I am continually confounded by the concept of paradox. It seems to unravel countless philosophical mysteries, but could it just be a cop-out? One such mystery for me is the moral character of French Revolutionary Maximilien Robespierre. Celebrated by some, scorned by most, Robespierre is remembered as both a champion of civil liberty and as the first modern totalitarian dictator. But it would be too easy to write off the inconsistency of this man as having simply been a case of hypocrisy. No. With Robespierre it was far more complicated. He seems to have been both an oppressive tyrant and a champion of human rights at the same time. More than a hypocrite, this man was a living embodiment of paradox.
On one hand is the Robespierre who committed himself "to defend the oppressed against their oppressors, to plead the cause of the weak against the strong who exploit and crush them." On the other is the Robespierre who later is responsible for the executions (among thousands) of Francis Bertrand for making sour wine, as well as of former close friends like Camille Desmoulins and Georges Danton, who he deemed too moderate (which they were anything but).
The issue of Robespierre's religious belief makes for an interesting case-in-point. The Bible in the book of James says that "faith without works is dead." The book of Galatians lists joy, peace, temperance, and goodness among the fruits of the spirit. If either of these can be included as essential parts of the definition of a Christian, than it would be hard to consider Robespierre one. Yet in a climate of militant anti-Christianity, Robespierre continually defended the role of the Christian faith in French society. He made a particular enemy of Atheism towards the end of his life. He believed that the belief of the people in God was intrinsic to the Revolution. He said "The French people pins its faith...upon the conception of an incomprehensible power, which is at once a source of confidence to the virtuous and of terror to the criminal." Indeed much of his motivation to lead a revolution of the people to overturn oppression came from inspiration he received from the teachings of Christ.
Although his actions seem to contradict a Biblical definition of a Christian, his words and thoughts, both private and public, seem to affirm one. Similarly, he seems to have both opposed and championed basic human rights and equality with equal passion and authenticity. Only the idea of paradox allows for the existence of such contradictions.
So is paradox a legitimate entity? Certainly it can be used irresponsibly. It would be very easy to write off any inconsistency as being paradoxical rather than hypocritical. The life of Maximilien Robespierre seems to demonstrate however that dramatic inconsistencies that can exist authentically, or paradoxically, in an individual.
On one hand is the Robespierre who committed himself "to defend the oppressed against their oppressors, to plead the cause of the weak against the strong who exploit and crush them." On the other is the Robespierre who later is responsible for the executions (among thousands) of Francis Bertrand for making sour wine, as well as of former close friends like Camille Desmoulins and Georges Danton, who he deemed too moderate (which they were anything but).
The issue of Robespierre's religious belief makes for an interesting case-in-point. The Bible in the book of James says that "faith without works is dead." The book of Galatians lists joy, peace, temperance, and goodness among the fruits of the spirit. If either of these can be included as essential parts of the definition of a Christian, than it would be hard to consider Robespierre one. Yet in a climate of militant anti-Christianity, Robespierre continually defended the role of the Christian faith in French society. He made a particular enemy of Atheism towards the end of his life. He believed that the belief of the people in God was intrinsic to the Revolution. He said "The French people pins its faith...upon the conception of an incomprehensible power, which is at once a source of confidence to the virtuous and of terror to the criminal." Indeed much of his motivation to lead a revolution of the people to overturn oppression came from inspiration he received from the teachings of Christ.
Although his actions seem to contradict a Biblical definition of a Christian, his words and thoughts, both private and public, seem to affirm one. Similarly, he seems to have both opposed and championed basic human rights and equality with equal passion and authenticity. Only the idea of paradox allows for the existence of such contradictions.
So is paradox a legitimate entity? Certainly it can be used irresponsibly. It would be very easy to write off any inconsistency as being paradoxical rather than hypocritical. The life of Maximilien Robespierre seems to demonstrate however that dramatic inconsistencies that can exist authentically, or paradoxically, in an individual.
.JPG)
+detail.jpg)
1 comment:
Fascinating post!
Post a Comment