reason or another, there are no more classics, no sets of booksnand principles that connect us—^not just with each other—nbut with our civilized ancestors. The results of our intellectualnfragmentation are far too serious to be summed up by glibnsuperficialities like “two cultures.” In fact, there is no centralnhumane culture binding the student of the Vedas to the interpreternof Baudelaire. The trouble does not begin with specializationnor even with the failure of our public schools. It is thenrejection of tradition and contempt for the past that is at work.nWhat every specialist scholar needs—^if he wants to make hisnwork serve anything beyond self-promotion—^is an integratednvision of the past. Without some philosophical tradition, somencommon language of discourse, his work must remain an isolatednfragment. This isolation is not limited to academicnmonographs; it extends to nearly every book on politics,nethics, psychology, and social life published in the last 50nyears. Few, if any, are likely to be read 10 years after their datenof publication. Why? The most obvious answer is that, whatevernthefr individual merits, they are fragments: like unrelatednbits and pieces of a puzzle which, if it ever is put together,nturns out to be a Jackson Pollack painting without form ornpurpose.nNo individual, given this sort of isolation can work out ancoherent view of even a part of life. It takes order, system, or atnleast a set of common prejudices—^in a word, tradition. Withoutnit, his insights go unnoticed or, at best, land him a guestnshot on a television show. Wisdom, usable wisdom, requiresnthe experience of more than one generation. As it is, one fashionnsucceeds another, and sects blossom and fade with the regularitynof the seasons: existentialists, behaviorists, Freudians,nlibertarians, etc., etc. Between them are no common principlesnor accepted methods; they share neither a mutually intelligiblenvocabulary nor even a commitment to a universally acceptednlogic. Under such circumstances, it is no wonder thatnintellectuals have so little influence, even on other intellecmals.nRea eally useful systems—^like those of Plato and Aristoden(or even of Darwin and Mendel)—^are never finished. Eachngeneration stands upon the shoulders of its ancestors. Evennminor thinkers can make themselves useful by perfecting thensystem, while the occasional genius, an Aquinas or a Plotinus,ncan change the course of intellectual history. But for manynmodems, all that building, all those living traditions have—noutside of science—perished, and philosophy has been smashedninto a thousand bright ideas. Intellectual isolation becomes asncomplete as social alienation. It is more than just an affair ofnthe mind. The past is our world—or rather our world is thenpast. It cannot escape being diminished by this fragmentation.n—Thomas Flemingnr>r. Fleming is editor o/The Southerner magazinen• THEPAST TODAY •nTm: .Mi:R[r\ PRosrF:irAinThe Cancer of FanaticismnOver several months, thenworld’s public opinion has conveyednthe impression that thenAmerican government’s MiddlenEast policy concerning the Arab-nIsraeli conflict has been tiltingnmarkedly toward the Arab side.nWisdom and rectitude of such anbias notwithstanding, both thenworld and America soon had annopportunity to hear the thunderingnexplosion of Arab/Islamicngratitude.nStill, those who call for evenhandednessnin the conduct of ournaffairs in that part of the worldncontinue to maintain that thenbestial, cold-blooded murder ofndefenseless Americans in theirnoflSces cannot and should not benseen as an indictment of a nation,na religion, a culture. But is thatntrue? Perhaps some delving intonthe Christian European historicalnexperience could contributensomething to America’s moralnmusings and verdicts. For 12 centuries,nthere has existed in Europena deeply ingrained apprehensionnafxjut everything Islamic; it isnburied in the murkiest layers ofnEuropean folldore. In the ^^t expansesnfrom the Urals to Gibraltar,n”heathen” was synonymous withn”Moslem.” Words like “Saracens,”n”Tartars,” “Turks” stood for unforgivablensavagery. Our entirenconcept of Western civilization,nafter centuries of evolution, rejectsnthe idea of a collective evilndetermining a racial group, nationalnentity, or social community,nbut this concept grew out ofnthe fiindamental belief in a Godnof justice, love, and mercy whonnnimbues humans with a free willnand a respect for otherness. ThenIslamic ethos went in a differentndirection. Arab nations and states,nperpetually involved in ftatricidalnwars, seem to be guided by onlynone principle: the imperative tonsubjugate anything that’s differentnfrom the values prescribed byntheir own tribal selves. We havencome to see fanaticism as evil;nthey see it as a virtue and thenmerciless eradication of any independentnotherness as theirnsacrosanct mission. This is exactlynwhat constitutes Israel’s predicament;nit is well known tonevery child in Jerusalem, but it isninsouciantly ignored by ideologistsnof the Bechtel school ofnpolitical theory. The bombing ofna diplomatic compound and thenatrocious slaying of Americanntypists in Lebanon may providensome illumination in the editorialnoffices of New York and in thenState Department’s conferencenrooms in D.C. DnJane 1983n