258
PARTISAN REVIEW
land, by a not so strange coincidence countries outside of the shadow
of the Soviet Union, supported the resolution. The delegates of the
satellite countries did not attend this session (except for Dr. Rieger
of Czechoslovakia who slipped out before discussion on the resolution
was opened.)
As
speaker followed speaker it was instructive to observe
how closely the geographical division paralleled the contemporary
political scene. Representatives of the philosophical societies of those
countries which lay directly in the path of the Red Army in the event
of war in Europe displayed the most exagger.ated sensitivity towards
any possible action on the part of the Congress which might be con–
strued as provocative by the countries on the other side of the Iron
Curtain. Not that they were altogether aware of the connection. Per–
sonally, they assured the delegates that they were all in favor of free–
dom of philosophical inquiry-and they undoubtedly were. Some had
even suffered for exercising it. But they insisted that it was not the
sort of thing that fell within the proper concern of an International
Congress. To make the international picture complete, the represen–
tatives of Unesco tried to reconcile the two points of view by finding
an agreeable formula which could be interpreted as one desired.
Nothing revealed so glaringly the political motivation of the op–
position to the resolution as the arguments advanced against it. First
it was asserted that such a resolution was really a "tautology," on
the strange ground that all countries, totalitarian as well as demo–
cratic, would support it. Why, then, oppose it? The argument then
shifted and it was alleged that support of the "tautology" was an
obvious political provocation to satellite Communist regimes. Why
it would be considered a "provocation"-no countries were men–
tioned by name-was not indicated.
As
well say that to declare pub–
licly one's belief in civil rights of any kind is a "provocation" to those
who do not practice them. A little more sophisticated was the argu–
ment that a Congress of philosophers should not take a stand on any
issue concerning which philosophers might disagree and it was theo–
retically possible that some philosophers should make a philosophy
of the denial of freedom of philosophical inquiry.
Finally, in one of the most miserable arguments ever produced
by a philosopher, Professor Pos contended that there was no point in
approving a resolution in behalf of freedom of thought because
thought "by its very nature" was free. No one could prevent a person
