A FOOL AGAINST THE SYSTEM

THE GOOD SOLDIER ŠVEJK: A FOOL AGAINST THE SYSTEM

 “When Švejk subsequently described life in the lunatic asylum, he did so in exceptionally eulogistic terms: ‘I really don’t know why those loonies get so angry when they’re kept there. You can crawl naked on the floor, howl like a jackal, rage and bite. If anyone did this anywhere on the promenade people would be astonished, but there it’s the most common or garden thing to do. There’s a freedom there which not even Socialists have ever dreamed of.’” (Jaroslav Hašek, The Good Soldier Švejk).

The underlying political and, to some extent, ideological context of Hašek’s novel has been remarked by Karel Kosik in his essay Hašek and Kafka, in which he investigates on similarities (or differences) of Hašek’s Josef Švejk and Josef K. from Kafka’sTrial. Kosik wrote: “Švejk’s “odyssey under the honourable escort of two soldiers with bayonets” takes him from the Hradčany garrison jail along Neruda Street to Malá Strana and over Charles Bridge to Karlín. It is an interesting group of three people: two guards escorting a delinquent. From the opposite direction over Charles Bridge and up to Strahov, another trio makes its way. This is the threesome from Kafka’s Trial: two guards leading a “delinquent,” the bank clerk Josef K., to the Strahov quarries, where one of them will “thrust a knife into his heart.” Both groups pass through the same places, but meeting each other is impossible.” (Steiner).

These two escorts set in comparison are rather symbolic – the first one leading its “delinquent” to freedom, and the second one to death. Both characters are victims of the system and represent two different approaches to its supremacy. “Kafka’s man is walled into a labyrinth of petrified possibilities, alienated relationships and materialism of daily life, all these growing to supernaturally phantasmagoric dimensions, while he constantly and with unrelenting passion searches for  the truth. Kafka’s man is condemned to live in a world in which the only human dignity is the interpretation of that world; while other forces, beyond the control of any individual, determine the course of world’s change.” (Peter Steiner, Tropos Kynikos: Jaroslav Hašek’s “The Good Soldier Švejk”, Poetics Today, Vol. 19, No. 4, Winter, 1998). On the other hand Hašek’s character proves that“man, even in a reified form, is still man, and that man is both the object and the producer of reification… [That] man cannot be reduced to an object, he is more than a system.” (Ibid.). 

It seems that in order to fight the system, Švejk’s method proved to be more effective than that of Josef K.’s. This is not to say that Švejk did not try to understand the system. However, by being ignorant of it, or approaching it under the guise of a fool, he managed to stay outside of its destructive mechanisms. Josef  Švejk, unlike Josepf K., by using precisely the system’s own means, caused its inner erosion and thus led himself to freedom. Therefore, following his own words it is justified to say: Long live the fool! Long live  Josef  Švejk! 

SOURCE:http://artlark.org

LINDA CESANA – KAREL KOSÍK: PRAXIS E VERITÀ.

LINDA CESANA – KAREL KOSÍK: PRAXIS E VERITÀ. «L’UOMO SI REALIZZA, CIOÈ SI UMANIZZA NELLA STORIA».

24 dicembre 2015 ppci Lascia un commento

In questo articolo si tenterà di cogliere come la verità e la prassi si pongano ad oggetti focali della filosofia di Karel Kosík, e si cercherà di mostrare come ad oggi, questa possa fornire spunti filosofici preziosi per criticare il cosmo capitalistico odierno nella prospettiva dell’apertura di spazi sociali emancipati.
La verità è oggetto proprio della filosofia, rubricata da Kosík attività umana indispensabile, autonoma rispetto all’ideologia e alla scienza. Una filosofia che si trasformasse in ideologia, visione del reale che scaturisce da determinati assetti di potere (l’ideologia forgia il sentire comune, secondo la lezione marxiana per cui le idee dominanti sono espressione della classe dominante, trasformandosi in apologia dell’esistente) e che quindi s’interdice la via verso l’universale, cesserebbe di essere filosofia perché rinuncerebbe al suo carattere critico-rivoluzionario rispetto al presente e sarebbe costretta a zoppicare dietro alla vita, ossia a fare l’apologia del potere. L’ideologia, infatti, comporta mistificazione perché non conosce la fatica del pensiero. Kosík cerca in questo modo di smarcarsi dall’ideologizzazione filosofica del comunismo storico novecentesco con la sua idolatria del Partito, riconoscendo oltremodo uno spessore ideologico al «capitalismo democratico» in cui si plaude alla fine delle ideologie novecentesche nell’accettazione ideologica della conformazione mercatistica del mondo. Superando le angustie di una riduzione della filosofia a ideologismo, la filosofia recupera un’istanza veritativa come presa di posizione rispetto alla totalità storica e sociale attuale: «La filosofia viene volgarmente concepita come espressione della situazione, e non come verità reale»… Source:blog.petiteplaisance.it

Historism and Historicism

by Karel Kosik

Marx's famous fragment on classical Greek art shares the fate of many a brilliant thought: the sediment of commentaries and a frequent overstatement of the obvious have obscured its true sense.1 Was Marx investigating the significance and the timeless character of antique art? Was he attempting to solve problems of art and beauty? Is the quote in question an isolated expression or is it related to his other views? What is its proper meaning? Why do those commentators fail who consider only its literal immediacy and see it as an invitation to resolve the question of the ideal character of Greek art? And why do also those interpreters fail who consider Marx's immediate answer as satisfactory, without pausing to question why the manuscript abruptly breaks off in the middle of an idea?

Download pdf file here