26
PARTISAN REVIEW
can one reconcile in thought the right of all cultures to exist and resolute ad–
herence to one's own culture? How can I reconcile in practice my belonging
to the nation of which I am a citizen and my loyalty to my Jewish ancestors?
How can I accept the possibility of the use of nuclear arms against cities, in
other words the annihilation of millions of innocent people? Could I fullyac–
cept the last sentence of the
Introduction:
"Human existence is dialectical,
that is, dramatic, since it operates in an incoherent world, commits itself re–
gardless of its duration, seeks a fleeting truth, with no assurance but that
provided by a fragmentary science and formal thought"?
I would make a sharper distinction between social values and moral
virtues, I would strengthen the foundations of scientific truth and human uni–
versalism.
As
for action, I would describe our historical condition more con–
cretely, but not in fundamentally different terms. In quiet periods, within
modern democratic societies, the citizen has few occasions to live through the
terrors of adventurous decisions. When we hesitate between American and
Soviet protection, we are involved in an incoherent world, we choose one
social configuration against another, both of which are imperfect, and we re–
sign ourselves to a possible horror that we should perhaps reject absolutely.
About fifty years ago, I wrote that our historical condition was dra–
matic. Should we say dramatic or tragic? In some respects, tragic is more
appropriate than dramatic. Tragic is the necessity to establish security on the
basis of the nuclear threat; tragic, the choice between the accumulation of
conventional weapons and the nuclear threat; tragic, the destruction of old
cultures by industrial civilization, but tragedy would be the final judgement
only if a fortunate conclusion, beyond tragedy, was not even conceivable. I
continue to think a happy end possible, far beyond the political horizon, an
Idea of Reason.
6
Have I felt regret for not having been the Kissinger of a Prince, as
some have suggested, notably Jean d'Ormesson? I would answer them in a
friendly way that they are wrong. Roger Martin du Card, in his still unpub–
lished memoirs, sketches an excessively flattering portrait of me, and ex–
plains why I "will not rule."7
6. In Kant's sense.
7. "Reading the works of Raymond
Non,
one's first feeling of agreement is so strong that
one would like to grant him absolute power and allow him to conduct affairs of state. He is
the 'good dictator,' secretly desired since the death of Solon. But I imagine him in power. He
is much too intelligent
to
govern! ot only would his intelligence disarm him in the face of
his adversaries and oblige him to understand opposition too well
to
brush it aside or to
