Letter
to the editor
I wanted to comment on Barlas Esin’s latest
article, which was vastly superior in content,
in nature, in depth and style compared to
the one the that ran before it (a very one-sided
polemic on Bush’s foreign policies.)
In this last week’s column, you tried to
maintain a neutral viewpoint and established
the finer points of realism and pacifism.
But by name-dropping Sartre, I think you
made a faux pas.
Freedom is an absolute for Sartre, and that
is especially pronounced in war. He would
write that during the Vichy government regime
in WW II, the French, despite oppression,
intimidation, discrimination, and other
sorts of subterfuge, “were never more free
than during the German occupation,” he wrote
in the Republic of Silence. “Because an
all-powerful police tried to force us to
hold our tongues, every word took on the
value of a declaration of principles.”
By throwing himself into the world, suffering,
struggling, man gradually defines himself.
War is no obstacle to human freedom, because
it is a fundamental aspect of consciousness,
and the concept of war is merely a human
on, not an objective one that impedes with
the “pour-soi” of existence.
It is through existence that we define our
essence, not the other way around. When
William Wallace shouted “Freedom” in the
movie Braveheart, he had overlooked the
fact that despite being bound on a torture
rack, he was never more free. Every move
he made, within every gesture there was
the weight of a commitment.
Freedom in this sense is a positive term,
as opposed to the generic negative one in
politics—that one is free from oppression,
and free from discrimination
—
Kaworu Awet Nagisa
Philosopy major
|
