-/Vlasdair Maclntyre does not see itnthat way. Cultural relativism, by denyingnthe validity of the concept man, hasnrendered ethics irrational, has made itnimpossible to have a science of ethics orneven to discuss ethical issues rationally. Isnabortion murder or freedom of choice?nHow does one decide? Passionate lettersnto the editor in newspapers reveal thenplight of modern ethical discussion. Peoplenwant to proclaim, “This is bad,” butnall they can say is, “I disapprove of this.”nMaclntyre’s intellectual journey takesnhim back to Hume and Kant and Kierkegaardnand forward to such contemporarynthinkers as Rawls, Nozick and Goffman.nMaclntyre seems to have progressed fromna Marxist repudiation of liberalism to ansearch for how one can, as he felt henmust, repudiate Marxism without fallingnback into what he had rejected. He endsnup with a commitment to the idea ofnMan. If that concept is not philosophicallynvalid, if it is not correct to reasonnfrom it, then Nietzsche is right, and allnethics and moralities must be intellectuallyndisreputable, mere disguises for selfwill.nAnd what if that concept is valid?nWhat if Man, as well as men, does exist asna’ rationally willed animal, conditionednby time, place, biology and history, yetnable to reach valid general conclusions bynmeans of his access to rational thought?nOne conclusion: the rational discussionnof ethical issues becomes possible again.nAs Maclntyre sees it, philosophy hasnbeen lost in a Serbonian Bog for the pastntwo hundred years—liberalism, Marxism,nKantianism, existentialism and allnother philosophies that base man’s actionsnon his will (Maclntyre lumps themnall under the name “emotivism”) arenwrong.nMaclntyre is hesitant about telling usnthe rational answers to the debates overnabortion, pacificism, homosexuality andnso on. This is only one book, and onendoes not want to be banned from thenfaculty parties, after all. With this new,nor old, Ariadne’s Thread, however, hencan find answers, strengths and weaknessesnin ail kinds of debates, some ofnthem moral or political, like those ofnRawls and Nozick, some liberal andnMarxist, even some aesthetic. For the virmesndeduced from the idea of Man tonmake sense, they must form part of anconnected and coherent sequence, a narrative.nSuddenly one sees that it doesnmake a difference, a moral difference, ifnone views life as an Absurdist drama or asna traditional novel, or if the novel itself isnseen as fulfilled when composed as an”stream of consciousness” or in the narrativenconventions that reach back to thenancient epic. One can tell, or at leastnknow how to tell, a good novel from anpoor one. One can distinguish a deviantnindividual from a normal one; the verynwords, deviant and normal, become usefulnagain. Human fialfillment has a meaningnand is more than just an excuse fornpossible perversion or self-destruction.nThe literature and philosophy and peoplenof the past become more comprehensiblenand interesting and even exciting.nAlasdair Maclntyre has walked out ofnthe crumbling house of modernity—callnit socialism, Marxism, liberalism,nemotivism or whatever—and has notneven bothered to lock the door behindnhim. He has found a new dwelling, onenwith firm and tested foundations. It hasnnot been lived in for a while and so needsnsome fixing up. In this new house, thingsnthat were mere useless bric-a-brac, peoplenthat were boring or silly in the oldnhouse have become useful and attractive.nMaclntyre has found new meaning in St.nBenedict, Sophocles, St. ThomasnAquinas, Jane Austen and many othernpeople he probably had not thoughtnabout for a long time. The new house isnnot only attractive, it is beginning to feelncomfortable, perhaps because it is notnjust a new dwelling; it is home.nvJne need not worry about the oldnhouse being left empty and forlorn. It isnstill crowded with Bennett Bergern(though without his commune) andnJohn Kenneth Galbraith and a melangenof French and Italian Marxists. There arenmany familiar faces. Something is goingnon in the back yard that sounds like ancross between a cocktail party and anpolitical convention, ff one peers over thenback fence one can see clearly what thesenfolks are doing: they are dancing thenLiberal Ghost Dance. DnAn Unfair Argument of a Fair ScholarnShlomo Avineri: The Making of ModernnZionism; Basic Books; New York.nby Paul GottfriednOhlomo Avineri’s study of the Zionistnmovement examines eighteen indisputablenpioneers of modern Jewish nationalismn. Beginning his survey with NachmannKrochmal, an early 19th-century JewishnHegelian who lived in Austrian Polandnand wrote in Hebrew, Avineri then providesnportraits of later Jewish nationalistsnincluding Hebrew poet Achad Haam,nsocialist collaborator of Marx Moses Hess,nrabbinic mystic Isaac Kook, NietzscheannDr. Gottfried is a frequent contributor tonthe Chronicles.nnnadmirer of power politics Zevjabotinskinand the first Israeli premier, David Ben-nGurion. Avineri brings to his work annimpressive set of credentials. A longtimentheoretician of the Israeli Labor Party,nhe is better known among Americannscholars for his writings on Hegel andnMarx. As one who has worked in hisnfield, I respect his thorough research andnbalanced judgments. Despite what Inview as our insurmountable political differences,nI have always marvelled atnAvineri’s resistance to committing interpretativendishonesty. American radicalsnhave been understandably hard on himnnot only for his support of Israel but fornhis failure to commit intellectual fraud.nHe reads documents like a scholar, andnnot like one who tries to find a “scien-n^^^^•37nSeptember 198Sn