Stefan Zweig led a very public life, being one of the popular 20th century writer, but he never sought after the hard/political power to bring the change he wanted, instead he sought after the soft power that could lead the world to justice without doing himself a moral compromise. Was he wrong ultimately? His suicide that ended his mission might show the desperation at having to convince people without holding any real power from which people to fear. Questions that I like to ask are:
- could you change the world through culture and culture only? meaning: by bringing people together and letting people get exposed to each other's humanity in their private life rather than exposing the reality through the public/political life.
- could you bring about a change using a carrot alone without ever using the stick because the moment you encourage or talk about the stick you might morally compromise yourself
However, there is a harder but better way to bring a justice to the world. It has been tried but not succeeded, which is to pursue justice in our private lives without seeking or holding a public office. That way, we would only bring about justice without having to lie partially or do any injustice. That is the most tasteful way in our age of innocence for a life of an intellectual or for a man who cannot do any harm or the weak man who cannot choose a side. You can learn from Stefan Zweig doing it through art creation, cultural exchange, and interconnecting people to bring out their best humanity and better side.
In today's world, when others are willing to do anything for a partial justice now, it feels like unless you do something now, the others will do what you don't want to see. This horrible circle leads us to a prisoner dilemma having to seek after the political power and having to choose the lesser evil from the bigger evil. Attached you can find reporting on Stefan Zweig's interview. Can we change the world and people without being intellectually dishonest?