We tend to think of historical facts as being among the most durable of intellectual properties. Facts, most of us assume, cannot simply wished away: they have a recalcitrance, an ontological weight that is greater than mere opinion.
Would that it were so simple. As the philosopher Hannah Arendt observed in “Truth and Politics” (reprinted in her book Between Past and Future ), “Facts and events are infinitely more fragile things than axioms, discoveries, theories–even the most wildly speculative ones–produced by the human mind; they occur in the field of the ever-changing affairs of men, in whose flux there is nothing more permanent than the admittedly relative permanence of the human mind’s structure. Once they are lost, no rational effort will ever bring them back.”
Hence the importance of cultivating a respect for historical fact, of protecting its integrity from the corrosive onslaughts of political prerogative. “Accustom your children,” Dr. Johnson told Boswell, “constantly to this; if a thing happened at one window, and they, when relating it, say that it happened at another, do not let it pass, but instantly check them; you do not know where deviation from truth will end.”
One example of where it will end was just offered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran, in some remarks about the terrorist attacks of September 11. “Four or five years ago,” he said in a televised speech, a suspect event took place in New York. A building collapsed and they said that 3000 people had been killed, whose names were never published. Under this pretext they (the US) attacked Afghanistan and Iraq and since then a million people have been killed.”
Well, there is nothing new in Ahmadinejad’s mendacious froth. You can find the same sort of politically motivated disregard for–or rather, attack on–the truth in many places, no least in the humanities departments of Western universities. Is there any point in objecting? “Hey, the names are widely published?” In one sense you would be wasting your breath. Ahmadinejad is not going to be convinced because the truth of the matter was never at issue for him. But in another sense it is always wise to insist on the truth, however tedious the exercise becomes. Ahmadinejad’s statement is like an acid spill or a burst of deadly radioactivity. It contaminates and damages what it touches. We require, as Dr. Johnson reminded us, the reagent of truth if we are to escape unscathed.
PJM Home
The New Criterion
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art
Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse
Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity
Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age
Tenured Radicals, NEW, EXPANDED EDITION FALL 2008! How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education
Counterpoints: 25 Years of The New Criterion on Culture and the Arts
The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America
Against the Idols of the Age
Lengthened Shadows: America and Its Institutions in the Twenty-First Century
The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age
Physics and Politics, by Walter Bagehot, edited with an
Introduction by Roger Kimball
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
5 Comments
1. abe:Ahmadinejad’s comments are reprehensible. Your bow tie is an affront to good taste.
Apr 16, 2008 - 2:42 am 2. william:As I intimated in your last post, the left is repulsed as much by the sight of a bow tie as they are by the sight of a history book. I am constantly in awe of the total disregard of my colleagues concern for facts or truth at the college I teach at.
Apr 16, 2008 - 6:07 am 3. LSD:Strong sentiment persuades an arrangement of facts that will support any grievance, and a piori conviction has always, and will always play a part in scientific method. This garbage, however, is deliberate confusion that is meant to deliver political benefit. The statement is so absurd that it is difficult to counter it in a way that attracts equal attention and for that reason it’s effective.
-Maybe the best way to deal with this statement is to place it alongside the declaration of the curious mystery pertaining to the complete absence of homosexuals in Iran.
Apr 16, 2008 - 7:02 am 4. Alo Kievalar:The trouble with Ahmadinajad is that he doesn’t wear a tie…..at all….of any kind…ever.
Go ahead and google him and see if you can find a picture of him wearing one……I’ll save you the trouble…you can’t.
(He also doesn’t shave…..ever). (I wonder about bathing…but some things are best passed by quickly unnoticed ).
In fact, he looks like your average corner fruit-stand seller found in any Middle Eastern city or some kinda “souk wallah” ferociously hawking his wares to curious tourists who peer at him in admiration of his “authenticity” and “earthiness” and so on.
The problem with the Farsis is that they really should have stuck to weaving rugs and carpets. No one has ever surpassed them in this art form. But when it comes to atomic reactors, well, it’s all somehow so silly.
By the way, good ol’ Mahmoud has his own website/blog. You can check it out
at: http://www.ahmadinejad.ir/
(You’ll notice that even here, the tie is missing). He even has a little piece about Christmas which is an exemplar of written English gone berserk.
Rudyard ! Rudyard, where are you when we need you?
Apr 17, 2008 - 5:26 am 5. Ken Moyes:Mahmūd Ahmadinejād is not interested in truth. He only wishes to create his own version of events for his own purpose. Twist the truth often enough and people who are not paying attention will believe it. If I were elected President, I would meet with him in my first month of office. I would lean over at a quiet time and whisper in his ear – “You do realize that while our soldiers and marines are quite stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, our Navy and Air Force are not doing much and would love the opportunity to visit your country.”
Apr 20, 2008 - 3:59 pmhttp://brokengovernment.wordpress.com