Commentary

Book 12 - A Response

I believe this view of mankind is a false dichotomy. It is false because we are not simply one thing or the other but both. Mind and body. Reason and spirit. What separates man from the rest of nature is not simply his ability to reason, but his capacity for sin and his hope for redemption. Nietzsche once said that man is the only animal that feels remorse. And he was right. No other creature feels the sting of humiliation from his neighbor. If we were all mind, we would be nothing but machines, a kind of biological computer. But if we are consumed by feelings of rage and sorrow, then we become like animals in heat, a slave to our passion and hormonal urges. Neither extreme is proper to the life of man. As Aristotle says, moderation in all things is the key to happiness. Dostoevsky, however, is obsessed with one idea: the problem of evil. He is convinced that the world is irrational and that we humans, as puny mortal beings trapped by endless and conflicting desires, are unable to improve or correct this basic flaw in the design of nature. Thus, man's fate is to be forever at war with himself. Marcus Aurelius, though well aware of man's finite condition, believes that reason can lead us out of the wilderness of our distress. His faith in reason was shared by Plato and Aquinas, neither of whom were so naive as to believe that reason alone could solve all problems. As Leo Strauss pointed out, Plato's Republic, if properly understood, is a treatise on the limits of reason and the fallacy of believing that government can be managed on rational principles alone. Our best hope for a decent life is to think carefully about what needs to be done, act boldly with confidence, then listen carefully for the distant echo of our conscience.

- comments by SMJ -