Dietrich von Hildebrand (1889-1977) was one of the great Catholic philosophers of the 20th century. Hildebrand’s central contribution to philosophy was his focus on the emotional life, human affectivity. Philosophers typically treat intellect and will as the two “spiritual faculties” of the human person. Affectivity is viewed as base and inferior, something animals possess and, as such, unrepresentative of the high dignity of the human person.

Hildebrand, however, insisted that affectivity deserves consideration equal to that given to intellect and will. For example, many ethicists see happiness as the goal of moral life. Hildebrand asked how you can be happy without happiness having emotional content. Of course, you can’t. Happiness, by its nature, includes emotions such as peace of heart, joy and acceptance.

I had paid scant attention to Hildebrand until a friend recently suggested I read his short book, The Heart: An Analysis of Human and Divine Affectivity, published in 1965. What a wonderful book, full of insights into the emotional life. Hildebrand does what philosophers do – make distinctions – and in doing so shows that while emotions can be negative, inert or tyrannical, they can also soar to the heights. He begins with Plato’s statement, “The madness of love is the greatest of heaven’s blessings.”

Advertisement

The decision to marry one person or another is not purely rational. One does not make that choice solely by toting up the good and bad qualities of potential mates and picking a winner. More is involved. Love is a commitment, albeit one rooted in emotion. Conversely, if one relies on emotion alone and neglects evidence of one’s lover’s foibles, one may be headed for disaster. Affectivity and will complement each other.

Hildebrand fled Nazi Germany in 1933. He had been critical of the Nazis since 1921, seeing their nationalism as anti-Christian. In Austria, he continued his critique by founding and editing an anti-Nazi newspaper. As the Nazi empire spread, he fled from one country to another, finally arriving in the United States in 1940.

In short, Hildebrand had both experience and time to reflect on one of the last century’s most heinous authoritarian movements. That experience seems to underlie the chapter on “Heartlessness” in The Heart. There, he argues that moral disorders can close the heart. The heartless person is incapable of loving, feeling compassion or being fully contrite about their moral failings.

Advertisement

Pride and concupiscence can silence the heart to the point that morality plays no role in the heartless person’s life. Passions, such as ambition, avarice and love of power, can freeze a person’s heart. One may also become embittered because of a deep wound. When a nation’s ruler is heartless, the entire country, and even others, may be endangered.

In totalitarian states where loyalty to the party or the ruler destroys all other loyalties, the heart can grow inert and silent. “Here charity is high treason, and the heart is completely silenced.” Domination by the ruler makes mincemeat of the person.

The spread of authoritarianism in today’s world is often attributed to economic and political factors. Millions have lost jobs or suffered declining real incomes due to the tactics of late industrial capitalism. They watch in anxiety as the rich grow wealthier, and the breadth and depth of poverty increase. Many feel disempowered as the well-educated claim the best jobs, while the voices of the less educated and those living outside major metropolitan centres go unheard.

However, there is more to our societal malaise than economics and politics. Accompanying those factors is a shrinking of the heart. Bureaucratic solutions to social problems can distance a supportive public from those who need assistance. The invasion of advertising into almost every corner of life turns us more into consumers. Even online purchasing removes us from face-to-face contact with the merchants from whom we have traditionally bought our favourite products. 

Advertisement

We see evidence of these shrunken hearts in the motorists who treat other drivers more as obstacles to be overcome than as fellow sojourners in the morning traffic. We see it in the high fences that separate neighbours. Harsh political polarization is another symptom. The tendency to treat others as objects rather than persons is growing.

The solution is not to abandon political solutions to our problems or to forsake the value of efficiency but to complement these approaches with a concerted effort to treat others with dignity and respect. You could call this the revolution of compassion and solidarity. It will take everyone’s participation to achieve it.