Fearless

 

On Page 54 of his book, The Passionate State of Mind, Eric Hoffer has two entries which I quote and comment on.

 

Hoffer: “          87

 

Fear comes from uncertainty. When we are absolutely certain, whether of our worth or worthlessness, we are almost impervious to fear. Thus a feeling of utter unworthiness can be a source of courage.”

 

My response: Here is another Hofferian paradox laid out. It seems intuitive that certain knowledge would make us less fearful, and that not knowing would eat away at our self-confidence and sense of tranquility.

 

The paradox arises when he links fearlessness with utter goodness or utter worthiness, but also its counterpart, utter wickedness, or utter unworthiness. It would seem that being completely evil and well knowing it consciously would make that agent realize that she was flirting with eternal hellfire as her ultimate destiny, something she had better fear or else.

 

But she does not fear hellfire: as a naturally born fanatic, she fears feeling weak, powerless, uncertain, anxious—all moods and sentiments that, collectively, lead her to utterly hate herself, and that naked state of consciousness, with no rationale giving her a sense of worth for group affiliating, is a state of personal, psychic misery that she cannot tolerate for more than 5 minutes. Better to be so wicked, cruel, and demonic, that she is certain of her chances of burning in hell, but she is completely certain of who she is and what she deserves, and that gives her a home among the demons where her group-esteem gives her that sense of worth, and that is her number one priority, and it has been met. It is better to burn among friends, fellow devils, than any longer to be uncertain, afraid, lost as an anomic misfit.

 

 

Hoffer: “          88

 

Absolute power is partial to simplicity. It wants simple problems, simple solutions, simple definitions. It sees in complication a product of weakness—the torturous path compromise must follow. There is thus a certain similarity between the pattern of extremism and that of absolute power.”

 

My response: Absolute power is wielded by the strongman or the junta after the active mass movement has won its revolutionary attack upon the formerly prevailing dispensation. But, when he was leading his mass movement, championing his ism, his holy cause, he did so as a radical showing in thought, word, and deed that he was a pure extremist of passionate enthusiasm. Thus, absolute power of powerless is the common denominator linking the extremism and brutal violence and terror committed by the true believers of mass movement to the absolute power wielded by the strongman, once the totalitarian state is a going concern.

 

Both prefer simple problems, simple solutions, and simple definitions, though that was never how the world works. Here is another Hofferian paradox: The absolute tyrant and the extremist man of action from the active phase of the mass movement are the same person, and they are weak, hollow man wielding limitless power of powerlessness in both roles.

 

It is the President of United States, with endless complications to sort out by political compromising, indelicate legislation constructing, and working with the enemy to get perhaps half a loaf; this stronger, more moderate leader of a free people is stronger and less powerful, but this wielder of the power of powerfulness is actually the stronger leader—stronger as President and stronger as a person.