The First Dispatch...
An irregular discussion of the
intellectual substructure of the quotidian and workaday.
As we've
seen, The Mighty Quinn's theme of pessimism of the intellect
and optimism of the will was cited by Gerry Adams early in the
Northern Ireland peace process as a vital approach. On May 18, in the
New York Times' Sunday Opinion pages, Elias Khoury authored a piece on
the Israeli/Palestinian conflict which concluded"
"Recognizing the sufferings of the victim, even if they are the victim
of a victim, is the necessary condition for an exit from this long and
tragic tunnel. However, as the Italian philosopher Antonio Gramsci
suggests, it is difficult to maintain the optimism of the will in the
face of the pessimism of the intellect. Pessimism of the will is what
we are living today in the Middle East. It is a pessimism that warns
not only of the danger of recurring episodes of catastrophe as Arab
societies break apart, but of the dismal prospect of an endless war
that will provoke future tragedies in the 21st century."
Khoury arguably misunderstands Gramsci's idea, as did Adams: refusing
to recognize the sufferings of the victim, even if they are the victim
of a victim, is an example of optimism of the intellect, producing the
pessimism of the will and the suffering we know only too well.
Complete satisfaction with a willful ignorance is not a productive
attitude. There are times when it is appropriate to "just move on,"
and times when doing so is a willful surrender of our humanity. The
pervasive cry of "Never Again!" from Jews who survived the Holocaust
(and, indeed, of their descendents), is the quintessential
illustration of this principle.
Another piece published in the Times that same day under the same
heading featured a better understanding of the idea of a pessimism of
the intellect. Nicholas D. Kristof's piece focuses on Tibet, and a
mixture of policies that simultaneously "undercut Chinese moderates"
and threaten to produce "a Tibetan equivalent of the Irish Republican
Army or Hamas." Countering the optimism of the intellect that fuels
the possibility of further violence, Kristof writes:
"Both China and the Dalai Lama exaggerate, and the historical evidence
about Tibet is contradictory. One can make a good case that Tibet has
been a part of China at least since 1720. One can also make a good
case that Tibet became independent around 1911. The evidence is simply
mixed."
