A Problem with Truth-2
This "Kompromiss" article by Professor Nils Goldschmidt interested me enough that I decided to do as second post on it. For one thing, he posits the compromise solution to organizational problems so negatively, it is effectively a lose-lose solution. He describes it as a "Dilemmata", the plural form of the English word "dilemma", effectively a confluence of problems that blocks the flow of progress. I needed the help of AI Overview to help me study "Dilemmata" with a fresh eye. The AI Overview definition confirms its negative context.
Professor Goldschmidt also quotes the American philosopher Martin Benjamin who describes a compromise as "splitting the difference"—having to accept losses with a "bitteren Beigeschmack",
a bitter aftertaste, and a "Gefühl des Bedauerns" a feeling of regret. The only reason organizations employ a compromise, he says, is "um des lieben Friedens willen", to maintain the peace. He uses this phrase three times in the article, by my count.
So, the question remains who has to endure the greatest loss, at the end of the day, to maintain the peace, the established German society, in favor of immigrants, feminists, gays and Lesbians? So is anyone surprised at how much support the AfD, the rear-guard Establishment party, has garnered in the last few elections
But Goldschmidt's support for compromise goes further. He paraphrases the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper who said that "es keine absolute Wahrheit gibt und keine endgültigen Gewissheiten."
I put this quote in German to reflect my near-horror that an educated man like Goldschmidt would pose such a contention, especially in Germany: "No absolute truths, no enduring certainties"; so we have to compromise, following this logic, to cover all the hypothetical bases? No wonder everyone feels frustration and resentment that improvements move so slowly in Germany.
Goldschmidt concludes his article accordingly, clearing away any philosophical mumbo-jumbo: "In short, we mistrust the self-serving truth-sayers of the all-powerful man and all-powerful woman," and accept the equal validity of the "Andersartige", people who think along contrary lines. We have to accomodate them. He reveals only gradually his actual political sympathies, which are more-or-less doctrinaire leftist, with academic trappings.
No wonder he relies so much on the workings of a committee. John LeCarré describes a committee in his novel Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy as a "creature with four back legs". In real lie, one or two people in a group will dominate the discussion. I sit in German restaurants and cafés and listen to a single person speaking adamantly, as if his audience can't agree with him quickly enough. So much for Goldschmidt's criticism of "self-serving truth-sayers"! Germany is full of them.
In America, and probably Germany too, there are other angles on this "Kompromiss" article that do not get mentioned, namely that opposing opinions follow predictable lines—Black vs. White, rich vs. Poor, and Feminist vs. Men; so that the nation rarely pursues the best course, because we have to appease the entrenched, perpetually pissed-off opposition. We have to give their contrariness equal consideration.
To tell them that they could create their own country and escape the poor conditions of this country will only produce outrage.They already have enough problems with existential angst, from feeling like outcasts. Don't make their problems any worse. They don't even want compromise. They want non-negotiable demands; but all that blunted protest also blunts the forward-moving intentionality of the nation.