The 50'th anniversary of the liberation of
Auschwitz has been marked by numerous celebrations
and manifestations, whose main purpose was
to learn from Auschwitz experience in order
to make its repetition impossible. Therefore
I am asking myself: what have I learnt?
With respect to all I have seen, heard and
red, the answer seems clear: nothing. I heard
people cry and I have cried with them; I
saw people mourn and I have mourned with
them; I have been faced with unspeakable
atrocities and I was shocked and distressed.
But I have learnt nothing.
Knowledge, indeed, does
not consist of emotions, nor of particular
events failing to fall into a logical structure.
I still ignore, under which conditions new
Auschwitz's may be set up, or avoided. More,
I do not know at all, what should be understood
under the "Auschwitz-to-be-avoided".
Surely not the specific KZ-Auschwitz, in
whose place there is no new Nazi KZ to fear.
When I wish to say something
reasonable about birds, I start with the
zoological definition, with the "birds-principle".
I am not obliged to accept this definition
and I may call it into question. One thing
I cannot do: say anything reasonable about
an undefined concept. When zoology still
lacked the definition of birds, somebody
proposing to talk about them had to supply
his own definition.
As there exists no "Auschwitz-logy"
nor a general "Auschwitz- Principle",
I would like to suggest one:
AUSCHWITZ IS FOUNDED UPON ABSOLUTE PROPOSITIONS
IN HUMAN DOMAIN, indeed upon their absurdity,
which admits any arbitrary interpretation
and discrimination.
Physics admits exclusively relative propositions.
When we say that a stone is heavy, we imply
a relation to the earth: we know that it
would be quite light on the moon, that in
the cosmic space its weight would totally
disappear.
In the human/social domain
absolute propositions are equally absurd,
but we lack an authority, a humanistic Galileo,
or Einstein, to reinforce this truth. Somebody
proposing a physical theory based upon absolute
propositions would simply make himself ridiculous.
Doing it in the human/social he would have
all chances to found an Ideology, a Religion,
an Empire. An Ideology, a Religion, un Empire
which would be based upon the Auschwitz-
Principle, whose laws, principles and virtues
would necessarily point towards an Auschwitz.
I realize that I imply with these words a
whole philosophic system, a "Humanistic
Relativism" without being able to justify
here its principles. An interested reader
may find their discussion in the site:
RELATIVISTIC DIALECTIC
I shall present here an example which shows
the nonsense of the absolute classification
criterion "Jew" and of the absolute
proposition: "This man is a Jew".
From the race point of view it is an obvious
nonsense, as nobody has ever observed a "Jewish"
gene.
One may certainly have a Jewish culture,
speak jiddish, hebrew or ladino and tell
Jewish jokes. However, culture is clearly
a relativistic concept. Nazis may have used
it as an indicator, but never as an essential,
absolute criterion of discrimination. A large
part of Jews murdered in Auschwitz had little
or nothing to do with the Jewish culture.
Some were catholic priests, some have heard
for the first time from the Nazis or from
the blackmailers that they were Jews.
The criterion of Jewish religion is equally
absurd. According to the Jewish law is Jew
who has a Jewish mother, or who has been
converted by a Jewish rabbin. However, in
order to be sure that my mother is Jewish,
I have to ascertain that she had herself
a Jewish mother, or had been converted by
a Jewish rabbin. The same holds of course
for the converting rabbin. A clear case of
a vicious circle.
Consequently, the absolute concept "Jew"
is empty and, as such, may get any arbitrary
meaning. Heidrich understood it perfectly
when he declared: "Wer Jude ist, entscheide
ich" - "It's me who decides who
is a Jew".
If we want to avoid Auschwitz in the future,
we must abolish situations in which a human
being may classify and discriminate other
ones upon absolute, arbitrary criteria. In
other words, we must extend the Relativistic
Reason over the human/social domain and may
admit only relative, demonstrable propositions
in this domain as well. This calls, of course,
into question nearly all established ideological
and political structures, which are based
upon absolute principles.
We live in an Auschwitz-friendly world and
if we want to avoid Auschwitz in the future,
we have to call into question its essential
principles.
But do we want it really?
|