Who’d a thunk it? A guy from the 18th century using common sense philosophy in attempting a synthesis of the then new rational Enlightenment thought and the validity of religious belief and practice. Normally, one would think, oh, right! Too long ago, obscure, not applicable to today, obtuse philosophical mumbo jumbo. But, no.

Here’s the deal. Mendelssohn was a Jew in the newly Jewish-tolerant (well-somewhat) Prussia that arose out of Enlightenment thought. He still had to be a bit careful not to piss off the ruling Christians too much, but he did have more leeway to engage in conversation and debate over religion and the idea of reason being able to apprehend the mind of God. The biggest heresy back then was to take God out of the picture altogether; atheism was still a reputation-killing position to take, although some rational folks like Baruch Spinoza still did it or flirted with it. But Mendelssohn didn’t have that problem. He was a faithful and observant Jew who thought that Judaism was actually more in line with reason than Christianity; and if you read this great translation of excerpts from his writings, you’ll see what he’s talking about.

Although I don’t buy the idea that a proof of God’s existence is arguable by reason and logic, Mendelssohn takes a really convincing stab at it. But the thing I like best about him is the clarity of his thought processes and the direct style of his writing. Very refreshing compared to later modern philosophical obtuseness. He’ll just about convince you that reason can indeed look the Divine in the eye and know its essence.

I’d like to thank Michah Gottlieb in particular for pulling together these particular excerpts of Mendelssohn’s writings. They really flowed well together (many are letters as part of debate correspondence with Christians).

If you have any interest in philosophy, not just from a historical perspective, I recommend including Mendelssohn on your reading list. Quite refreshing.

The Russell Sage foundation is publishing this scholarly analysis of what the social scientists call “collective memory.” In this case, of atrocities, both at home and abroad. It’s a well-focused look at how we choose to remember or forget things that cause human suffering and violate human rights. Americans tend to think of their nation as a hero in the defense of liberty and human rights. We like to think of ourselves as the liberators of the victims of the Holocaust, for instance, but at the same time, we tend to gloss over our own atrocities, such as the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War, or more general evils, like slavery. The authors’ contention is that shining the light of legal action on atrocities tends to make them stick better in our collective memory, and that the more higher-level perpetrators are targeted (Holocaust, Balkan wars), the more we take seriously the need to remember to avoid future evil. If the courts prosecute just a lowly lieutenant (as in My Lai), then the memory tends to fade. And if no court of law is involved, we tend to avoid responsibility as a society (slavery, internment of Japanese citizens during WWII). The authors do a nice comparison of the way American collective memory works vs. German collective memory. It makes a big difference if you are the hero vs. the villain in atrocities that receive lots of spotlight legal attention (like the Nuremburg trials for the Germans). Overall, an interesting look at how collective memory works.

Riveting and disturbing at the same time, like most first-person stories about traumatic events. The Center for Military History (a U.S. Army organization) is publishing a book  composed of interviews with military and civilian personnel who were in the part of the Pentagon that was attacked on September 11, 2001. The book is very well put together and gives astonishing details about each witness or victim’s experience on that day. The main thing that struck me was the value of military training and mindset. The civilians tended to panic a bit more, but the military folks were almost entirely mentally set to respond, survive, rescue others, keep their heads with darkness, smoke and fire all around. Anyone who believes in any of the conspiracy theories about this not being an airplane but a missile will be seriously challenged to maintain that theory. Several witnesses/survivors reported first-hand experience picking up aircraft parts with bits of the American Airlines logo, etc. But the book is primarily a record of human suffering and human heroism and resilience. I assume this book will be published for public consumption, but not sure about the timing. Took me back, it did. Let us be thankful for $20,000 steel cased windows with special fire and crash-resistant glass. The Pentagon is one solid fortress and that saved lives. Let it be said that this was the last time, though, for sure.