We had a very lively discussion Sunday morning in class. Several of the members we surprised by the tone that several of the authors of the responses took in regards to forgiving Karl. It was suggested that unless you have survived a horror like Simon and some of the essay writers, then you could not have any way to understand the attitudes and thoughts shared. My question was if we can not “understand” how will we be able to prevent such things from happening again?
Jacques Derrida(1) suggests in “On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness, that “ In order to approach now the very concept of forgiveness, logic and common sense agree for once with the paradox: it is necessary, it seems to me, to begin from the fact that , yes, there is the unforgivable. Is this not, in truth, the only thing to forgive? If one is only prepared to forgive what appears forgivable, what the church calls “venial sin’, then the very idea of forgiveness would disappear. If there is something to forgive, it would be what in religious language is called mortal sin, the worst, the unforgivable crime or harm. From which comes the aporia, which can be described in its dry and implacable formality, without mercy: forgiveness forgives only the unforgivable. One cannot, or should not, forgive; there is only forgiveness, if there is any, where there is the unforgivable.”(2)

I propose that in his own way, Derrida was also struggling with the aftermath of the crimes committed during WWI. The world had been turned upside-down and endured one of the worst chapters in modern history and philosophers and theologians alike were searching for a way to come to terms with the horrors of the times. It was world where little made sense and pain and brokenness were everywhere in Europe. We, in the United States did not suffer in the same way, little or no fighting took place in the continental US so that the vast majority of our population were shielded from the destruction, murder and horror inflicted during the way. Which leads me to question if I as an American born after WWI has the right to comment or judge the thoughts and feelings of those who survived? I may be putting to much thought into this, but I can not help but ponder the “why” the essayists took the position that they did in regards to the idea of forgiving Karl the dying SS officer in Wiesenthal’s book.
I suppose in relation to the larger topic of forgiveness understanding why people took the stand they did is not as important as the conversation that revolves around the concept of forgiveness.
(1) Britannica Concise Encyclopedia., Jacques Derrida, (born July 15, 1930, El Biar, Alg. — died Oct. 8, 2004, Paris, France) Algerian-born French philosopher. Derrida taught principally at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris (1964 – 84). His critique of Western philosophy encompasses literature, linguistics, and psychoanalysis. His thought is based on his disapproval of the search for an ultimate metaphysical certainty or source of meaning that has characterized most of Western philosophy. Instead, he offers deconstruction, which is in part a way of reading philosophic texts intended to make explicit the underlying metaphysical suppositions and assumptions through a close analysis of the language that attempts to convey them. His works on deconstructive theory and method include Speech and Phenomena (1967), Writing and Difference (1967), and Of Grammatology (1967). Among his other works are Psyche: Invention of the Other (1987) and Resistances of Psychoanalysis (1996). at Britannica.com
2 Derrida, Jacques, “On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness” ,English translation printed 2001 London, Routledge,., pgs. 32, 33.