Detailed notes on the book [[The Unbearable Lightness of Being]]. # 1. Lightness and Weight ## 1.1 Eternal Return The novel opens with [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]'s eternal return. Both its consequences (and consequences from its absence) are explored, using the romanticism around the [[French Revolution]] as an example. > [!quote] > Let us therefore agree that the idea of eternal return implies a perspective from which things appear other than as we know them: they appear without the mitigating circumstance of their transitory nature. This mitigating circumstance prevents us from coming to a verdict. For how can we condemn something that is ephemeral, in transit? ==In the sunset of dissolution, everything is illuminated by the aura of nostalgia, even the guillotine.== ## 1.2 Parmenides and Lightness > [!quote] > Parmenides responded: lightness is positive, weight negative. Was he correct or not? That is the question. The certainty is: the lightness/weight opposition is the most mysterious, most ambiguous of all. ## 1.3 Tomas > [!quote] > I have been thinking about Tomas for many years. Such an impactful opener. Both in this book and in [[Immortality]] Kundera alludes to the birth of characters; He breaks the fourth wall, reminding us that everything happening in this book is his creation. But Kundera doesn't appear omnipotent. Once born, the characters have minds of their own, independent of their creator. The plot begins from this chapter. Tereza is sick in his house, after their one night stand. Tomas is struggling with the attachment with a woman for the first time. *Should I let her return*? Kundera ties back to the Eternal Return, how it's only natural for us to not know the answer. > [!quote] > *Einmal ist Keinmal* ## 1.4 Tereza Tereza comes back to Prague, holding a volume of [[Anna Karerina]] tight (secret code to her world, as explored later) and her entire life packed in the suitcase. The metaphor of the bulrush basket. > [!quote] On Metaphors > Tomas did not realize at the time that metaphors are dangerous. Metaphors are not to be trifled with. A single metaphor can give birth to love. ## 1.5 Sabina > [!quote] Kitsch > The woman who understood him best was Sabina. She was a painter. "The reason I like you," she would say to him, "is you're the complete opposite of kitsch. ==In the kingdom of kitsch you would be a monster.==" ## 1.9 Compassion vs co-sentiment / co-feeling I seldom like _etymological_ or dictionary-definition arguments, especially as an opener. However, these are some words that I never got accustomed to in English (compassion, sympathy, empathy, pity). _empathy_ is the closest word to co-sentiment / co-feeling, but there’s still mismatch of nuance here. # 2. Soul and Body ## 2.17 Vertigo > [!quote] > What is vertigo? Fear of falling? Then why do we feel it even when the observation tower comes equipped with a sturdy handrail? No, vertigo is something other than the fear of falling. ==It is the voice of the emptiness below us which tempts us and lures us, it is the desire to fall, against which, terrified, we defend ourselves==. ## 2.27 Line and Circle > [!quote] > Dog time cannot be plotted along a straight line; it does not move on and on, from one thing to the next. It moves in a circle like the hands of a clock, which — they too, unwilling to dash madly ahead — turn round and round the face, day in and day out following the same path. Related: - [[The Human Condition]]'s rectilinear nature of labor. - [[Ayn Rand|Rand]]'s [[Atlas Shrugged]] # 3. Words Misunderstood > [!note] The full list > * Woman > * Fidelity and Betrayal > * Music > * Light and Darkness > * Parades > * The Beauty of New York > * Sabina's country > * Cemetery > * The old church in Amsterdam > * Strength > * Living in Truth > [!thought] > Kundera's *Words Misunderstood* and Alain de Botton's [[Essays in Love]] are two masterpieces of love stories. They have similar motives, but I rate Kundera's higher on its succinctness and alignment with the main philosophical themes of the book. ## 3.7 Dictionary ### Living in Truth > [!quote] > Such is the formula set forth by [[Franz Kafka|Kafka]] somewhere in the diaries or letters. Franz couldn't quite remember where. But it captivated him. What does it mean to live in truth? Putting it negatively is easy enough: it means not lying, not hiding, and not dissimulating. > ... > ==For Sabina, living in truth, lying neither to ourselves nor to others, was possible only away from the public==: the moment someone keeps an eye on what we do, we involuntarily make allowances for that eye, and nothing we do is truthful. # 4. Soul and Body ## 4.4 Concentration Camp > [!quote] > When a private talk over a bottle of wine is broadcast on the radio, what can it mean but that the world is turning into a concentration camp? \[...\] ==A concentration camp is the complete obliteration of privacy==. Goes back to Sabina's definition of [[#Living in Truth]]. ## 4.8 What is flirtation > [!quote] > What is flirtation? One might say that it is behavior leading another to believe that sexual intimacy is possible, while preventing that possibility from becoming a certainty. In other words, flirting is a promise of sexual intercourse without a guarantee. # 5. Lightness and Weight ## 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 # 6. The Great March ## 6.1 The parable of Yakov's death ## 6.2 Interpretation of Yakov's death > [!quote] > Stalin's son laid down his life for shit. But a death for shit is not a senseless death. The Germans who sacrificed their lives to expand their country's territory to the east, the Russians who died to extend their country's power to the west - yes, they died for something idiotic, and their deaths have no meaning or general validity. ==Amid the general idiocy of the war, the death of Stalin's son stands out as the sole metaphysical death==. ## 6.3 The problem of divine intestines ## 6.4 The problem of divine intestines, continued ## 6.5 [[Kitsch]] > [!quote] > "Kitsch" is a German word born in the middle of the sentimental nineteenth century, and from German it entered all Western languages. Repeated use, however, has obliterated its original metaphysical meaning: ==kitsch is the absolute denial of shit==, in both the literal and figurative senses of the word; kitsch excludes everything from its purview which essentially unacceptable in human existence. ## 6.23 Others' gaze > [!quote] > We all need someone to look at us. We can be divided into four categories according to the kind of look we wish to live under. > > The first category longs for the ==look of an infinite number of anonymous eyes==, in other words, for the look of the public. That is the case with the German singer, The American actress, and even the tall, stooped editor with the big chin. \[...\] > > The second category is made up of people who have a ==vital need to be looked at by many known eyes==. \[...\] Marie-Claude and her daughter belong in the second category. > > Then there is the third category, the category of people who need to be ==constantly before the eyes of the person they love==. \[...\] Tereza and Tomas belong in the third category. > > And finally there is the fourth category, the rarest, the category of people who live in the ==imaginary eyes of those who are not present==. They are the dreamers. Franz, for example. He traveled to the borders of Cambodia only for Sabina. As the bus bumped along the Thai road, he could feel her eyes fixed on him in a long stare. Tomas's son belongs in the same category. ## 6.29 Epitaphs > [!quote] > What remains of the dying population in Cambodia? > One large photograph of an American actress holding an Asian child in her arms. > What remains of Tomas? > An inscription reading HE WANTED THE KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH. > What remains of Beethoven? > A frown, an improbable mane, and a somber voice intoning "*Es muss sein!*" > What remains of Franz? > An inscription reading A RETURN AFTER LONG WANDERINGS. > And so on and so forth. ==Before we are forgotten, we will be turned into kitsch. Kitsch is the stopover between being and oblivion==. # 7. Karenin's Smile ## 7.2 [[Friedrich Nietzsche|Nietzsche]], [[Descartes]]' *Animal Automata* > [!quote] > That took place in 1889, when Nietzsche, too, had removed himself from the world of people. In other words, it was at the time when his mental illness had just erupted. But for that very reason I feel his gesture has broad implications. ==Nietzsche was trying to apologize to the horses for Descartes==. His lunacy (that is, his final break with mankind) began at the very moment he burst into tears over the horse. This interpretation of Nietzsche's madness elevates Tereza to the same level, making her the heroin of the story. Just like Nietzsche Tereza struggles and is rejected (and rejects) the society. 7.4 explores this deeper; that the love between a human and an animal is *better* than a lover between two humans. ## 7.4 Love with Animal, Happiness is the longing for repetition > [!quote] > the love that tied her to Karenin was better than the love between her and Tomas. ==Better, not bigger==. Tereza did not wish to fault either Tomas or herself; she did not wish to claim that they could love each other *more*. Her feeling was rather that, given the nature of the human couple, the love of man and woman is a priori inferior to that which can exist (at least in the best instances) in the love between man and dog, that oddity of human history probably unplanned by the Creator. > > It is a completely selfless love: Tereza did not want anything of Karenin; she did not ever ask him to love her back. ... ==No one forced her to love Karenin; love for dogs is voluntary==. > [!quote] > If Karenin had been a person instead of a dog, he would surely have long since said to Tereza, "Look, I'm sick and tired of carrying that roll in my mouth every day. Can't you come up with something different?" And therein lies the whole of man's plight. ==Human time do not turn in a circle; it runs ahead in a straight line. That is why man cannot be happy: happiness is the longing for repetition==. Goes back to the topic of [[#2.27 Line and Circle]], coming with quite a profound conclusion of *why man cannot be happy*. ## 7.7 The Last Station > [!quote] > "Missions are stupid, Tereza. I have no mission. No one has. And it's a terrific relief to realize you're free, free of all missions." > \[...\] > The sadness meant: we are at the last station. The happiness meant: we are together. The sadness was form, the happiness content. Happiness filled the space of sadness.