懈斜泻邪褏, 泻芯褌芯褉褘械 胁褘谢械蟹谢懈 胁 褉邪蟹斜懈褉邪褌械谢褜褋褌胁邪褏 褋褍写械斜薪褘褏 懈 芯 屑芯褉邪谢褜薪芯泄 芯褌褋褌褉邪薪械薪薪芯褋褌懈 谢褞写械泄, 胁 泻芯薪褎谢懈泻褌 薪械 胁芯胁谢械褔褢薪薪褘褏, 薪芯 褎芯褉屑懈褉褍褞褖懈褏 邪泻褌懈胁薪芯械 芯 薪械屑 屑薪械薪懈械.
袚褉褍褋褌薪芯 懈 薪械胁褘薪芯褋懈屑芯 斜芯谢褜薪芯 锌械褉械褔懈褌褘胁邪褌褜 褝褌芯 褋械泄褔邪褋. 袧芯 懈 屑薪芯谐芯 薪邪写械卸写褘 锌褉懈 锌械褉械褔懈褌褘胁邪薪懈懈, 锌芯褌芯屑褍 褔褌芯 蟹写械褋褜 械褋褌褜 胁械褉邪 胁 褌芯, 褔褌芯 泻 褋胁械褌褍 芯斜褉邪褌懈褌褜褋褟 锌芯谢褍褔懈褌褋褟
袚褉褍褋褌薪芯 懈 薪械胁褘薪芯褋懈屑芯 斜芯谢褜薪芯 锌械褉械褔懈褌褘胁邪褌褜 褝褌芯 褋械泄褔邪褋. 袧芯 懈 屑薪芯谐芯 薪邪写械卸写褘 锌褉懈 锌械褉械褔懈褌褘胁邪薪懈懈, 锌芯褌芯屑褍 褔褌芯 蟹写械褋褜 械褋褌褜 胁械褉邪 胁 褌芯, 褔褌芯 泻 褋胁械褌褍 芯斜褉邪褌懈褌褜褋褟 锌芯谢褍褔懈褌褋褟
January 26, 2018
Fascinante. Ao analisar a culpa do povo alem茫o sob o nazismo, Jaspers vai al茅m, e d谩 um testemunho l煤cido de f茅 na humanidade.
April 15, 2023
When the investigation muddies the subject.
The pressing question, "What is to be done with the Germans," is a rephrasing of that other notorious German Question. Note that in 1945 history has not yet settled out so smoothly. The German Solution is still on the table, and it is with a sense of this adrenaline-dread moment that Jaspers' work on Guilt should be understood. That is, if we are to come into an understanding of its primary function as an exculpatory project.
The four categories put forth by Jaspers are particularly muddled. In contrast with what appears to be the impression of many readers, they are not a very useful scaffold for the discussion of guilt. If we are more attentive, we find that in Jaspers' work there are, in fact, only two categories: the Guilty and the Not-Guilty, and Jaspers is interested in delimiting these categories as strongly as possible.
On the Guilty Category (Criminal Guilt)
If we acknowledge that the Reich's apparatus made such acts non-criminal and instead judge on the basis of, "natural law and international law, if not the positive law in force at the time in one鈥檚 own country," then we can easily condemn those who operated the killing fields and everyone up the chain. Though Jaspers appears to be begging the question with his assumption that criminal acts can be straightforwardly delimited and tried, such that he has already separated the guilty from the not-guilty before the discussion has begun. ("What about the auxiliary units without which the function of the death squads would not have been possible, and those who made denouncements with knowledge of what would happen, and those who appropriated property and still possess it..." "What about those Einsatzgruppen members and camp guards who only carried out orders due to compulsion on penalty of death and those officers who did the same, and those commanders who did the same...") (Within a year of the publication of this text, the Nuremburg trials will already have shown Jaspers' approach to be outdated.) The omission of so-called "marginal cases" would be striking if we did not understand that the objective is the delimitation of the Einsatzgruppen from the German. Jaspers is also aware his definition of "natural law" implicates the Allied bombing of Dresden and other acts of Total War, and we might notice that he subsequently pardons these acts with the implication that neither side is in the position to be inquiring after skeletons in closets.
On the Not-Guilty Categories
The remaining categories are for those who "have already been punished enough." Political guilt: for victims of circumstance. Moral guilt: a self-condemnation which is already its own punishment. Metaphysical guilt: the only necessary deutero-category: an explicitly exculpatory category which exists to explain the suspicions of guilt which persist despite, in Jaspers' opinion, not being guilty in the strict sense. That the Holocaust requires an unprecedented framework for the judgment of those, such as Eichmann, who could not even do violence to another body, yet arranged the deaths of millions, remains an open question. In a sense, the text appears to be an artifact of pre-war ideology. Hannah Arendt would remark, in her comments on the Eichmann trial, the paradoxical fact that as responsibility for mass-killings increased, one became by degrees more abstracted from the violence of the killing fields.
(I will remark here, in passing, the framework for a slightly more robust scheme for the discussion of guilt based on Jaspers' priors. It seems he would like to categorize guilt according to two dipoles: first, that of 'accomplished' actions which have occurred versus 'speculative' actions which have not occurred but could have, and, second, that of 'definite' processes which are the (almost) certain consequences of actions versus 'aleatory' processes which are not guaranteed consequences. If we imagine a 2x2 grid, Jaspers would consider guilty all 'accomplished' and 'definite' actions, such as executing someone with a firearm and signing paperwork authorizing the execution. All 'accomplished' and 'aleatory' actions, such as cooking food for the executioner, are 'not guilty.' All 'speculative' and 'definite' actions, such as not having intervened to fire upon the executioner, are 'not guilty.' All 'speculative' and 'aleatory' actions, such as not having been more politically active against the executioner's party, are 'not guilty.' This clarifies the discussion without as many redundant categories, but also highlights the problemata involved in the judgment of marginal cases (Is the camp guard performing a 'definite' or 'aleatory' action when, although he does nothing, by his presence prevents the escape attempt of a would-be victim...).) (The concept of 'speculative'-'aleatory' action as a viable criterion for guilt is the basis of an interesting discussion to be had regarding the quality of guilt/sin as "luxury dissolved into the atmosphere," now with particular reference to the climate emergency as tragedy of the commons and the doctrine of original sin with respect to consumption and desire. Either way, it is clear those who so readily condemn 'speculative' actions for others are not quite aware of the portentous weight of opening this category up to the guilt-judgment.)
What is to be done with the German People
The text has a response for readers, both the Non-German and the German. For the Non-German, the text is meant to address the (not uncommon) sentiment that the German people, as a whole, are guilty (mostly as aggressors and initiators of the world war). Though perhaps correct that the German people are not much worse than any other, the urgency of this proof produces some contortions. The ready employment of the "master-slave dialectic" demonstrates that, in confronting and disarming the Germans, we are actually making them nobler, stronger: "The decision to stay alive in impotence and servitude is an act of life-building sincerity." The, ironic, implication being that you would really punish the Germans by allowing re-unification and re-armament, which would therefore make them worse. The consideration of the possibility that the United States could become a fascist autarchy, which some readers have remarked as prescient, is merely the logically necessary argument for German re-armament to "disrupt the emerging US-USSR dipole," which does not appear to be an uncommon sentiment, even at the time.
For the German, the message is one of upbuilding. First, by exculpating the German from the guilt of the war, Jaspers permits a recognition of the past, which the German, aware of his likely guilt, does not even begin to recognize. This is probably a good thing. For those who are able to at least get that far, Jaspers would like them to made into productive, liberal citizens, acting to better the world in cognizance of sublimation of the guilt associated with living under the Reich.
But perhaps he goes a bit too far in the practice of sage burning, because we can sense an opening of Jaspers up into a reading of Deleuze, with consequences Jaspers might shrink from. If we are not to punish the fulminant anti-Semite simply because he hasn't killed anyone, why should we proceed with the punishment of the so-called "criminally guilty" who are now disarmed and unlikely to become recidivists. If punishment does not prevent a future crime, nor act as a form of restitution, should we not also refrain here as well (especially in light of the consequences of the Nuremburg trials in which many in Jaspers' "criminally guilty" category were also found to be not-guilty), and with recognition of the carceral punishment as actually never justified, per Deleuze, "The guilty party escapes in the moment punishment is applied to the body and reifies a different person."
December 22, 2020
Fil贸sofo e psiquiatra alem茫o, Karl Jaspers fora desligado de seu cargo na Universidade de Heidelberg em 1937 pelo regime nazista. Readmitido em 1945 鈥� e, posteriormente, passando a lecionar filosofia na Universidade da Basileia 鈥�, Jaspers concebe 鈥淎 quest茫o da culpa鈥� por ocasi茫o dos julgamentos de Nuremberg. Nessa obra, o intelectual busca resgatar a consci锚ncia moral de um povo e uma na莽茫o que viram nascer e culminar o nazismo. Contudo, 茅 poss铆vel culpar o povo alem茫o? 脡 poss铆vel culpar apenas o povo alem茫o? 鈥淭odos os Estados reconheceram o regime hitlerista. [鈥 Em 1936, foi celebrada a Olimp铆ada em Berlim. [鈥 Com irrita莽茫o secreta e dor, v铆amos os estrangeiros que l谩 apareciam e que nos tinham abandonado 脿 pr贸pria sorte鈥搈as eles sabiam t茫o pouco quanto boa parte dos alem茫es. Em 1936, a Ren芒nia foi ocupada por Hitler. A Fran莽a tolerou. Em 1938, foi publicada no Times uma carta aberta de Churchill a Hitler, na qual se liam frases como esta: 鈥楽e a Inglaterra vier a entrar em uma desgra莽a nacional semelhante 脿 da Alemanha em 1918, eu pedirei a Deus que nos envie um homem com a sua for莽a de vontade e de esp铆rito鈥� [鈥.鈥�
Particularmente importante 茅 a diferencia莽茫o entre os conceitos de culpa: a culpa criminal, a culpa pol铆tica, a culpa moral e a culpa metaf铆sica. 鈥淎s diferencia莽玫es entre os conceitos de culpa devem nos proteger da superficialidade do falat贸rio de culpa, em que tudo 茅 levado para um 煤nico n铆vel, sem grada莽玫es, para depois ser avaliado com rudeza bruta 脿 moda de um juiz ruim.鈥� Segundo essa diferencia莽茫o, tornam-se claros quem s茫o os r茅us, os ju铆zes, as inst芒ncias de ju铆zo, as responsabilidades feridas e as puni莽玫es cab铆veis/exequ铆veis. 鈥淐ada ser humano 茅 correspons谩vel pelo modo como 茅 governado鈥�; por suas leis, por seus l铆deres, por seus deuses, por sua pr贸pria consci锚ncia.
Por que, ent茫o, ler esse livro, se sou brasileiro, sem qualquer ascend锚ncia ariana e nascido muito ap贸s o auge do regime nazista alem茫o? Que 鈥渃ulpa鈥� tenho eu nisso? Primeiramente, por ele falar t茫o diretamente 脿 nossa realidade pol铆tica, misturada com algo que vai da aliena莽茫o ao fanatismo; do interesse ao desinteresse. Jaspers antev锚: 鈥淸鈥 ser谩 que os outros povos s茫o mais felizes devido a destinos pol铆ticos mais favor谩veis? Ser谩 que eles cometem os mesmos erros que n贸s, mas at茅 agora sem as consequ锚ncias fatais que nos levaram ao abismo? Eles rejeitariam receber alertas vindos de n贸s, os desacreditados e infelizes.鈥� 鈥淥 destino da Alemanha poderia servir de experi锚ncia para todos. Se ao menos essa experi锚ncia pudesse ser compreendida! N茫o somos uma ra莽a pior. Em todo lugar, pessoas t锚m caracter铆sticas parecidas. Em todo lugar existem minorias violentas, criminosas, vitalmente ativas, que 脿 primeira oportunidade tomam o poder e procedem de modo brutal.鈥� 鈥淸鈥 Falta-nos em grande medida falarmos uns com os outros e ouvirmos uns aos outros. Isso ainda 茅 agravado pelo fato de que tantas pessoas n茫o querem pensar realmente. Elas buscam apenas palavras de ordem e obedi锚ncia. Elas n茫o perguntam e elas n茫o respondem, a n茫o ser pela repeti莽茫o de f贸rmulas batidas. Elas s贸 sabem afirmar e obedecer, e n茫o examinar e reconhecer, e por isso tamb茅m n茫o podem ser convencidas. Como falar com pessoas que n茫o querem ir aonde se examina e se raciocina, onde as pessoas buscam a sua autonomia por meio do reconhecimento e da convic莽茫o?鈥�
Mas, principalmente, devemos ler esse livro para n茫o sermos culpados de n茫o l锚-lo. O mal do mundo espreita os cantos que escolhemos ignorar.
Particularmente importante 茅 a diferencia莽茫o entre os conceitos de culpa: a culpa criminal, a culpa pol铆tica, a culpa moral e a culpa metaf铆sica. 鈥淎s diferencia莽玫es entre os conceitos de culpa devem nos proteger da superficialidade do falat贸rio de culpa, em que tudo 茅 levado para um 煤nico n铆vel, sem grada莽玫es, para depois ser avaliado com rudeza bruta 脿 moda de um juiz ruim.鈥� Segundo essa diferencia莽茫o, tornam-se claros quem s茫o os r茅us, os ju铆zes, as inst芒ncias de ju铆zo, as responsabilidades feridas e as puni莽玫es cab铆veis/exequ铆veis. 鈥淐ada ser humano 茅 correspons谩vel pelo modo como 茅 governado鈥�; por suas leis, por seus l铆deres, por seus deuses, por sua pr贸pria consci锚ncia.
Por que, ent茫o, ler esse livro, se sou brasileiro, sem qualquer ascend锚ncia ariana e nascido muito ap贸s o auge do regime nazista alem茫o? Que 鈥渃ulpa鈥� tenho eu nisso? Primeiramente, por ele falar t茫o diretamente 脿 nossa realidade pol铆tica, misturada com algo que vai da aliena莽茫o ao fanatismo; do interesse ao desinteresse. Jaspers antev锚: 鈥淸鈥 ser谩 que os outros povos s茫o mais felizes devido a destinos pol铆ticos mais favor谩veis? Ser谩 que eles cometem os mesmos erros que n贸s, mas at茅 agora sem as consequ锚ncias fatais que nos levaram ao abismo? Eles rejeitariam receber alertas vindos de n贸s, os desacreditados e infelizes.鈥� 鈥淥 destino da Alemanha poderia servir de experi锚ncia para todos. Se ao menos essa experi锚ncia pudesse ser compreendida! N茫o somos uma ra莽a pior. Em todo lugar, pessoas t锚m caracter铆sticas parecidas. Em todo lugar existem minorias violentas, criminosas, vitalmente ativas, que 脿 primeira oportunidade tomam o poder e procedem de modo brutal.鈥� 鈥淸鈥 Falta-nos em grande medida falarmos uns com os outros e ouvirmos uns aos outros. Isso ainda 茅 agravado pelo fato de que tantas pessoas n茫o querem pensar realmente. Elas buscam apenas palavras de ordem e obedi锚ncia. Elas n茫o perguntam e elas n茫o respondem, a n茫o ser pela repeti莽茫o de f贸rmulas batidas. Elas s贸 sabem afirmar e obedecer, e n茫o examinar e reconhecer, e por isso tamb茅m n茫o podem ser convencidas. Como falar com pessoas que n茫o querem ir aonde se examina e se raciocina, onde as pessoas buscam a sua autonomia por meio do reconhecimento e da convic莽茫o?鈥�
Mas, principalmente, devemos ler esse livro para n茫o sermos culpados de n茫o l锚-lo. O mal do mundo espreita os cantos que escolhemos ignorar.
February 22, 2023
Su莽luluk Sorunu, Karl Jaspers'谋n Almanya'n谋n siyasal sorumlulu臒u alt ba艧l谋臒谋yla 1946'da 2. D眉nya sava艧谋n谋n hemen ard谋ndan yazd谋臒谋 ve konferanslarda sundu臒u bir metin. Bu metni yaln谋zca siyasal sorumluluk kapsam谋nda de臒erlendirmek pek do臒ru olmaz, 莽眉nk眉 b眉y眉k bir b枚l眉m眉nde su莽luluk sorununu bireysel ve kolektif sorumluluklar a莽谋s谋ndan da ele al谋yor.
Bir 眉lkenin siyasi karar ve eylemleri o 眉lkede ya艧ayan halk谋 ba臒lar m谋? Birey olarak herkes kendisiyle bir muhakemeye girmeli midir? Herkes kendine "ben su莽suz muyum?" diye sormal谋 m谋d谋r? Sessiz kalmak da su莽 mudur?
2. D眉nya Sava艧谋 sona erdi臒inde Almanya'n谋n gerek yurt i莽inde gerekse yurt d谋艧谋ndaki siyasi karar ve faaliyetleri 眉zerine Alman halk谋n谋n bunda pay谋n谋n ne kadar oldu臒una dair tart谋艧malar ba艧 g枚sterir. Neredeyse b眉t眉n d眉nya Almanya'y谋 ve Almanlar'谋 su莽lar.听 Farkl谋 g枚r眉艧ler 枚ne s眉r眉l眉r. Jaspers kitab谋n ba艧谋nda 谋srarla "konu艧mal谋y谋z" vurgusu yapar ve herkesin su莽lu oldu臒unu iddia eder. O halde su莽lar aras谋nda bir ayr谋m yap谋lmal谋d谋r. K谋saca, su莽 kategorizasyonunu 艧u 艧ekilde yapar: cezai su莽, siyasi su莽, ahlaki su莽 ve metafizik su莽. Biraz daha a莽arsak, "bu sizin su莽unuz" ifadesi 艧u anlamlara gelebilir: "M眉samaha g枚sterdi臒iniz rejimin eylemlerinden dolay谋 sorumlusunuz" -burada s枚z konusu olan siyasi su莽umuzdur.
"Bundan ba艧ka, bu rejimi destekledi臒iniz ve onunla i艧birli臒i yapt谋臒谋n谋z i莽in su莽lusunuz" -ahlaki su莽umuz burada yatmaktad谋r.
"Su莽lar i艧lenirken pasif kalm谋艧 oldu臒unuz i莽in su莽lusunuz" -burada metafizik su莽 kendisini g枚sterir.
Kitap her ne kadar Almanlar谋n kendileriyle bir 枚z hesapla艧ma yapmas谋 i莽in yaz谋lm谋艧sa da, bu kitab谋n g眉zelli臒i, burada yaz谋lanlar谋n farkl谋 millet ve 枚rnekler i莽in de ge莽erlili臒ini koruyabilmesi. 陌lgiyle okudu臒um bir kitap oldu, 莽evirisi de olduk莽a ba艧ar谋l谋yd谋. Su莽 konusunu farkl谋 a莽谋lardan ele almak isteyenler i莽in 莽ok faydal谋 bir kaynak olabilir.
Bir 眉lkenin siyasi karar ve eylemleri o 眉lkede ya艧ayan halk谋 ba臒lar m谋? Birey olarak herkes kendisiyle bir muhakemeye girmeli midir? Herkes kendine "ben su莽suz muyum?" diye sormal谋 m谋d谋r? Sessiz kalmak da su莽 mudur?
2. D眉nya Sava艧谋 sona erdi臒inde Almanya'n谋n gerek yurt i莽inde gerekse yurt d谋艧谋ndaki siyasi karar ve faaliyetleri 眉zerine Alman halk谋n谋n bunda pay谋n谋n ne kadar oldu臒una dair tart谋艧malar ba艧 g枚sterir. Neredeyse b眉t眉n d眉nya Almanya'y谋 ve Almanlar'谋 su莽lar.听 Farkl谋 g枚r眉艧ler 枚ne s眉r眉l眉r. Jaspers kitab谋n ba艧谋nda 谋srarla "konu艧mal谋y谋z" vurgusu yapar ve herkesin su莽lu oldu臒unu iddia eder. O halde su莽lar aras谋nda bir ayr谋m yap谋lmal谋d谋r. K谋saca, su莽 kategorizasyonunu 艧u 艧ekilde yapar: cezai su莽, siyasi su莽, ahlaki su莽 ve metafizik su莽. Biraz daha a莽arsak, "bu sizin su莽unuz" ifadesi 艧u anlamlara gelebilir: "M眉samaha g枚sterdi臒iniz rejimin eylemlerinden dolay谋 sorumlusunuz" -burada s枚z konusu olan siyasi su莽umuzdur.
"Bundan ba艧ka, bu rejimi destekledi臒iniz ve onunla i艧birli臒i yapt谋臒谋n谋z i莽in su莽lusunuz" -ahlaki su莽umuz burada yatmaktad谋r.
"Su莽lar i艧lenirken pasif kalm谋艧 oldu臒unuz i莽in su莽lusunuz" -burada metafizik su莽 kendisini g枚sterir.
Kitap her ne kadar Almanlar谋n kendileriyle bir 枚z hesapla艧ma yapmas谋 i莽in yaz谋lm谋艧sa da, bu kitab谋n g眉zelli臒i, burada yaz谋lanlar谋n farkl谋 millet ve 枚rnekler i莽in de ge莽erlili臒ini koruyabilmesi. 陌lgiyle okudu臒um bir kitap oldu, 莽evirisi de olduk莽a ba艧ar谋l谋yd谋. Su莽 konusunu farkl谋 a莽谋lardan ele almak isteyenler i莽in 莽ok faydal谋 bir kaynak olabilir.
Read
March 3, 2023Das Niveau der Sprache ist eins der besten, die ich bisher in deutscher Literatur erlebt habe (Was jetzt nicht so viel hei脽t, ich habe noch nicht so viel auf Deutsch gelesen. Ist aber echt gut.) Schon nur daf眉r lohnt sich die Lekt眉re, au脽erdem nat眉rlich auch wegen dem Inhalt, wobei ich hier zugeben muss, dass ich in dem letzten Viertel nicht mehr so konzentriert gelesen habe.
In der kriegenden Europa wird es wieder auf Aktualit盲t gewinnen, was ist unsere Schuld an dem russischen Masaker der Ukrainer? An dem einem Jahr, der vielleicht auch anders verlaufen k枚nnte?
Ich kann mir die Stimmung in Deutschland nach 1945 nur schwierig vorstellen und der Weg, den die deutsche Gesellschaft seitdem gegangen ist, ist ein kleines Wunder. Wenn ich aus meiner Erfahrung mit den heutigen weltoffenen, verantwortungsvollen und r眉cksichtsvollen jungen Deutschen ausgehe.
In der kriegenden Europa wird es wieder auf Aktualit盲t gewinnen, was ist unsere Schuld an dem russischen Masaker der Ukrainer? An dem einem Jahr, der vielleicht auch anders verlaufen k枚nnte?
Ich kann mir die Stimmung in Deutschland nach 1945 nur schwierig vorstellen und der Weg, den die deutsche Gesellschaft seitdem gegangen ist, ist ein kleines Wunder. Wenn ich aus meiner Erfahrung mit den heutigen weltoffenen, verantwortungsvollen und r眉cksichtsvollen jungen Deutschen ausgehe.
July 17, 2023
took me a while to finish. i don't agree with everything Jaspers has to say in this book nor do i understand everything 100% as it is quite philosophical and even religious in a way it handles things, as well as for other reasons, though it asks and answers very real and important questions and acts as a call for action, physical or metaphysical. it's staggering how deeply it speaks to me as a citizen of a terrorist state in 2023 even though it was written in 1945. i expected it to be this way but i still can't quite comprehend the similarities in the dynamics of the political, social, personal. i genuinely think this book should be mandatory reading for russians to offer at least a crumb of reflection on personal and collective responsibility for the crimes of the state.
March 26, 2023
Una reflexi贸n muy interesante, pragm谩tica y honesta sobre la culta; he encontrado su clasificaci贸n sobre la culpa ingeniosa y certera; sin duda da mucho para pensar y reflexionar sobre nuestras propias culpas.
A very interesting, pragmatic and honest reflection on the cultured; I have found his classification of guilt ingenious and accurate; without a doubt it gives a lot to think about and reflect on our own faults.
A very interesting, pragmatic and honest reflection on the cultured; I have found his classification of guilt ingenious and accurate; without a doubt it gives a lot to think about and reflect on our own faults.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.