⛏️ Thoughts on "Reading is the Axe for the Frozen Sea Within Us - Kafka's Conversations"

Some thoughts on reading the conversations.

This is a collection of conversations between Franz Kafka and Gustav Janouch, which meticulously records Kafka's unique insights on life, art, literature, philosophy, religion, and society, among other topics. Kafka believed that unwavering endurance was the cornerstone of his outlook on life and work. He viewed illness not as entirely negative but as a warning, a kind of aid to life. He argued that language is only lent to the living for an uncertain period—we can merely use it. The book also delves deeply into love. Kafka considered the decisive factor in love to be love itself, and regarding the relationship between love and filth, he believed only the lover's will could separate the two. At the same time, he had a profound understanding of self-awareness in love, asserting that in romantic relationships, an individual's perception of themselves—their emotions and behavioral patterns—is crucial.

Kafka's critique of modern society is primarily reflected in his sharp observations on social injustice, factory systems, family conflicts, and the relationship between art and life. He believed that we all participate in the betrayal of justice, and many even know it, yet no one wants to admit that we live in injustice—which is why we invent excuses. Additionally, Kafka held a distinctive view of Judaism, considering brotherly love to be the moral achievement of the Jewish people, while Christ, being Jewish, brought the Gospels to the world. He believed that illness, suffering, and torment were the most important sources of religion.

Recent cases of major societal revenge attacks—where individuals deliberately drove cars into crowds, killing and injuring many, or graduates returned to their schools with knives to commit violence—have raised questions about the victims being universally perceived as innocent. Internally, I sense that something is fundamentally wrong. These are acts of revenge against society, yet "society" is an abstract concept. Who can point out where society is? They can only target specific people. In the face of such atrocities, who should be blamed? Who bears the greatest responsibility? Are the victims entirely innocent? Kafka offers some direction for thought here: we all live in injustice, yet we are merely indifferent bystanders, becoming, to some extent, accomplices to this injustice. Now, some have resorted to extreme methods. Though their approach is wrong, it forces those in power to confront the issues and compels ordinary people to speak out. When pressure reaches a certain point, it will always find an outlet. The means by which it is released, however, are not easily controlled by human will—though harming innocent people in this way is undoubtedly egregious.

During World War II, Hitler persecuted millions of Jews, but how many did he personally kill? The German officers and soldiers were simply at their posts, fulfilling their duties, collectively carrying out the industrialized, highly efficient mass murder of the modern era. We cannot say that those low-ranking soldiers were entirely innocent, even if they were just obediently following orders, because they were part of this vast, cold-blooded machine—precisely the machinery that enabled such horrific atrocities. Hannah Arendt defined this as the "banality of evil."

Yet we must be cautious. It is always easy to stand on moral high ground and condemn others. However, the higher you stand, the colder it gets. When one finger points at others, four point back at oneself.