Page 49 - GALIET KAFKABEL JOB, KANT AND MILTON: Omnipotence, Impotence and Rebellion IV+

Galiet & Galiet
defendants treated pejoratively and is peeved at using and burdening others with his trial, “he had had an aversion to even the slightest help in this affair of his” (T38). All in all, he seeks to treat many as he treats himself 3⁄4 as an end. He certainly does not expect or bribe others to be saved or implicate others. Job, too, does not ask his wealthy friends to offer a bribe for him, or to have him ransomed or delivered from the oppressor (6:22-3).280 If G•Scholars argue K blames others for his affairs,281 it is clearly shown that he takes responsibility for his own actions in confronting the Court.
In fulfilling Kant’s Formula of Humanity, Josef K repudiates the Court’s subjection of wardens and defendants. To submit to the Court when it rewards Wardens with a whipping post, or to Huld, when he treats Block like a dog 3⁄4 appalls. To repudiate the Court’s cruelty and the dog-status of defendants is to stand against the abuse and use of others. It is to treat others as ends and abide by Kant’s Formula of Humanity as a Kingdom of Ends.
As the trials unfold, the case against Josef K’s egocentrism recedes, and his humanism unfolds. Josef K is less infatuated with worldly honor and riches than Job. Whereas Josef K turns more compassionate towards Block and the plight of the outcast defendants (T180-85), Job beats down on the rabble (30:1-8). As marginal and despised beasts, Job says they are petty criminals, mentally ill and homeless (30:1-8). True 3⁄4 Job resents them because they rush in like a storm to deride him, spit at him, hedge his path with thorns and promote his calamity (30:9-15), but Job accuses them before they persecute him. Job, unable to tolerate derision, belittles them, “men who are younger than I, whose fathers I would have disdained to set with the dogs of my flock” (30:1).
If Josef K abides by Kant’s Formula of Humanity in refusing to ‘dogify’ others, Job ‘verminifies’ the other. The rabble is lesser than Job’s own guardian dogs. Job’s deprecations cast shadows on Job. How concerned is he really about the outcasts and the poor? How compassionate is he? Not only does he condemn them, but he also perceives the weak as useless, “What can I gain from the strength of their hands, from men whose vigor is spent?” (30:2). If he cannot gain anything from them, they are no use to him. Whereas Josef K refuses to use others, Job does not. In his reckless belittling of others, Job contradicts his posterior discourse on divine equality. If Job does not despise his servants, it is because Yahweh is their Maker as He is Job (31:13-14).282 There is such disparity between Job’s condemnations and praises of the weak, and his views on their social inequality and divine equality, that we are in the twilight as to Job’s genuine compassion and morality.
In Job’s humanism, there is little room for Kant’s Formula of Humanity. There is a contradiction in “treating others as ends” and “as means,” and in Job’s “word” and “deed.” Job denies he adores riches, but he is actually rather fond of wealth. If he denies rejoicing and trusting gold and riches (31:24-25), he laments the loss of wealth, estate and honor (30:14-15), a little more than the loss of his family. Because Yahweh’s blessings are inextricably linked to Job’s past prosperity and security, riches and honor (29), Job longs for happier days when Yahweh protected him, his
280 Job tells his friends, “Have I ever said, “Give something on my behalf/And from your wealth offer a bribe for me;/Deliver me from the enemy’s hand,/And ransom me from the hand of the oppressors?” (6: 22-23). He also implores, “Teach me, and I shall be silent,/and where I have erred, make me understand” (6:24).
281 Henel, Ingeborg. "The Legend of the Doorkeeper and its Significance for Kafka's Trial." Twentieth Century Interpretations of The Trial. New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, 1976. 40-55, 47. In Scott, Len. Josef K.: Kafka’s Anti-Job. Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 2010. 16
282 Job cries, “Have I despised the cause of my manservant,/or of my maidservant, when they contended with me?/For I always remembered,/“What shall I do when God rises up,/and when He examines me, how shall I answer Him?/Did not He make him in the womb, as He made me,/And fashion us both alike in the womb?” (31:13-14).
—49—