posted July 23, 2010 11:16 AM         

That a man who in some fashion or other has what one calls a "cause," something he seriously purposes to accomplish, and there are other persons who make it their business to counteract, and antagonize, and hurt him, so that he must take measures against these his enemies, this will be evident to every one. But that there is a well‑intentioned kindness by far more dangerous, perhaps, and one that seems calculated to prevent the serious accomplishment of his mission, this will not at once be clear to every one.

When a person suddenly falls ill, kindly‑intentioned folk will straightway rush to his help, and one will suggest this, another that and if all those about him had a chance to have their way it would certainly result in the sick man's death; seeing that even one person's well‑meaning advice may be dangerous enough. And even if nothing is done, and the advice of neither the assembled and well‑meaning crowd nor of any one person is taken, yet their busy and flurried presence may be harmful, nevertheless, inasmuch as they are in the way of the physician.

Likewise at a fire. Scarcely has the alarm of fire been sounded but a great crowd of people will rush to the spot, good and kindly and sympathetic, helpful people, the one with a bucket, the other with a basin, still another with a hand‑squirt, all of them goodly, kindly, sympathetic, helpful persons who want to do all they can to extinguish the fire.

But what says the fire‑marshal? The fire‑marshal, he says -- well, at other times the fire‑marshal is a very pleasant and refined man; but at a fire he does use coarse language -- he says or, rather, he roars out: "Oh, go to hell with your buckets and hand‑squirts!" And then, when these well‑meaning people feel insulted, perhaps, and think it highly improper to be treated in this fashion, and would like at least to be treated respectfully what says the fire-marshal then? Well, at other times the fire‑marshal is a very pleasant and refined gentleman who will show every one the respect due him; but at a fire he is somewhat different he says: "Where the devil is the police?" And when the policemen arrive he says to them: "Rid me of these damn people with their buckets and hand‑squirts; and if they won't clear out, then club them on their heads, so that we get rid of them and can get at the fire!"

That is to say, in the case of a fire the whole way of looking at things is a very different one from that of quiet every‑day life. The qualities which in quiet every‑day life render one well‑liked, viz., good‑nature and kindly well m­eaning, all this is repaid, in the case of a fire, with abusive language and finally with a crack on the head.

And this is just as it should be. For a conflagration is a serious business; and wherever we have to deal with a se­rious business this well‑intentioned kindness won't do at all. Indeed, any serious business enforces a very different mode of behavior which is: either‑or. Either you are able really to do something, and really have something to do here; or else, if that be not the case, then the serious business demands precisely that you take yourself away. And if you will not comprehend that, the fire‑marshal proposes to have the police hammer it into your head; which may do you a great deal of good, as it may help to render you a little serious, as is befitting so serious a business as a fire.

But what is true in the case of a fire holds true also in matters of the spirit. Wherever a cause is to be promoted, or an enterprise to be seen through, or an idea to be served -- you may be sure that when he who really is the man to do it, the right man, he who, in a higher sense has and ought to have command, he who is in earnest and can make the matter the serious business it really is -- you may be sure that when he arrives at the spot, so to say, he will find there a nice company of easy‑going, addlepated twaddlers who, pretending to be engaged in serious business, dabble in wishing to serve this cause, to further that enterprise, to promote that idea a company of addlepated fools who will of course consider one's unwillingness to make common cause with them (which unwillingness precisely proves one's seriousness) will of course consider that a sure proof of the man's lack of seriousness. I say, when the right man arrives he will find this; but I might also look at it in this fashion: the very question as to whether he is the right man is most properly decided by his attitude to that crowd of fools. If he thinks they may help him, and that he will add to his strength by joining them, then he is eo ipso not the right man. The right man will understand at once, as did the fire‑marshal, that the crowd must be got out of the way; in fact, that their presence and puttering around is the most dangerous ally the fire could have. Only, that in matters of the spirit it is not as in the case of the conflagration, where the fire‑marshal needs but to say to the police: rid me of these people!

Thus in matters of the spirit, and likewise in matters of religion. History has frequently been compared to what the chemists call a "process." The figure is quite suggestive, providing it is correctly understood. For instance, in the "process of filtration" water is run through a filter and by this process loses its impurities. In a totally different sense history is a process. The idea is given utterance and then enters into the process of history. But unfortunately this process (how ridiculous a supposition!) consists not in purifying the idea, which never is purer than at its inception; oh no, it consists in gradually and increasingly botching, bungling, and making a mess of, the idea, in using up the idea, in indeed, is not this the opposite of filtering? adding the impurer elements which it originally lacked: until at last, by the enthusiastic and mutually appreciative efforts of successive generations, the idea has absolutely disappeared and the very opposite of the original idea is now called the idea, which is then asserted to have arisen through a historic process by which the idea is purified and elevated.

When finally the right man arrives, he who in the highest sense is called to the task for all we know, chosen early and slowly educated for this business which is, to throw light on the matter, to set fire to this jungle which is a refuge for all kinds of foolish talk and delusions and rascally tricks when he comes he will always find a nice company of addlepated fools and twaddlers who, surely enough, do think that, perhaps, things are wrong and that "something must be done about it"; or who have taken the position, and talk a good deal about it, that it is preposterous to be self‑important and talk about it. Now if he, the right man, is deceived but a single instant and thinks that it is this company who are to aid him, then it is clear he is not the right man. If he is deceived and has dealings with that company, then providence will at once take its hand off him, as not fit. But the right man will see at a glance, as the fire‑marshal does, that the crowd who in the kindness of their hearts mean to help in extinguishing a conflagration by buckets and hand‑squirts the right man will see that the same crowd who here, when there is a question, not of extinguishing a fire, but rather of setting something on fire, will in the kindness of their hearts wish to help with a sulfur match without sulfer or a wet spill, he will see that this crowd must be got rid of, that he must not have the least thing in common with this crowd, that he will be obliged to use the coarsest possible language against them -- he who perhaps at other times is anything but coarse. But the thing of supreme importance is to be rid of the crowd; for the effect of the crowd is to hamstring the whole cause by robbing it of its seriousness while heartfelt sympathy is pretended. Of course the crowd will then rage against him, against his incredible arrogance and so forth. This ought not to count with him, whether for or against, In all truly serious business the law of : either or, prevails. Either, I am the man whose serious business this is, I am called to it, and am willing to take a decisive risk; or, if this be not the case, then the seriousness of the business demands that I do not meddle with it at all. Nothing is more detestable and mean, and nothing discloses and effects a deeper demoralization, than this lackadaisical wishing to enter "somewhat" into matters which demand an aut aut, aut Caesar aut nihil [Either-Or, either Caesar or nothing], this taking just a little part in something, to be so wretchedly lukewarm, to twaddle about the business, and then by twaddling to usurp through a lie the attitude of being better than they who wish not to have anything whatever to do with the whole business, to usurp through a lie the attitude of being better, and thus to render doubly difficult the task of him whose business it really is.

posted July 23, 2010 07:35 PM         

You have to admit,
he has a point.

Yin & mermaid,

posted July 24, 2010 09:37 AM         

If I were the fire marshall, and I came to a fire seemingly with no team behind me, and I found a crowd of well-meaning helpers with the tools to assist me, I think I would be trying to find a way to get that crowd to help me in my cause rather than cursing them and trying to get them out of the way. It is one mighty arrogant fire marshall who thinks he can tackle that blaze alone?

If however, he does have a team and the crowd actually have tools that would make things worse rather than better, I think I would try to find another way to utilise their skills (get them to fetch blankets, see if any had first aid skills) etc.

If I was under pressure my tone and language may be found by some as offensive, but that's the only bit of the piece above that I see a point in.

posted July 24, 2010 05:49 PM         

In the case of Kierkegaard, although he worked independently, he saw himself as part of a group of "real Christians"; those attempting to uphold and support the true Christian teaching, as he understood it. While these "true Christians" may be working shoulder to shoulder, or working alone, separated by time and space (even centuries and continents), they still belong to the same "fire department", and they're still fighting the same hellfire. I think this is how we ought to look at the analogy; keeping the intention and meaning of the one who wrote it in mind.

Also, it's worth considering my own intention, in making use of Kierkegaard's piece. Although I could suggest a number of examples, it should suffice to name just one. For me, the torture and slaughter of animals on factory farms is a crisis. Now, somebody may claim to care about animals, and want to help, but if what they're really doing is trying to convince me that this is not a crisis, and that contributing to this blaze is not a big deal -- well, you see my point. These people are carrying buckets of gasoline, not water. They order meat in restaurants which has come from factory farms, and think the real problem is the passionate indignation and persistence of someone like myself. With respect to the analogy, this would be like a crowd getting in the way of the fire marshal, not because they are trying to put out the fire themselves in their own small ways, but, because they think the fire is not a significant issue, and that the fire marshal is the one who needs to be "put out". Do you see? Their idea of helping is to pacify the one person who has the right idea.

While my meaning is somewhat different from Kierkegaard's, it is the same with respect to extreme circumstances which others fail to recognize the seriousness of. This is, after all, the very essence of the piece. What we are talking about is a crisis which many people fail to take seriously. While they may recognize a problem, their behavior proves that they do not see the true significance of the danger or tragedy at stake. As a consequence, the means they employ are not only insufficient, but often a positive hindrance to the application of more rigorous and suitable means.

For instance, suppose someone, wanting to help, is running into the burning building in order to recover semi-precious objects. The fact is, this person is blocking the entrance and creating an obstruction to the firefighters, who are attempting to rescue actual lives, and not mere objects. How do you propose to work with such people?

In some cases, as I said, the buckets, rather than being full of water, are full of gasoline. This is a fair comparison, since standing in the way of the firefighters is approximate to feeding the fire. And no matter how much you may respect the person's good intentions, and no matter how much you may want to be diplomatic and patient, and try to work together, there is no convincing this person that water, and not gasoline, is what is needed to extinguish a fire. In any case, there is no time. While you are explaining the matter, lives are being lost. Sometimes, the best thing to do is knock that person on the head, lest they continue to feed the blaze that is consuming lives. The only problem to consider is that, by doing so, you may incite the crowd to riot. At the very least, we can say that, whether or not this method (of shouting at them and hitting them over the head) is realistically effective, it is certainly understandable.

posted July 25, 2010 01:05 PM         

I get your point, and it's a valid point.

I think his point is very different, and I stand by my 'load of old twaddle'!

Your point is that noone understands the seriousness of the situation (whether it be the fire, or something else). They look at you indulgently, and pretend they understand, but their actions don't back up this up. So you scream a little louder at them, and then they start to get annoyed with you, so then you might get abusive, but then they turn away and stick their fingers in their ears.

I can see that might be very frustrating, but completely counter-productive from your perspective.

posted July 25, 2010 10:45 PM         

quote:

---

Your point is that no one understands the seriousness of the situation (whether it be the fire, or something else). They look at you indulgently, and pretend they understand, but their actions don't back up this up. So you scream a little louder at them, and then they start to get annoyed with you, so then you might get abusive, but then they turn away and stick their fingers in their ears.

---

Not quite.

It's more like this:

I speak the truth. They deny it. I reason with them. They make evasive excuses and accuse me of intolerance. I speak the truth more directly. They get abusive and make accusations of arrogance and abuse against me. I reason more. They get really frustrated with the fact that I'm still being logical, which they see as cold and unemotional, so they get more abusive. The less I react, the more abusive they get, hoping to throw me off and get a rise out of me. I respond with biting honesty (which they interpret as self-righteous arrogance and intolerance). They all jump on me, quoting me, misquoting me, repeating a hundred times that I am arrogant and insulting. People believe them because they just keep repeating their accusations over and over, and there are more of them than there are of me. (When enough people repeat something enough times, most people will believe it.) Also, because they play the victim. When I say what's happening, offering actual reasons and arguments, they ignore the arguments and say I'm playing the victim. They get more nasty and abusive. I continue to be blunt. At this point, I'm being blatantly self-righteous and arrogant, but not before this point. Now they really jump on my words. They all complain to Randall and the moderators, while I just stand up for myself, thereby adding to the impression that I'm the instigator and only guilty party. I continue to reason, with actual logic and analogies. They ignore all my arguments (focusing only on my arrogant and self-righteous tone) and continue with their accusations and abuse. Again, because there are more of them, and because they're just repeating accusations against me, people believe them. Then more people start abusing me, getting increasingly personal and insulting. Provoked, my responses become equally abusive. Eventually, I feel guilty and apologize for my behavior. They either accept my apology or not, but rarely admit to having any part in provoking me, or in being equally insulting, arrogant, etc., as myself. The more guilt I admit to, the more they say "see!", meanwhile denying their own guilt. Again, the impression to any careless observer is that I'm the "bad egg". Their arrogance is less obvious, because they're less honest, less cheeky, and less bombastic in how they articulate it, but it's there nonetheless. I walk away. They post about me in numerous threads, attempting to bait me and celebrate what they see as a victory. I continue to post threads, making rational and provocative arguments about issues that truly need to be recognized, and they continue to point to these as if this is evidence of my wish to make trouble. Every time I make an especially poignant comment or post, they get up in arms, evidently furious at having their fragile egos and superficial worldviews challenged by someone who actually thinks and cares about serious issues. And round and round we go.

Nobody Wins
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvLoS0_8jK0

I continue to disagree with your conclusions. There are firefighters, they are organized, and I contribute along with them, but (obviously) not here at Lindaland, where support is scarce. People agree with me here, but not many people want to become a target for a bloodthirsty mob of women who don't care what's real or good or true, and just want to go on with business as usual (i.e. torturing and murdering animals, while claiming to love them). Most people just think it's not worth it. They don't respect these women enough to argue with them. I, on the other hand, tend to be a sucker for lost causes. Maybe I'm a masochist.