Introduction
The thesis of the paper is “Sacrificing truth for friendship is a way to understand the shortcomings of progress”. The thesis is defended through analysis of works of two famous representatives of German Enlightenment Gotthold Lessing and Moses Mendelssohn who had a great impact on formulating the problems of progress, friendship, and tolerance. Through careful paradigmatical and textual analysis of Lessing ‘Nathan the Wise’ and Mendelssohn ‘Jerusalem,’ we try to detect the motives of Enlightenment expressed in the abovementioned issues.
Moses Mendelssohn and Gotthold Lessing’s writings
Moses Mendelssohn and Gotthold Lessing’s writings have a significant impact in teaching how far tolerance can be subjected regarding social order. Their works emphasize the idea that in a world that is filled with confusion, unquestionable racial hatred, endemic violence, and unresolved religious intolerance, there are still opportunities to be able to achieve tolerance. Lessing and Mendelssohn tried to resolve these problems by using liberal and rational values of Enlightenment. The religious dogmatism in pair with feudalism oppressed other religious groups such as Jews and Muslims. The only way to make a positive impulse to religion is transforming it following its initial purpose of personal cognition of God. One such writer to do so was the Jewish writer himself, Moses Mendelssohn, whose work Jerusalem emphasizes that the use of religious tolerance is imperative.
Idea of tolerance
Tolerance according to these writers should be based on the concept of universal brotherhood. Moreover, a Christian, Jew, or even a Muslim deserves to co-exist by being human without fear of being persecuted or attacked. As such, in Nathan, Lessing proposes that a man can only be judged on the sole basis of being an individual and not a member of a particular group. Furthermore, such toleration takes precedence over one’s creed or religion over the individuality of a person who is part of humanity. Lessing makes an outright appeal to human society by using this work to touch on the positive nature that can give prominence to the value of brotherhood and tolerance. Both works Jerusalem and Nathan the Wise reflect on the sacred right of individuals, that is the idea that regardless of family, class, and religion, everyone stands equal under God. Jews and Christians can stand together following the same rights which must be given to all.
Lessing’s Nathan the Wise describes how the wise Jewish merchant Nathan, the enlightened sultan Saladin, and the Templar bridge the gaps between Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. In this play, Lessing identifies a Jew as a champion of friendship and the enemy of friendship as the conflict that arises between Friendship and Truth. This is the enemy of friendship according to Nathan’s wisdom. Moreover, there are indications that Lessing sacrifices truth to friendship. If man possessed the truth, he would not be free, because freedom consists of endless choices between alternatives. Yet despite friendship being at odds with truth, consanguinity can take place. Friendship celebrates the distinction of the Other and recognizes the universal brotherhood lying underneath. The basis of friendship is to rejoice in another person’s differences while recognizing mutual human identity. The celebration of friendship vs. dogmatic religion and authority is the main motive of the play pursued in unique to German Enlightenment manner: “O come, we must, We must be friends! Disdain my folk, as much As ever you will. For neither one has chosen His folk. Are we our folk? What is folk? Are Jew and Christian sooner Jew and Christian Than man? How good, if I have found in you one more who is content to hear the name of man! (Nathan the Weise, II, 5).
Lessing uses the ring fable to highlight the idea of universal brotherhood. The focus of the play is the ring fable, narrated by Nathan when asked by Saladin which religion is true: an heirloom ring with the magical ability to render its owner pleasant in the eyes of God had been passed from father to the son he loved most. When the ring came to a father of three sons, all of whom he loved equally, he promised it to each of them. To uphold his promise, he made two replicas, and on his deathbed gave a ring to each son. The brothers argued over who was the owner of the real ring. A wise judge told them it was up to them to live their lives in such a way that the ring’s powers proved true. Nathan in effect, compares this to religion, saying that each of our lives by the religion we have learned from those we respect. The concept of human brotherhood appears again and again, for instance, when Frunza says: ‘I see the meaning of your apprehensions, and I am not going to throw away my religion, but I am deeply convinced that in his immense wisdom God is one, a supreme Creator for whom we are all children, Christians, Jews, and if you want Ottomans. And in his infinite wisdom, he chose me and Lelia to be messengers of his love’ (Nathan the Wise, p, 162).
The ideological closeness between Lessing and Mendelssohn is exemplified not only by their friendship which was one of the reasons for Lessing using Mendelssohn’s personality as a prototype for Nathan but in the connectedness of main themes they developed in their works.
Mendelssohn also uses Jerusalem to uphold that there was no perfect religion since there was no best form of government as well. This was also the central thought of Lessing’s Nathan. Both men agreed that the best religion is that which will bring out the noblest in individuals’ faculties. Mendelssohn writes in Jerusalem that there are certain truths that God makes use of to implant in all men alike however, it is Judaism that boasts of the principle that there is no exclusive testament or commandment of the universal truth (existence of God) that is necessary to salvation.
The moral imperatives of friendship
The moral imperatives of friendship are more important for Mendelssohn than the dogmatic religious claims for absolute truth that lead to violence and violating the freedom of personality. Thus, his claim for freedom is stipulated on the need of guaranteeing people brotherhood, and in this he echoes categorical imperative:
“But whoever publicly propounds a harmful opinion immediately and directly injures others.” The excesses of progress can be overcome only in the case of following the principles of human dignity and freedom encompassed by the concept of tolerance and friendship.
Mendelssohn holds on to the religion of Judaism as more proper to be revealed law rather than revealed truth. The principle Mendelssohn introduces is that there are no immutable truths; however, it only pertains to what the human understanding has conceived which is ably demonstrated and facilitated by our human faculties.
Mendelssohn discriminates between two kinds of truths: eternal and historical truth. The latter according to him “can only be perceived, using the senses, by those who were present at the time and place of their occurrence in nature.” This division between two kinds of truth is very important in terms of Mendelssohn’s notion of tolerance, friendship, and progress. Progress can be achieved only through liberating human subjectivity i.e. freeing communication between representatives of various religions in the view of finding historical truths. Thus, the truth is according to Mendelssohn the reflexive category dependent on human brotherhood (Jerusalem, p.93).
Religious tolerance
Interestingly, Mendelssohn defines Religion as a matter of personal conviction that could not be influenced or punished by the state. He attacked his writing when it contradicted civil law where one has the right to express himself without punishment from the state. He attacked his writing to communicate a principle for the separation of church of state.
Mendelssohn claims that religious tolerance can only be achieved if religion becomes rational and subjective. There are no universal truths revealed by God – because ‘for who was to be convinced of these eternal doctrines of salvation by the voice of thunder and the sound of trumpets? Surely not the unthinking, brutelike man, whose own reflections had not yet led him to the existence of an invisible being that governs the visible’ (Jerusalem, p.123). State intervention into the private domain goes opposite to the demands of progress and rationality.
Mendelssohn firmly believed that Judaism was superior to Christianity, as it did not add any doctrines or dogmas for the salvation of man. He relied on the oral Torah to show this superiority. He then attacks his writing because, in the process of writing the Torah down through plastic symbols, the abstract truth cannot be fully conveyed.
The views of tolerance presented by Mendelssohn and Lessing are also upheld by Kant. Kant uses Enlightenment to differentiate between “public” as opposed to “private.” The latter is not one’s individual which is opposed to community ties. The concept of “public” is the transnational universality to practice Reason. Kant’s essay asserts a more pleasing alternative for religion. Religion should be within the sphere of reason alone that is a faith of universalistic moral actions and beliefs.
Conclusion
In conclusion, religious belief is often the predictable adversary of tolerance. Tolerance is a virtue that requires deep religious and moral convictions aspects that are brought out by the teachings of Lessing, Mendelssohn, and Kant. Tolerance is rooted in the development of a self that is enough to ground respect. Tolerance issues forth in the kind of behavior that invites people to live well amongst each other despite different beliefs and practices from one’s own. Absolute truth means violence thus friendship and tolerance mean respecting opposite views and celebrating the pluralism of beliefs and ideas. This is the only way for developing reflective religion serving people and their moral improvement.
References
Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim. Nathan the Wise. Translated by E. Kemp. London: Nick Hern Books, 2003.
Mendelssohn, Moses. Jerusalem: Or on Religious Power and Judaism. New York: Brandeis, 1983.