“From Esavian to Oslovian Man”
By Prof. Paul Eidelberg
Barbarism is as old as mankind, but today barbarism is armed with technique. Stupidity is as old as humanity, but today stupidity has been computerized. Never has man been more dangerously muddled, for now he has weapons of mass destruction as well as media of mass stupefaction.
Despite great advances in brain research, man has never been so far removed from himself. The mind of contemporary man, at least in democratic or pluralistic societies, is buried beneath countless layers of civilization. No mere archaeologist or paleontologist can excavate and restore the essence of man from the debris of a thousand and one diverse cultures, mythologies, religions, philosophies, ideologies, and pseudo-sciences under which the poor creature has been buried.
Desperately needed is a model of man that can lead humanity out of the secular and religious wastelands of our time. To develop such a modelִ, it will first be necessary to get beneath the centuries of accumulated isms that obscure the human essence and reduce the profusion of mankind to clearly defined types of human beings. The issue is especially crucial in Israel, for this country has created a new type of human being, one I call Oslovian Man. To understand Oslovian Man, we must first examine the nature of Esavian Man and his opposite, Judaic Man.
Esavian Man
U |
ntil the Oslo or Israel-PLO Declaration of Principles of September 13, 1993, there were only four basic types of human character that affected the peace and prosperity of nations. A most concise and penetrating view of the subject will be found inEthics of the Fathers, which is included in most Jewish prayer books and is studied by youngsters in Torah academies even before they reach the age of ten. Here is how that tractate of the Mishnah defines the four types of human character:
He who says "What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours" is the ordinary type, although some say this is the Sodom-type [those who are callous or morally insensitive]; he who says "What's mine is yours and what's yours is mine" is the fool; he who says "What's mine is yours and what's yours is yours" is the godly or gracious type; he who says "What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine" is wicked (5:13)
Many brilliant commentaries have been written on this deceptively simple passage, for here, as elsewhere, the simple is profound.
The first character type, “What's mine is mine and what's yours is yours,” is obviously animated by egoism, usually of a moderate form. His attitude, if generalized, would favor the rich. The second character type, “What's mine is yours and what's yours is mine,” is also animated by egoism, still moderate but deceptive. His attitude, if generalized, would favor the poor.
Clearly, no political community or regime can be founded exclusively on either of these character types. Regarding the first: no regime can exist without some common property, such as public buildings, public roads, hence a public treasury. Regarding the second: contrary to the obvious fact that no regime can exist without some private property, the principle of "What's mine is yours and what's yours is mine" logically extends to wives and children (recall Plato's Republic), as well as to public functions to which particular individuals must be assigned and for which they must be held individually responsible. The second type of character (the paragon of Plato's best regime!) is indeed a fool, and if his attitude were translated into political terms, the result would be utterly preposterous, not to say destructive (as Plato surely understood). Hence the first or ordinary type of character will usually be preferable to the second.
To form a political community, however, the attitudes of both types must fuse or coexist in some proportion. If the proportion leans toward the first, it will be a capitalist or liberal democracy; if toward the second, a socialist democracy. Still, it should be borne in mind that socialism as well as capitalism is animated by common egoism, which militates against the political preeminence of wisdom and virtue.[1]
Turning from the second to the fourth character type, the attitude, "What's yours is mine and what's mine is mine," obviously represents the most extreme form of egoism, combining as it does the egoistic elements of the first two types. A regime based on such egoism would be a tyranny. Which means that tyranny combines the worst characteristics of capitalist and socialist democracies.[2]
The three preceding elaborations of the mine-thine distinction may be regarded as a taxonomy of what I shall call the "Esavian" world of politics (from Esau, who symbolizes the primacy of force and fraud. See Genesis 27:22, 40.) This is the only world with which Machiavelli was familiar, the world which justifies his exclusion of “justice” from his enumeration of qualities for which rulers are praised or blamed in Chapter 15 of The Prince.[3] All Esavian regimes, whatever their ideologies, are in practice animated by varying degrees of collective egoism. As for their ideologies, these consist of secular and religious myths, fabrications, and half-truths which serve to legitimize power and to facilitate the pursuit of gain and glory. Consider more closely, however, those subtle kinsmen of modernity, socialism and capitalism.
Socialism (or Marxism) may be called the opium of the intellectuals who self-righteously exploit the envy and grievances of the poor against the greed and exploitations of the rich (both magnified by capitalism). Admittedly, envy, “the rottenness of the bones” (Proverbs 14:30), is the more corrosive vice, as well as the more dangerous when it becomes organized by the ambitious. But it is the avarice of the rich that often incites the envy of the poor. It is the rich that tend to set the example for society at large.
In any event, in domestic affairs, the avarice and leveling tendency of capitalism yields external freedom and psychic insecurity—say public liberty and private misery. Meanwhile, the envious and more leveling character of socialism generates what Nietzsche called the "last man," men devoid of aspiration, of any sensitivity to what is noble and what is base.
As for their foreign relations, Esavian regimes may be described as follows. Tyrannical states (religious as well as secular) are instruments of force and fraud designed to facilitate expansion and conquest. Their diplomacy conforms to the precept, "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable." In contrast, liberal and social democratic states are designed to facilitate self-indulgence and "peace" (recall Munich), which may require one democracy to sacrifice another. Esau sacrificed his birthright for potage. Today the democracies would sacrifice Israel for petroleum.
The reader would err if he should think that the preceding is written with polemical intent. That all states are primarily animated by material interests is the unanimous conclusion of political theorists from Plato to the present. What contemporary political scientist does not echo Hobbes, who cynically declared: "money is the blood of the commonwealth"? I need only add the following. Having given themselves their own laws, laws dependent on the shifting opinions, passions, and interests of men, it is only natural for Esavian nations to engage in frequent conflict with each other, and to succumb, so easily, to hatred of the one nation which, at its origin, did not give itself its own laws, i.e., Israel.
To be sure, a distinction must be made between the behavior of Esavian nations and of the individuals composing them. The behaviors of individuals and nations are subject to statistical laws analogous to those that govern microphysical and macrophysical entities. Whereas the individual is free, the behavior pattern of a nation is statistically determined. (To simplify the exposition, I ignore revolutions, wars, and catastrophes which may transform a nation's political character.) Of course, consistent with the notion of statistical or probabilistic law, it is possible for a nation to turn away from evil, as was the (transient) case of Nineveh. Nevertheless, the sociological characteristics of a nation are very stable despite the diversity which may obtain among its individual members. Although Esavian individuals are free, there are always enough common characteristics among such individuals to ensure the stability of the mean—the laws or behavior patterns of the nation.[4]
Judaic Man
If all men and all nations were cast in the Esavian mold, it would be absurd to speak of man's creation in the image of God. Let us therefore hasten to the man who says, "What's mine is yours and what's yours is yours." These words are those of an extraordinary and profound human being whom the Mishnah calls the godly or gracious man. Let us call him Judaic Man, whose knowledge of heaven and earth, gleaned from the hidden wisdom of Torah, dissolves all egoism.
To say "What's mine is yours and what's yours is yours" is to say, in effect, that nothing is really mine. The equivalent of this will not be found in the philosophic tradition, a tradition that denies creation from nothing (creatio ex nihilo). In contrast, a Torah-educated person knows that nothing in a created universe can be "mine," metaphysically speaking. The Torah translates this abstract principle into living reality, especially in the observance of the Sabbath Day and the Sabbath Year of the Land. Every seventh day and every seventh year the Jew is to refrain from exercising his own mastery over any of God's creatures or creations.[5] What thus appears to be a moral attitude, "What's mine is yours and what's yours is yours," ִis actually the derivative of a cosmological principle. This may be seen most vividly and profoundly in the life of Avraham, the first Jew and the father of the Jewish people.
Avraham is not only a world-historical individual. He is the supreme personification of a qualitative law of existence, that of Hesed. Often translated as “love” and “lovingkindness,” Hesed is usually associated with selflessness. Selflessness would seem to be the attitude of the third character-type, who says “What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is yours”! Unless I am mistaken, however, the statement “What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is yours” is the statement of a man addressing not other men but God. Indeed, the third character-type is called “godly” because God Himself can say to man, “What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is yours”! Which conforms to the Jewish view that all of creation was made for man.
That he who says “What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is yours” is addressing his Creator may be confirmed in the Binding of Isaac, that is, by Avraham’s readiness to offer his beloved son to God. “Please take (kach na) your son, your only son, whom you love, Isaac, ִand go to the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell you of” (Genesis 22:2). It would nonetheless be a mistake to construe the Binding of Isaac as an act of selfless devotion to God on the part of Avraham, as I shall try to explain with the help of Rabbi Matis Weinberg.
Consider, Lech-Lecha: “Go for yourself—away from your land, from your birthplace, and from the home of your father, to the land that I will show you. I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you and make you famous …” (ibid., 12:1-2).
Rabbi Weinberg offers a most provocative commentary. “Avraham not only had to do as he was challenged, he had to do it for the right objective: he had to do it for his own self.”[6] Weinberg points out that Lech-Lecha is the parasha of Avraham’s blessings, his attaining wealth, fame, and progeny. But all this “seems strangely selfish and egotistical. Did Avraham really make himself the focus of his life—or did he turn to selfless service of God and man? Listen to this unique soliloquy, as God explains out loud why He feels so attached to Avraham:
“I love him because he enjoins his children and household after him that they cherish the path of God; that they do charity and justice in order that God bring to Avraham what He promised.” (18:19)
Those are the very words Avraham used. He actually enjoined his children: “Cherish the path of God in order that God bring to Avraham what He promised!” (Rashi)
Weinberg comments:
Not only, then, did Avraham accept the Lech-Lecha challenge personally, he saw to it that his children and household would never make the mistake of “Cherishing the path of God” out of selfless altruism. He made it clear to future generations that the purpose of keeping the ways of God—the purpose even of doing charity itself—could only be in order that God bring what He promised.
But surely “doing charity”—the Hesed which became the hallmark of Avraham for all time—surely Hesed by its very definition be driven by selflessness and altruism? Not at all. “The man of Hesed cares for his own self …”
To truly care for one’s self, however, that is, to perfect one’s self, one must serve God. Conversely, to truly serve God, one must bring to perfection one’s God-given uniqueness. This can only be done by living a life of Torah and mitzvot, which of course includes caring for others. The motivation of caring for others, however, is not selfless altruism. Only one who does not experience his self as significant will be motivated by selfless altruism, which may be nothing more than selfish selflessness. Weinberg quotes Eric Hoffer: “How much easier is self sacrifice than self realization.”
Viewed in the light of Rabbi Weinberg’s commentary on Lech-Lecha, he who says “What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is yours,” is not motivated by selfless altruism but by the love of God, which prompts him to perfect his own self, and this is not possible without doing charity and other mitzvot. As I have elsewhere shown at length, Judaic Man represents the pinnacle of mankind.[7]
Oslovian Man
Consider again the man who says, “What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is yours.” If he is addressing not God but other men, then we have a fifth and most problematic character type, which I call Oslovian Man. Oslovian men are “men without chests.” Although they may appear egoistic, they are in fact motivated by actual selflessness in the literal sense of the term. The prime example of Oslovian Man is Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Barak. He addresses Israel’s arch enemy, Yasir Arafat, by saying, in effect. “What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is yours.” Hence Arafat need hardly say, in the words of the wicked character-type, “What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is mine.” Barak can only give; Arafat can only take. Clearly, Oslovian Man is rather stupid.
The discerning reader will see that Oslovian Man is the product of Israel’s policy called “territory for peace.” It has taken several years for many Israelis to recognize the obvious, that this policy means “territory for nothing.” But “territory for nothing” is simply the consequence of saying to the worst of Esavians, “What’s mine is yours and what’s yours is yours.”
Fortunately, Oslovian Man, like mules, cannot reproduce. He is literally self-destructive, since can say nothing is “mine.” This is what is means to be a “post-Zionist.” It is precisely because Oslovian Man has no self or selfhood, that he poses as an “internationalist.” Or he effaces himself by equating Judaism with egalitarian democracy and “universalistic” values. Having nothing distinctively his own, this fifth type of man has only the appearance being human. He has no past, and the regime in which he at present prevails has no future.
* * *
[1] Nietzsche exposed the lie of socialism after revealing the truth about modern individualism. Here are his penetrating remarks:
Individualism is a modest and still unconscious form of the "will to power"; here it seems sufficient to the individual to get free from an overarching domination by society (whether that of the state or of the church). He does not oppose them as a person but only as an individual; he represents all individuals against the totality. That means: he instinctively posits himself as equal to all other individuals; what he gains in this struggle he gains for himself not as a person but as representative of individuals against the totality.
Socialism is merely a means of agitation employed by individualism: it grasps that, to attain anything, one must organize to a collective action, to a "power." But what it desires is not a social order as the goal of the individual but a social order as a means of making possible many [mediocre] individuals. This is the instinct of socialists about which they frequently deceive themselves ... The preaching of altruistic morality in the service of individualism: one of the most common lies of the nineteenth century.
The Will to Power (New York: Random House, 1967), pp. 411-412, W. Kaufmann, trans.
[2] Aristotle, Politics (1210b16) describes tyranny as a combination of the worst characteristics of democracy and oligarchy.
[3] See Paul Eidelberg, Jerusalem vs. Athens: Toward a General Theory of Existence (New York: University Press of America, 1983), p. 21n, for an explanation of Jacob's (or Rebecca's) attempt, seemingly to deceive, but actually to undeceive Isaac.
[4] As every yeshiva student knows, Esau was the son of exemplary Jewish parents; King David, Israel's greatest monarch, was a descendant of Ruth, a Moabitess; and some of Israel's greatest Sages were proselytes.
[5] See Samson Raphael Hirsch, The Pentateuch (6 vols.; London: Judaica Press, 1982), Exod. 23:10-11.
[6] Matis Weinberg, FrameWorks (Genesis) (Boston: Foundation for Jewish Publications, 1999), p. 60. For further references to Weinberg, see ibid., pp. 61-62.
[7] Paul Eidelberg, Judaic Man: Toward a Reconstruction of Western Civilization (Middletown, NJ: Caslon Co., 1996), Prologue.
Posts
