For Aaron personally, this is a book of special significance: "I have a feeling, or an illusion, that the opium of intellectuals cured my illness and saved my life.
I am almost indifferent to the attack on this book.
I walked out of the darkness, maybe I will finally make peace with life. However, while reconciling with life, Aaron had to face the criticism of French intellectuals.
Left-wing intellectuals, as always, lavished words such as "traitor" and "clown" on Aaron, and made the best footnote for Aaron's book with their own madness.
From the writing background, Opium for Intellectuals is controversial, but like other works of Aaron, it always revolves around the historical and philosophical issues it cares about.
Francois? Philip called it "both a book of fighting and a book of philosophy".
There are nine chapters in the book, and the word "opium" talked about by later generations did not appear until the end of the eighth chapter: "The revolution provided him with opium to anesthetize himself."
In my opinion, although the last three chapters are more suitable for the title, the core part of the book should be the second part, that is, the three chapters on history.
It is in this part that Aron reveals the production mechanism of "opium" and the deep reasons why intellectuals are addicted to "opium", which are all related to a determinism that ignores the complexity of human society.
Those "fellow travelers" in France are obsessed with the ultimate significance of history, but they can't make a correct judgment on the actions in the real world.
In the early 1970s, Aaron talked about the hempel-Dreyfus debate on historical interpretation in the class of the French Academy.
Hempel believes that the explanation of an event is scientific only when the relationship between cause and effect can be deduced from a common proposition.
Ryder believes that explanation must involve human motives and intentions, so historical explanation is different from scientific explanation.
Aaron is more inclined to Hu Deli's point of view, thinking that the perception of history is multifaceted.
If so, Aaron is no different from Sartre, Melo-Ponty and others.
The latter's insistence on the priority of will can also lead to the conclusion that there are many stages of historical perception.
Aaron doesn't think that history is a narrative and can be interpreted at will, as some people say. His understanding of history is still limited by the universal fact that human beings live together, although this limitation cannot lead history to the only goal.
Those who hold this view start from the relativity of cognition, but integrate history into a whole.
This synthesis is not based on facts, but on subjective wishes, so it has the nature of faith.
This unconditional belief in the whole world-ideology-has become the opium of intellectuals.
For ideology, Aron had a special explanation: "It does not refer to any thought, the sum of any thoughts and values, but to the so-called inclusive and systematic special form that explains the historical world as a whole." In order to overcome the contradiction between freedom of will and historical laws in existential Marxism, Sartre and others replaced the assertion of facts with concepts such as revolution and class struggle, lost political judgment in pursuit of a philosophical eternity, ignored the degeneration of freedom in reality, and defended totalitarianism in the name of history.
However, Aaron debunked the myths of leftism, revolution and proletariat through historical experience. These words that make intellectuals' blood pressure rise are not constant in essence.
Compared with some domestic debates about revolutionary discourse, both sides often dwell on empty revolutionary discourse, but they do not reveal what is hidden behind the revolution and what is really worth discussing, so we know how irrelevant such debates are.
Once the opium of ideology is smoked, the distance between expectation of the future and reality is infinitely compressed, and intellectuals lose common sense, or use Isaiah's words? Berlin said that he had lost his "sense of reality".
Like Berlin, Aron not only leaves room for the freedom of multiple values, but also does not give up the enjoyment of value in human life, and opposes raising the established things to the height of philosophy and universal truth.
"When we judge a social order, we must be based on the diversity of values.
This diversity of values does not require people to make fundamental choices.
People give up the customs with enough diversity, and at the same time demand a universal validity for their ideals, and the economic system or political system is in between. "
Aaron said, "The end of the ideological era?" As the conclusion of this book, we may also see his caution through this question mark.
Aaron's exposition on ideology has far-reaching influence, which makes the theme expounded many times.
Daniel? Bell directly named his work "The End of Ideology" and got a teaching post at Columbia University.
Lipsett even used "Is ideology over?" At the end of his book "Political Man: Social Basis of Politics", he also won the Pulitzer Prize.
It is not easy for intellectuals to give up ideological opium.
It is even more difficult to maintain rational sobriety and sound political judgment.
Appendix: preface to the original book
In the past few years, I have had the opportunity to write many articles.
These articles are not about * * * people, but "les munisants", that is, people who did not join the party but sympathized with the Soviet world.
I decided to compile these articles into a book and start writing an introduction.
This anthology was later published under the title of Debate, and the introduction developed into a book.
Intellectuals have no mercy on the lack of democratic countries, but they are tolerant of the heinous crimes committed in the name of high-sounding theories.
In the process of trying to explain this attitude of intellectuals, I came across these sacred words for the first time: "leftist", "revolution" and "proletariat".
The criticism of these words prompted me to reflect on the worship of "history", and then to investigate a social category that sociologists should have paid attention to but did not pay attention to-intellectuals.
Thus, on the one hand, this book discusses the current situation of the so-called leftist ideology, on the other hand, it discusses the situation of intellectuals in France and even the world.
This book tries to answer the following questions that others have certainly asked besides me: Why is Marxism popular again in France, a country whose economic evolution has failed to meet expectations? Why do proletarian thoughts and * * * thoughts achieve greater success in places with a small number of working class? In different countries, what kind of environment dominates the way of speaking, thinking and behavior of intellectuals?
At the beginning of 1955, the debate about left and right, traditional right and new left became popular again.
In many places, people are wondering whether I should be classified as a traditional right or a modern right.
For these categories, I am negative.
In parliament, different fronts will draw different boundaries according to the different issues discussed.
In some cases, people will strictly distinguish between left and right.
If people are willing, those who agree to live in harmony with Tunisia or Moroccan nationalists are left-wing, while those who agree to suppress or maintain the status quo are right-wing.
However, if the defenders of the absolute state are leftists, are those who support Europe in favor of supranational organizations right? People can use these terms upside down for various reasons.
Facing the Soviet Union, "Munich Spirit" exists not only among socialists who are attached to Marxism, but also among nationalists who are troubled by the "German threat" or who have not been comforted by the greatness they are losing.
The alliance between the Gaullist and the Socialist Party revolves around the slogan of "national independence".
So, is this slogan Mallasz's "national integration" or jacobins's patriotism?
France's modernization and economic development are the tasks facing the whole country.
All kinds of reforms to be realized will encounter some obstacles, and these obstacles are not only caused by trust or moderate voters.
Those who cling to outdated lifestyles or modes of production are not all "big men", they tend to vote for the left.
The way of employment will not be subordinate to a certain camp or an ideology.
Personally, I am a Keynesian and feel a little sorry for liberalism; Agree to live in harmony with Tunisia and Moroccan nationalists; Convinced that the consolidation of the Atlantic Alliance is the best guarantee for peace.
However, according to the different issues people are involved in, such as economic policy, North Africa or East-West relations, I may be classified as left or right.
Only by abandoning these ambiguous concepts can people sort out some clues in the confusion of French debate.
As long as people observe the reality and stick to the objective position, they will see the absurdity of these hodgepodge of political ideology, which is played by loyal but shallow-minded revolutionaries and journalists eager for success.
If we go beyond the debate about the situation and the changeable alliance, people may distinguish some spiritual families.
Every spiritual family, no matter who its members are, will realize their "choice" ... However, after writing this book dedicated to the family where I was born, I tend to make a clean break with it.
This is not because I am keen on loneliness, but because I want to choose my partner between two kinds of people: those who know how to fight without hatred; One is those who refuse to discover the secret of human destiny in the struggle on the "forum"
1954 July in San sigismund.
1955 65438+ October in Paris