Two [Woody Allen and Natan Sharansky] with such different views on history

Minneapolis Star Tribune ^ | July 12, 2005 | David Gelernter

[rhema]

Woody Allen (liberal) and Natan Sharansky (conservative) are celebrity Jewish intellectuals who offer radically different worldviews for your contemplation. Allen's is more popular with intellectuals worldwide. Sharansky's whole life says that Allen is wrong.

Allen recently explained his view of history to the German magazine Der Spiegel. And Sharansky was interviewed by Jay Nordlinger of the National Review. If you understand their disagreement, you will grasp the main spiritual question facing Americans today.

Allen, 69, is a filmmaker from Brooklyn in New York. Sharansky, 57, was a political prisoner in the Soviet gulag; today he is an Israeli politician.

< snip >

Sharansky was prepared to die for freedom. He saw fellow dissidents die. Don't tell him that all killing is the same, that history is going nowhere. He rode history's bucking bronco from a Soviet cell to a Jewish state strong enough (physically, spiritually) to fight off insatiable enemies in war after war and never surrender.

I don't know Allen's view of religion. But the idea that history repeats itself endlessly, that no utopian "end of days" will ever come, that existence is a grim, meaningless merry-go-round nicely complements atheism. The German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche called this view (which he also held) "the eternal recurrence." Nietzsche was the wisest atheist of all. But again, Sharansky disagrees. As a Soviet prisoner he invented a prayer: "Grant me the strength, the power, the intelligence and the patience to leave this jail and reach the land of Israel in an honest and worthy way." The prayer was granted. For Sharansky, his personal history means nothing less than that God is listening.

Is that meaning enough for Woody Allen?

David Gelernter, a professor of computer science at Yale and a contributing editor to the Weekly Standard,

[timsbella]

My first and only Woody Allen movie was Manhattan which my oldest sister suck me in to see when I was 12. I watched this geezer paw Mariel Hemmingway who was six years older than me. She tried to convince me that it was funny and it was art. I was very clear it was neither. His incestuous marriage did not surprise me.

[Zionist Conspirator]

I don't know Allen's view of religion. But the idea that history repeats itself endlessly, that no utopian "end of days" will ever come, that existence is a grim, meaningless merry-go-round nicely complements atheism.

So far as I know, Allen is an atheist. He has certainly used his films to mock Judaism.

The thing is, most atheists of the past two hundred years or so have indeed believed that history is going somewhere--a utopian "omega point" at which history ends in a static paradise. Most atheists today believe similarly (at least the ones who make the most noise).

The only political philosophy I am aware of that rejects the notion of a teleological Hegelian (or else religious supernatural) course to history is Italian Fascism. Fascism differed from both Nazism and Communism in this regard, as Mussolini proclaimed "we are a heretic to all the paradises." Life and history was constant unending struggle with no resolution either at the end of history or after life.

Who'd a thunk that Woody Allen and his largely Jewish audience would have been disciples of Mussolini???

[durasell]

Look, you don't ask your plumber for fashion tips and you don't ask a comedy writer for his view of the geopolitical situation.

So, why did the journalist ask? It's one of the oldest tricks in "ambush journalism." The reporter is sitting across from a successful guy with a large ego who has made a ton of money and asks a question the guy is entirely unable to answer with any kind of expertise. A reasonable person would say "Huh? What do I know about that? Are you nuts?" But if the interview subject's ego is large enough, he/she will feel compelled to answer, thus making a fool of themselves.

[timsbella]

"Who'd a thunk that Woody Allen and his largely Jewish audience would have been disciples of Mussolini???"

You asked "who'da thunk" - the point is they don't think. They follow. This man has done a lot of deliberate damage to the Jewish image. His views match his self loathing.

[ariamne]

That's funny--I was a film major in college and one of our assignments was to write movie reviews; my prof assigned "Manhattan" to me. I HATED it, and was just appalled at the idea of a man Woody Allen's age sleeping with a high school student (under 18 as well). Plus he was just ugly as sin, just what was the attraction for the Mariel Hemingway character, pray tell?

I ripped the movie apart and turned in my review; consequently was chastised by my professor for applying my own morality to the assignment. At the time, I was a liberal myself but could not be shaken in my conviction that this was disgusting and wrong.

And you were 100% right--this movie was not funny nor was it art.

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

his movies have dispensed with mere humor in favor of gentle, carefully crafted tedium.

Heh heh heh.

[trisham]

Woody Allen is an amoral pervert. Nothing he says is of any consequence, except in his own mind.

[priceofreedom]

"If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky's book."

I would implore the president to start acting like it when dealing with Israel. Questionably the most important aspect of the book deals with appeasement, and the negative effects it has brought to both the free countries who wield it and the fear countries who thrive on it. Unfortunately the President (who I have the utmost respect for) has been utilizing a double standard in respect to the state of Israel. Appeasing a fear society never works...ask Natan......

[chukcha]

"The history of the world is like: He kills me, I kill him."

There is something here that is very deep and "intellectual".