CEMİL MERİÇ

MY COMMENTS :

In the work written by Cemil Meriç, detailed descriptions of the concepts of intellectuals in the Western and Russian worlds and the reflections of this group on the intellectual community in our country are examined with historical elements.

The author first explains the terms intellectual, 'alyan' and 'intellectual', which are not widely known apart from these two terms, but derived from Russian, in the light of etymological elements, and then expresses how these groups have undergone changes as a result of important events in history.

Finally, the author, who talks about how the equivalents of these changes occurred in our country's history, especially states that the real meanings of these expressions are emptied and a group that has no knowledge about society is called intellectual. Today, as can be seen in many areas, it is seen that the achievements of many so-called intellectuals who speak as if they were experts on every subject are actually only one-sided imitations of western works.

The author did not neglect to mention the segment of the western imitation in our country as of the Tanzimat. The Young Turks, as they were called at the time, who took over the administration after the coup that took place with the Babıali Raid, quickly collapsed during the difficult times of the empire and suddenly dragged the Ottoman Empire into World War I. From this period and the aftermath, our people were constantly indoctrinated that the West was a role model to be followed.

It is seen that our young minds who go to the West have evolved into people who are far from their own countries when they return. Namık Kemal, who stated that we are 200 years behind the West, and the claim that we need 200 years to be like them is an attempt to drag our society into an acceptance in the direction of not even attempting to close the gap with this understanding. Unfortunately, since this mentality tries to imitate the West without even understanding its basic values, our country has taken on an identity that seems neither Western nor Eastern as a result of the deficiencies in this regard.

It is obvious that the problems in question continue today, but we are now a country that has accelerated its westernization process. Unfortunately, this situation can cause some of our ancient traditions and customs to gradually disappear. However, it is promising to see that we are not surrendering to the populist rhetoric and claims of global powers as well as Western states.

The work also provides detailed analyses of the etymological origin of the word revolution, which came to the world agenda with the French Revolution, and shows that this concept has been transmitted in several versions as a political appetizer both in our republican history and in the post-Tanzimat period. Revolution, which was later called revolution instead of revolution, has been multiplied with the effort to increase its homophones as much as possible, although it did not lose its essential meaning.

The clearest example of a revolution in our country is the declaration of the republic. He stated that the revolutions that took place after the declaration of the republic should be defined as the reforms that took place after the revolution. He also specifically stated that Atatürk used the term revolution instead of revolution.

The reform most criticized by the author is the alphabet reform. He states that Ottoman Turkish started to become Turkish after the Tanzimat and that the difficulty of writing and pronouncing some Turkish words with Arabic letters is not sufficient reason to change a whole language accumulation. Instead, he states that Ottoman Turkish should be renewed by meeting some concepts from the West within its Turkishified structure, as it was before.

Considering the abundance of quotations from the work, it is obvious that it is not possible to touch upon each subject one by one. Moreover, the author has made all his analyses and descriptions by citing many sources and using examples. For this reason, it is obvious that at least the items in the quotations section should be examined in detail.

In conclusion, the work deserves to be considered as one of the important reference books that expresses with important examples that our country, especially the intellectual section, has remained an imitator of the West, unable to fulfill its responsibilities for 200 years, and makes detailed comparisons of some concepts that are still not fully distinguishable in our daily lives.

MY QUOTATIONS(*) :

We cannot call every graduate an intellectual. However, people who have received higher education are candidates for intellectuals.
The intellectual is critical because he does not experience events, he watches them from the outside. Then the shortest way to get himself accepted is to create astonishment in his surroundings.
In our time, an intellectual is a man who makes discoveries and studies that will renew and change the world: According to this definition, neither men of letters, nor historians, nor philosophers will be considered intellectuals.
The left is sometimes a friend and sometimes an enemy to the intellectual. More precisely, the intellectual deserves applause, provided that he is one of them.
He is not an intellectual knowledge carrier. He is an independent fighter who risks every battle in the name of truth.
( In Western languages, clerics are both priests, intellectuals and notary candidates… How did the word embrace these various meanings? Let’s take a look at the dictionary: “ During the barbarian invasions, knowledge and wisdom took refuge in monasteries and churches and remained there for centuries. The people were in a dark ignorance; anyone who had a little knowledge compared to their contemporaries and who could understand the alphabet was a member of the church, at least with his cassock and shaved head. For this reason, all intellectuals were called clerics. A slave who became a priest would gain freedom; for the city dweller, being a priest meant a calmer life, and being free from tributes and attacks. The rulers were so eager to spread education that prisoners who could read and write were often spared. All positions, all offices belonged to members of the church. Priests were not only ministers, not only ambassadors, not only consultants; they also held professions that are completely reserved for non-religious people today. The courts were monopolized by the clergy: lawyers, university professors, notaries, doctors, etc. Those who were engaged in free professions could only obtain a marriage license at the end of the 14th century. This situation continued until the revolution. Many clergy who were freed from church rules and rejected celibacy remained loyal to the clergy in order to benefit from church justice. As the power of the rulers increased, church courts lost their importance and these courts only heard the cases of priests. And the word clergy no longer meant an intellectual, but as it does today, it meant a notary assistant or a candidate lawyer .
Sartre-Jean-Paul “ The 18th century is the Golden Age of the intellectuals. Philosophers born, educated and brought up in the bourgeoisie are in complete agreement with it .”
The grandchildren of philosophers gave themselves a new name in the last thirty years of the 19th century: Intellectual. The economic infrastructure had changed considerably, the working class had become stronger, and bourgeois ideology had disintegrated. The job expected of intellectuals was to protect the interests of the ruling class based on technical knowledge, to strengthen and sustain its ideology against hostile ideologies. Their job was not to unite humanity, but to continue privileges.
Unless the gap between book life, theoretical knowledge and daily routine is bridged, contemplation will tend towards one of two poles: utopia or brainwashing.
Unless you liquidate culture, you cannot destroy society.
(Paul Robert defined the Intelligentsia as a Russian word that passed into French at the end of the 19th century: " The class of intellectuals in Tsarist Russia. Most of the members of the nihilist movement were from the intelligentsia. In a broad sense: Intellectuals .")
It is wrong to characterize their behavior as a break from the homeland, a separation from the Russian people. Dostoyevsky calls the intelligentsia “the great vagabonds of the Russian land.” They were under strict surveillance. They were cut off from the world around them. This isolation imprisoned them in thought. They could not engage in politics.
In the 1840s, there were 3,000 university students in this country (Russia), which had a population of 50 million. In the 1860s, when the population exceeded 60 million, the number of university students was 4,500. In the 1870s, there were around 5,000.
The Slavs among the Russians are in favor of royalism. Because it is better for a single person to shoulder the power than for the people to be tainted with such a slander. The people cannot shoulder material power, they are under the command of religion.
Nothing that does not agree with reason is real.
Nihilism denies God, the soul, and the highest values. But this denial is also a religious act. Let it not be forgotten that Nihilism was born out of orthodoxy.
Chernychevsky “ Events can divert the flow of the river, slow it down, or speed it up. But they are temporary .”
There are no laws in art, everyone has their own understanding of beauty.
Populism is a belief in the Russian people; by people we mean the working masses and, to a large extent, the peasants.
Russians are enemies of the bourgeoisie from birth and are afraid of capitalism.
People grow to the extent of their responsibilities, and when they no longer have responsibilities, their values disappear.
The Turkish intellectual is in love with a different unknown every season. In the middle of the last century, he was a reformist, then a revolutionary, then a revolutionist. And since May 27, history has applauded the victory of a new hero: the revolutionary. We are now in a two-cell prison; one cell belongs to the revolutionaries, the other to the reactionaries.
There is no eternal essence of revolution. In our opinion, it would be appropriate to use the term coup d'état for either a constitutional change carried out illegally by those in power or for the seizure of the state by an armed group. If this seizure results in the rise to power of another social class or a regime change, it is called a revolution. (Those who are curious about the source of our intellectuals' love of revolution should refer to Raymond Aron's book.)
Revolution is a qualitative change, reform is a quantitative change. The first is a leap, the second is a continuation. Reform is a correction, it repairs and strengthens.
( The Arabs use savre as the equivalent of revolution. Revolution is a word in Arabic that indicates disorder and reciprocity, a concrete word. According to the Kamus translation: “ bad state (vinegar): must turning into vinegar… to spear the enemy. The flesh of the body melting and becoming miserable ”. There is no revolution in the book. This means that the Ottomans distanced revolution from its concreteness in Arabic and gave it a more general, more vague, more abstract meaning. The difference in development between two languages, two cultures.)
In time, revolution becomes a cute concept for our intellectuals. The attraction of the unknown, danger. However, the word revolution begins to make some writers uneasy, a half-conscious uneasiness. A new equivalent is given next to revolution: revolution. Now let's get to know revolution. " Root, heart: To turn an object back. Taklib: To turn an object back from its aspect ". The Great Turkish Dictionary defines revolution as: To take on a different form and style, to change.
In the draft of the reasons for the Civil Code, the "Turkish Revolution" is mentioned. Although Mustafa Kemal uses the word revolution, the revolution he describes is nothing but a revolution: " Revolution: 1- It is to change the existing, outdated institutions by force. 2- It is to destroy the institutions that the Turkish nation has been left behind in recent centuries and to replace them with new institutions that will enable the nation to progress according to the highest civil requirements ." " Revolutions made with blood are more solid (strong)... " According to Pasha... " A revolution without blood cannot be made eternal ." (Speeches and Statements)
If we accept the definitions of bourgeois sociologists, revolution is the changes made in the structure of societies by force (Arthur Bauer). Revolution has no eternal essence; if the seizure of power results in a regime change, it is called revolution (Raymond Aron). In this sense, we can speak of an Atatürk revolution. You can define revolution with any word you like. However, the corrections or arrangements made after the revolution are not revolutions but reforms. Therefore, the words revolution, inkılap and devrim are all translations of the same concept, namely revolution. In Western languages, there are two words, only two words, that express social changes: revolution and reform. Revolution in concepts is a sign of revolutionary consciousness, not revolutionaryism.
According to the well-known criminal lawyer Garraud, “ The rights of thought come before the protection of society, because the conflict and clash of ideas are an indispensable condition for progress .”
In the 20th century, the belief in progress is a sad memory for Europe. The West, struggling in contradictions, seeks help from mysticism.
Namık Kemal set foot in London in 1867. The Victorian age was a period when class gaps in English social life deepened. The free, careless English generation of the 18th century gave way to a pale, crooked, feeble generation chained by the bonds of religion and tradition. Since the smells coming from the open canals of London, which lacked a proper sewage system, were disturbing, those living in mansions had to close their doors and claws tightly. (Yusuf Mardin) However, the young poet was neither aware of class conflicts nor of the smells rising from the Thames. His only guide in that tower of Babel, whose language he did not understand, was A. Fanton, whom the imam hoca Tahsin Efendi, who was on duty at the Paris Embassy, described as a very cool man.
Girardin said it beautifully: “ Society, like nature, has laws. Written law can ignore them, but it cannot destroy them .”
The adjective socialist is more commonly adopted by intellectuals (bourgeois and petty bourgeois intellectuals) and therefore raises suspicion among workers. Indeed, the Declaration signed by Marx and Engels in 1848 is not a declaration of socialism, but of communism. However, Marxism would later introduce itself as scientific socialism, and this term would be used as the name of a certain worldview. The differences between socialism and communism have not been clearly determined to this day. Sometimes they are used in the same sense, sometimes they are given different meanings.
Let's summarize: The attitude of the Ottoman intellectuals towards socialism is almost the same. Socialism is a kind of disease experienced in another world. For Cevdet Pasha, it is a deviation whose source goes back to Mezdek. According to Ali Pasha, it is a danger that should not be brought to our borders. Şemsettin Sami admired socialism for a short time. Because he was in love with every innovation, especially innovations coming from Europe. Afghani opposes socialism to participation.
Europe’s “ Westernize ” offer had only one meaning: “ Surrender to capitalism ”. Our bureaucrats wanted to appear Westernized rather than to Westernize. The alphabet revolution had rendered our libraries mute. The single party had put a steel corset on consciousness. After the 60s, the barriers were torn down, and isms flowed into our country like a muddy flood. Islam was free, but for the conservatives, it was a pile of nonsense; religion was reactionism. The Republic had long since broken that chain that had been imposed on our consciousness. To be Islamic was to go beyond the age. Education and the press were in the hands of the conservatives.
We were cut off from the East. We did not know the West. Civilization cannot be conquered in one go. Translations had brought the debris of a foreign world to our country.
In the period when orientalism was in esteem, he became the Ahmet Mithat Efendi of philosophy. Then, he became an orientalist. He saw Islam through the eyes of a Christian and explained it like a Christian.
The lesson to be learned from May 27: “The last fifty years of the system have shown all its weaknesses and that it has definitely not been able to work and will not be able to work… Trying to keep the dead alive is a futile endeavor. We deny our ancestors, our ancestors, that is, the Ottomans. Our sole enemy: Turkish-Islamic civilization.
Celal Nuri “ Enriching the language is possible by giving it new concepts. We have to take words, not throw them away .”
A vandalism that no country has ever seen before is called a revolution: Language Revolution. When this extreme purification is brought to a dead end, a new theory is introduced: Sun Language Theory. This ingenious invention saves the honor of the intelligentsia. Since Turkish is the mother of all languages, why is there any need for purification? But once the arrow has left the bow. After the death of the eternal leader, the intelligentsia goes all out. The language revolution is now at the command of politics. To criticize it is to oppose the state. The intellectual has only one freedom: to destroy the language. Do you remember the debates of 30-40 years ago? The enemy that needs to be destroyed: Ottoman Turkish. The attackers are impudent, the defenders are baseless. The first ones have a magic word on their lips: Revolution And the West behind them.
Wasn’t Ottoman Turkish also becoming Turkish? The awakening of national consciousness strengthened this trend even more. Don’t we see the same development in European languages? There is no revolution in language. Old history has never witnessed such madness in any country in the world. As society develops, language also develops. There is no such language as Ottoman. Ottoman is the language of the Turks who settled in Anatolia and adopted Islam.
Do you know why Ottoman words should be expelled? They can't be written with the new letters. What a genius justification! We will destroy a thousand-year-old language because the language doesn't conform to the alphabet. Another complaint of the author is this: Arabic and Persian were removed from schools. Young people cannot see the connections between Arabic words that come from the same root. Is this the problem? We can put Arabic and Persian classes in schools, that's it.
According to Dostoyevsky, the Europeanization of Russia is a danger. A country cannot and should not break away from its past.
In those days, fame and dignity consisted of being someone else, someone much shallower and more unpleasant than ourselves.
The crowd, with the unconsciousness of a mussel stuck to a rock, clings to its traditions, pocket-sized and numb. Every once in a while it seems to wake up. Then it falls back into its deep sleep. Not knowing Europe, heedlessness. Those who know Europe are disconnected from their country. How will we escape from this circle of damnation? It is possible to see the truth by living the mistake to the end. While the masses are becoming European, the intellectuals should become Turkified. And I started working. Spinoza died at the age of 40. Nietzsche went mad at the age of 44. I found my way after the age of 44. Ibn Haldun is my guide in the Islamic world.
The duty of the thinker is to try to guide (show, warn) the intellectuals who have become disconnected from their people, forgotten their history and lost their way: Guide without anger or weariness. True art does not separate, it unites.
I am about to finish a new book: Those in the Cave. This is Plato's cave. We are in it. The Beşir Fuat's, the Ali Suavi's, the Hilmi Ziya's... The century-long drama of the Turkish intellectual. Then the western intellectuals in general and the Russian intelligentsia (intellectuals)

MY EVALUATIONS:

Subject : In this work, the detailed descriptions of the concepts of intellectuals in the Western and Russian worlds and the reflections of this group on the intellectual community in our country are examined with historical elements.

Style: Although the style used by the author can sometimes be tiring for the general readership today, this is especially due to the use of old words. However, it should be stated that a pompous narrative such as Serveti Fünun was not preferred in this regard. Therefore, it should be stated that there is no factor that will stagnate the fluency of the narrative. In order for some definitions to be better understood and for healthier analyses to be made, the author has defined the relevant concept through sources in the country of origin. This situation ensures that concepts that are still problematic to use in their full sense today are evaluated in a more understandable way. In addition to the quotations in question, the real meaning and content of these concepts can be conveyed to the reader in a healthier way with examples. Despite all this detailed analysis, it can be said that the work has not lost any of its fluency.

Originality : The work will not be evaluated in this category due to its nature.

Character : The work will not be evaluated in this category due to its nature.

Fluency : Although it may seem that the work will have a static narrative at first glance when the subject of the work is taken into consideration, when the book is started to be read, it will be clearly seen that there is no problem in terms of fluency. However, as mentioned above, some words need to be examined more healthily by using a dictionary. However, it is obvious that the work should not be expected to be a gripping work due to its type and subject.

General : In the evaluation made out of 10 according to the criteria stated above:

Subject: 9

Style: 8.5

Fluency: 7.5

The overall average of the work that received 8.3 points is . It should be stated that the work, which managed to pass the 8 threshold according to its genre, is one of the books that every Turkish citizen should definitely read in order to better understand some developments in history and to look at events from a different perspective.

(*) : All parts under the title My Quotations:

CAVERS

Author : Cemil Meric

Publisher : İletişim Publishing

Edition : 32nd Edition - 2020

The photo used on the cover was used as a quote from the book.

CEMİL MERİÇ - CAVERS

Recent Posts

Comments