## 5.1 The [[Oedipus]] myth > [!quote] > When Oedipus realized that he himself was the cause of their suffering, he put out his own eyes and wandered blind away from Thebes. ## 5.2 Tomas's interpretation of the Oedipus myth > [!quote] > Anyone who thinks that the Communist regimes of Central Europe are exclusively the work of criminals is overlooking a basic truth: the criminal regimes were made not by criminals but by enthusiasts convinced they had discovered the only road to paradise. Reminds me of the [[Popper]] quote: "Those who promise us paradise on earth never produced anything but a hell." > [!quote] Continued > They defended that road so valiantly that they were forced to execute many people. Later it became clear that there was no paradise, that the enthusiasts were therefore murderers. > > Then everyone took to shouting at the Communists: You're the ones responsible for our country's misfortune (it had grown poor and desolate), for its loss of independence (it had fallen into the hands of the Russians), for its judicial murders! > > And the accused responded: We didn't know! We were deceived! We were true believers! Deep in our hearts we are innocent! > [!quote] Tomas' refutal > Oedipus did not know he was sleeping with his own mother, yet when he realized what had happened, he did not feel innocent. Unable to stand the sight of the misfortune had wrought by "not knowing," he put out his eyes and wandered blind away from Thebes. > > When Tomas heard Communists shouting in defense of their inner purity, he said to himself, As a result of your "not knowing," this country has lost its freedom, lost it for centuries, perhaps, and you shout that you feel no guilt? How can you stand the sight of what you've done? How is it you aren't horrified? Have you no eyes to see? If you had eyes, you would have to put them out and wander away from Thebes! > [!thought] Against [[The Joke]] > One can draw a parallel between Tomas and Ludvik of [[The Joke]] here. They both authored a writing (Even though Ludvik's *long live Trotsky* is embarrassing to be called a writing) and faced consequences from it. > > The biggest similarity between them is that for both, the writing in question defined their personhood within the society. No longer are persons with dimensions, layers, and subtlety. Ludvik is a mere counter-revolutionary element with histories of petit-bourgeoise tendencies. Tomas is no longer a doctor but an dissident intellectual (as seen by both the dissident intellectuals and the secret police). Both of them cannot stand it and fight it throughout. Ludvik defends him by framing his writing as a joke; whereas Tomas walks a fine line and ultimately rejects to sign the petition. > > Sabina's words - "In the kingdom of Kitsch you would be a monster" ([[#1.3 Tomas|1.3]]) rings true. The right thing for him to would be to sign the petition. Yet this would make Tomas a man of kitsch. At the end, he decided to protect Tereza and Sabina instead of defending his principles (in fact; his principles weren't that strong to begin with; he never wanted that to define him, over his family nor his profession as a doctor). Is this hypocritical, contradictory? Yes, if this is a heroic resistance novel. However, Tomas is not a kitsch, but a person with multiple needs, desires, and motivations. Tomas's first meeting with *the editor*. The end of the Prague Spring. ## 5.3 Retraction Tomas returned from Zurich, the chief surgeon asked him to retract his letter to the editor. Tomas hesitates. ## 5.4 Inflation of Guilt This is the section which I call the "inflation of guilt". Instead Tomas's interaction with the young surgeon S. Everyone's smile, and how his retraction would make everyone happy. Tomas decides against the retraction, and he was forced to leave the hospital. > [!quote] > That was the first thing that struct him: although he had never given people cause to doubt his integrity, they were ready to bet on his dishonesty rather than on his virtue. > > The second thing that struct him was their reaction to the position they attributed to him. I might divide it into two basic types: > > The first type of reaction came from who themselves (they or their intimates) had retracted something, who had themselves been forced to make public peace with the occupation regime or were prepared to do so (unwillingly, of course - no one wanted to do it). > These people began to smile a curious smile at him, a smile he had never seen before: the sheepish smile of secret conspiratorial consent. ==It was the smile of two men meeting accidentally in a brothel== ... > > The second type of reaction came from people who themselves (they or their intimates) had been persecuted, who had refused to compromise with the occupation powers or were convinced they would refuse to compromise (to sign a statement) even though no one had requested it of them (for instance, because they were too young to be seriously involved). I am reminded of 김용철, the whistleblower lawyer behind <삼성을 생각한다>. I can't find an exact quote, but he rebutted someone saying "I would refuse the bribe from Samsung too" after a lecture, with "you're a nobody; nobody's going to bribe you". It is very easy to have a moral superiority against a hypothetical temptation that is never going to be offered to you; the real strength lies in ones' ability to fend off a real temptation. ## 5.5 The Secret Police, 1 - Tomas loses his surgeon job, now practices as a general practitioner. - Tomas's meeting with the secret police. The difficulties with dealing with these "professionals" as a civilian. > [!quote] > But it was not out of mere vanity. More important was Tomas's lack of experience. When you sit face to face with someone who is pleasant, respectful, and polite, you have a hard time reminding yourself that *nothing* he says is true, that *nothing* is sincere. Maintaining nonbelief (constantly, systematically, without the slightest vacillation) requires a tremendous effect and the proper training - in other words, frequent police interrogations. Tomas lacked that training. > ... > It is a tragicomic fact that our proper upbringing has become an ally of the secret police. We do not know how to lie. The "Tell the truth!" imperative drummed into us by our mamas and papas function so automatically that we feel ashamed of lying even to a secret policeman during an interrogation. It is simpler for us to argue with him or insult him (which makes no sense whatsoever) than to lie to his face (which is the only thing to do). ## 5.6 The Secret Police, 2 Tomas's regret of talking with the secret policeman. Their second interaction: > [!quote] > "I understand perfectly, Doctor," said the man, with a smile. > Tomas was intrigued by his words. He said them like a chess player who is letting his opponent know he made an error in the previous move. The secret police offers another opportunity to write even more egregious retraction. Tomas volunteering to the lowest rung of the social ladder, to avoid the secret police's visit. ## 5.14 Tomas rejects to sign the petition