§15.

Dora Dymant, Kafka´s last love, once wrote of Kafka:
“ He spoke lively and happily. He then developed the wealth of images that when he wrote. I often got the impression that he felt an almost artisanal satisfaction when he managed to express himself well.”

Now to discuss who another human being was, it is not very nice and it is not fair, since I did not think Kafka himself would approve of it at all. There are other people whose life were such, as if they already in their life were very keen to being scrutinized in all respects for an eternity. Kierkegaard was such a man. But Kafka was not, I think. Kafka was a man of rich intelligence and great knowledge: He managed to do his job at as assurance lawyer very effective and with skill. He had nearly no enemies. He had great self-control. It is suspected that he had a to himself troublesome sexual orientation, the nature of which is unknown to us. He was ashamed of his body and admired perfect bodies. He felt an extreme outsider. He often talked about this. Even to people he had not known for very long. He could identify himself with other people who were known to have been loners, like Kierkegaard, Kleist, Dostoyevsky and Grillparzer.
Even if he often spoke of himself, he seldom discussed (!) his own person. He never had friends with whom he earnestly could discuss personal matters, and he never sought any psychologist, psychoanalyst or doctor to talk about his loneliness or other deep problems of life. (As a matter of fact Kafka always bore a deep mistrust towards doctors.). Thus he said to some Milena Jesenská ( another “love” of his), that he had never in his entire life had an earnest conversation with his friend Max Brod. It is -apropos “love” it is highly questionable if he ever in his life had fallen in love with anybody. Kafka was a sceptic (like Kierkegaard was) and he was partly an anarchist (like Socrates) and it may be so, that his relation to his father, Herman, had something to do with this. It is not evident, but it seems clear from many passages in his books that he, even as an adult yeaned for a father. ( The relation between Herman and Franz was indeed a double one. I think personally that the two of them loved each other very much, but that they never showed it.).
When it came to literature, it was certainly almost overshadowing everything else in life, except life itself. His life was literature. And to make this life even greater, I think Kafka inserted dialectic into the works, where he used the thoughts and theories of the early Freud, and played with these. Writing was an intense play with his own soul, and I doubt he was aware of what the play meant and what it did with him, but I think he was well aware of that he played with his soul. Kafka never changed his trance-method of writing, and never changed style from the style that can be found in The Judgment. Since Kafka never understood the art of making decisions and thus never understood people in general and how they managed to live their life, he could not either make plots for novels. Thus the big novels are extended, giant, prose poems, and they have simple, unfinished plots. Strange thing is that this author managed to be almost an inaugural figure for Modern Life and modernity. Kafka did question nearly everything in real life, and he questioned by his art too. And the heroes of his novels are completely helpless figures trying to question their way forward.
The loneliness of the “in Kafka´s works “figures” is monumental. But the “figures” should not be seen as complete human beings. The complete human beings in the works of Kafka are the implicit narrators of these stories. These narrators are different self-portraits of Kafka, and they are as such, as self-portraits unique, because normally self-portraits suffer from lack of desire in them, whilst with Kafka there is a hot desire for some sort of unity of some sort, a coming together of parts, and of the coming to some sort o...

[ Continued ]

§14.

When Franz Kafka grew up – born 1883 and named after the emperor Franz Josef of the Austrian-Hungarian empire - in the centre of Prague near the town hall ( Altstädter Ring ) he was not looked upon by anybody in his surrounding as a peculiar boy, like young Ludwig Wittgenstein and Gustave Flaubert certainly was, but as just a normal boy. Yes, it was even told a biographer of Kafka´s by a man, who had been classmate, that: “If I should say something characteristic about Kafka, it would be, that it was nothing special with him at all.” ( The words of Emil Utitz.).

Franz´s father Herman had a store, selling women´s clothing, and he made pretty well. The Jewish family was not rich, but they managed to have a nice flat and to put their children in good schools. In Prague in those years around 1900 Prague was run by a German speaking aristocracy and Appollinaire, who then visited Prague, remarked that the Czechs often were hostile to the “ruling class”. Despite this situation Prague was in all respects a much calmer city than Vienna was at the time, and antisemitism (experienced by Wittgenstein and Freud at this time in history) was not often a problem in Prague. But all his childhood years young Franz was all the same taken to school by a maid. But Franz had trouble in school. He was not good in math. He in fact never thought he would pass the final college exam and be able to go to university. But he did in 1901. And he even managed to go through years of study of law and even get the doctor´s degree (Dr.Jur.) in 1906 at the Prague University.
From very early years he had begun to write short stories. He exchanged stories with a schoolfellow, and all his life he actually had friends with whom he discussed literature. But he often did not take part in any discussion at all, if there were more than one person plus himself. He could not handle groups. Already as a teenager Franz and his father did not get along very well, - Herman Kafka was perplexed when young Franz declared that he had become a vegetarian. Franz, who was of week physical constitution, began to exercise and he was often seen swimming in Moldau, or rowing a small boat. He was a hypochondriac. And he feared marriage, when he became older. In fact, the romances of this very handsome young man, when he grew up, were few. In school he had in 1902 met a very alert fellow with whom he discussed Nietzsche, and they became friends all through Kafka´s life. It was Max Brod. Through Brod and through the letters of Kafka to various women, which he never married, we can learn much of Kafka as a person and very much of his attitude towards literature in general and his own writing in particular. And one thing we soon are observing is his enormous delight in reading Flaubert.

From early years Franz – the only son of Herman Kafka - had had a gouvernant ( among several ) - Mlle Bailly - who taught him French. And Kafka´s favorite book all through his life was Flaubert´s first novel L´Education sentimentale, (Sentimental education) a book that to people, who does not read French, generally seems extraordinary boring. The young hero of this book is a person who indulges in daydreaming. Flaubert´s own words from later in life gives a very good hint of the content of the book: "I wanted to write the moral history of the men of my generation—or, more accurately, the history of their feelings. It's a book about love, about passion; but passion such as can exist nowadays—that is to say, inactive.” The marvels of the book are the poetry around each and every hesitation described in it. And this Kafka liked. (Kafka could through his entire life almost never make up his mind about anything at all. We will discuss this later.)
Kafka admired Flaubert as a person (he had read the letters to Louise) and he admired and agreed to the poetics of Flaubert. (Cf. §.9.). Kafka often read Flaubert aloud to his friends. In fact, if he was not permitted to read his favorite writer aloud, he...

[ Continued ]

§13.
WORDS WITHIN [ BRACKETS ] ( Partly because it is §13., you know …. After all, u are only human.).

[ I took a walk in the park, thinking of my blog. I met a woman with a smartphone, who apparently just had gotten a message. Meeting me she looked up with a smile on her face, and look my in the eyes as if she was awaiting my approval to the content of the message that had just amused her. Of course I could confirm nothing at all, but I looked away as if I hadn’t noticed her happiness at all. I was a bit ashamed of course, but I thought that I could not confirm what I did not know about. One cannot smile at everything. I thought. Certainly not in accordance to any message on any cellphone. But maybe I was wrong. Suppose she hadn´t worn a phone, but looked up from her thoughts and smiled at me? Wouldn´t I immediately have returned her smile with a smile of my own? Of course I would, - without me knowing the content of her thoughts. ( Suppose if she had just planned to kill her boyfriend or something? ..... )
In my blog I am now and looking up, addressing my reader with an almost invisible nod, smiling friendly. Of course my readers will smile back at me. But of course they don´t. Why? Because they are just like me in the park meeting the girl with the phone message. My readers don´t know me and don´t know my inner “message”.
I guess they, you, have a hard time to hear my voice clearly. It is difficult to transmit “clear signals” in a language foreign to one’s own. One should always solely talk in one´s native toungue, and not try to express oneself – on serious stuff like this - in a language which is spoken in a country where one have never even put one´s foot. I live in a small country in Europe, not on the British Isles or Ireland, and I have never been to an English-speaking country in my entire life.]
---
Later today I was smiling at some Syrian refugees. They smiled back, but their smiles were all very faint, exhausted as they looked.

panicroom

§12.

Through the intensity in their persistent strivings both Flaubert and Wittgenstein thus filled the void of their respective bubble-person. And the bubble at the same time was (!) the intensity of their persistence! They never tried anything but to use their position as, and their comprehension of themselves as complete strangers. They never tried to adjust in any formidable manner. ( Alas! [smile].) But they managed to contribute to our understanding of the world by being sceptics. They got much of their own happiness in being sceptics, although this never led to them being rich and wealthy persons. They never discussed wealth. ( Now Wittgenstein did, since he was born wealthy, and he claimed that money was a hindrance to any persons, so he – almost maliciously, one might think, gave his money away to his sisters in Vienna! [smile].)
It seems that both Flaubert and Wittgenstein were self-absorbed persons. They were no philanthropists. Indeed. But Wittgenstein thought it was perfectly rational to leave philosophy during WWII and Flaubert thought freedom of speech and freedom to be different and freedom to seek happiness was worth fighting for. ( The big fight in the times of both Wittgenstein and Flaubert was that against Romanticism, which was the great suppressing force of the time in the spiritual field alongside the church.). It was worthwhile to show to the world the secrets in Emma Bovary´s heart, although the conservatives in France were horrified. They did not want to know about such secrets. ( Later, in the year of 1900, Sigmund Freud should show the world other secrets in his Traumdeutung – a book that sold very poorly, but still was eagerly discussed at every coffee table in Central Europe during the years to come - , but then in the liberal climate in Vienna, where almost nothing was forbidden, except for smearing the Kaiser, the nearly invisible head of the Habsburg dynasty.)
Through the history of philosophy and literature skepticism runs as a red ribbon. Ever since Homer, Socrates, Sophocles and Sappho skepticism is just as important as is passion. The nature of a good authorship is its skeptical wholeheartedness. Both Flaubert and Wittgenstein had huge amounts of energy, and they managed to trust their ability to navigate in new, undiscovered, unsure waters.
Wittgenstein lived a simple life in Cambridge, and he enjoyed being worshipped by his students. Sometimes he was on tour with one or two of them. He liked climbing moutains. And he went to the movies and was especially fond of Hollywood western films. While lecturing he was an improviser, and it seems – to the now living onlooker – to have been more like a standup comedy than anything else. But there were also big quarrels like on the occasion when Popper was visiting. ( Cf. the book "Wittgenstein´s poker".). The philosophical quarrel was about the nature of the concept of philosophy.
In Vienna the Wittgensteins had been very wealthy, like I said. Wittgenstein´s mother was an extremely beautiful woman, and very gifted. She was an excellent piano player. She had had a good education on this instrument (although she had not, like the wife of Charles Darwin have had Chopin as a teacher.), and she insisted upon that her children should have education in music too. But Ludwig was omitted from this schedule. It is unclear why his parents looked upon him as almost retarded. Later in life he played the clarinet, and he became a master whistler. Once in a small pension in Norway ( where he had a short love affair with Alan Turing, which led to no happiness on either side ) he announced, together with a piano player, a whistle concert, - I think it was a symphony by Mozart – and he whistled the entire symphony through. And in his papers are notes on music, on good and bad composers. Now Wittgenstein also turned to sculpture, but mostly his joys were reading books. And he classified authors in his own way. To Wittgenstein very many authors, of w...

[ Continued ]

§11.

From the brief sketch I have made of Gustave Flaubert we can assume that he was utterly persistent in his striving to write the books he wanted to write. And when we come to Ludwig Wittgenstein we are meeting another stubborn ( "eigensinnig" or even "einsinnig" in the terminology of Otto Weiniger... ) man, who walked his own way through life, but he was not so stubborn, though, that it was impossible for him to change his philosophy. He did so. Because of that one talks in philosophy about Wittgenstein I. and Wittgenstein II..( But Wittgenstein II was born posthumously. When he died in 1951, from cancer, most of his works had not yet been published.)
Ludwig was in some other respect just like Gustave than the one mentioned too. He was regarded as stupid by his parents. His birth took place in Vienna in the 1880ies and he had brothers who got very sophisticated educations. The Wittgensteins were extremely rich people, - maybe belonging to the top 100 richest people in town. Ludwig´s father, a Jew like the entire family, had among other things built railways in Russia. One of the Wittgenstein brothers became a very good pianist too. The sisters stayed wealthy. But Ludwig only went through more simple schooling, and after having served in the army ( on a boat, which is rather original for an Austrian ) he for some years became a schoolteacher in a small village in the alps.
But we are running a bit ahead now. Because during the World War I. young Ludwig , who had studied philosophy in Vienna, and looked up the famous philosopher Frege, who was a famous author known for his skill with concepts, wrote a small book that soon would make him very famous. He not only became very famous: the book was an enigmatic book ( in parts ) and a rather good one, and he also changed the picture of what it “was” to be a philosopher in the 20ieth century.
The Tractatus Logico Philosophicus is a very unusual book for a being a renowned book on philosophical matters. It has a buildup in layers and it contains both crystal clear things and completely obscure ones. What Wittgenstein had set out to do, in the midst of his life as a soldier, was to solve every problem once and for all. This book was a definite one. Despite its smallness as a physical volume (25000 words.).( I myself have a copy of it in a bookshelf. )
The book was not completed during the war, but afterwards, and he sent it to Great Britain, to Bertrand Russell, who later became his friend, so to say. Russell became very impressed. Why so ? is the immediate question, - at least to a philosopher ( like me [smile], Russell and Wittgenstein ). Now B. Russell was an open-minded character, a womanizer and in philosophy an eclectic. ( We have to linger a bit here on Russell.). He had been a Hegelian and he tended to become a Marxist, he was a mathematician and wrote tons of books on matters of daily life, on marriage and – more important – of peace. Russell – I think - became very impressed by the range of discoveries and important notes contained in the Tractatus. And Russell liked very much broad knowledge. Much because he himself had an enormous knowledge in different areas, and knowledge was a great part of his life, - knowledge and enjoying knowledge and intellect. Russell had published the extraordinary book on mathematics ( Principia Mathematica ) together with Whitehead ( which was taking to the printing factory in a roller by Whitehead) . This book became widely discussed later. Among people admired by Russell Wittgenstein certainly stood out, at least for a while, but No.1 to Russell was always John Maynard Keynes, who was probably the only person who Russell at the same time admired despite he had not been able to grasp the content of the doctoral thesis, presented by the man. Keynes thesis was on probability, and Keynes mainly earned his money by cleverly placing more money in stocks, and he loved men and art. Thus Russell became interested in a young ...

[ Continued ]