Chomsky on Kennan
Ray
This message is directed to Russil Wvong, but since this is a
newsgroup thread, any input from anyone else would be great.
Russil Wvong criticized Chomsky's representation of Kennan, available
here:
[http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/chomsky.html]
Anyway, Russil, I got a letter from Chomsky yesterday, and he did
respond to your Kennan criticism, although it probably won't be too
instructive:
---
On Kennan, the charges you quote are so outlandish that I really have
to wonder what you think you are doing. There is nothing in the
Kennan quote raising the points brought up in the quote; that is all
fantasy and apologetics. Rather, the explicit context is Kennan's
insistence that our task is to "maintain this position of disparity"
that affords us 1/2 the world's wealth with 6.3% of the population,
which we will have to do by dispensing "with all sentimentality and
day-dreaming," and not "deceive ourselves that we can afford today the
luxury of altruism and world benefaction." Therefore, we should put
aside considerations of "human rights, raising of the living
standards, and democratization," and should "deal in straight power
concepts" without being "hampered by idealistic slogans." It is
impossible to read this disgraceful paragraph in the way you and your
correspondent suggest. That becomes even more obvious when we look at
the broader context, in the same document and elsewhere at the same
time, where Kennan and his staff call for returning the Far East to
its "function" of providing resources and raw materials to the West,
offering Africa to Europe to "exploit" for its reconstruction (since
we don't particularly want it), insisting that the US control Middle
East oil to have "veto power" over Japan, proposing police states for
Latin America because we cannot afford democracy given the need to
"protect our resources," etc. The man is an incredible villain,
thought as I wrote, was considered too soft for this cruel world, so
he was replaced by the ultra-fanatics who wrote NSC-68, so outrageous
that the rhetoric and content are largely concealed by scholarship, as
I reviewed.
---
I didn't mention how Kennan said "The people of the Far East are going
to go ahead, whatever we do....[and] further violence is inevitable"
which is probably the cornerstone of your "regardless of US policy"
argument. For Chomsky to say that this is outlandish and fantasy
would be to dismiss that phrase. However, I do think Chomsky has read
that part, and I can only suggest this: When Kennan discusses how the
Far East people are going to go ahead with their political forms, he
puts that in the paragraph that begins "For these reasons, we must
observe great restraint...". What are "these reasons"?
Syntactically, and transitionally, the "reasons" are the ones in the
paragraph before it: all center around the suggestion that we should
"maintain this disparity," whether you think that disparity is
legitimate or not. So in other words, "To maintain this disparity, we
must observe great restraint..." All other factors follow from that
central suggestion. "Whatever we do" in the Far East is based on the
suggestion that we maintain our disparity, so you can't really
conclude that promoting human rights will have no effect "regardless
of US policy." Instead, it would be better to conclude that promoting
human rights won't have an effect because if we want to maintain our
disparity, nothing we can do will prevent further violence and abuse.
I can't really word it any better, and Chomsky didn't discuss this at
all in his letter.
If my logic is correct, there is nothing wrong with how Chomsky is
wording the quote. Kennan suggests we need to maintain a huge
disparity between wealth and population, and in order to do that, we
have to dispense with day-dreaming, observe restraint in the Far East,
put aside considerations of "human rights, [etc.]." The question of
legitimacy of that disparity is another question, and is not related
to the criticism of misrepresenting Kennan. I don't want to write to
Chomsky again, because again, he said "short of [the] condition that
you provide me with a sample of [the] enormous correspondence [between
you and proponents of US policy], I'm afraid I have to conclude that
this is only a form of harassment, of a familiar kind, on the part of
those who seek to immobilize critical discussion and activism" :-(
(Jeez, I feel like a horrible person now).
By the way, he responded to some questions I had on Nicaragua. I
don't really understand what he was saying. Perhaps someone can help
me on this. I'll post my questions, and his answers to this later.
Nathan Folkert
By the way, don't feel bad. Normal, reasonable people do not become
outraged when you ask them to justify their interpretations, accusing
you of harrassing them in order to quash their activism. That is
megalomaniacal lunacy, indicative of extreme elitism and intolerance
for others' views. *Always* question, especially those who exhibit
such high opinions of their own morality and intellectual capacity,
and such low opinions of everyone else's.
thought...@hotmail.com (Ray) wrote in message news:<514a6774.02031...@posting.google.com>...
> Hey everyone,
> This message is directed to Russil Wvong, but since this is a
> newsgroup thread, any input from anyone else would be great.
[snip]
- Nate
Russil Wvong
> Russil Wvong criticized Chomsky's representation of Kennan, available
> here: [http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/chomsky.html]
>
> Anyway, Russil, I got a letter from Chomsky yesterday, and he did
> respond to your Kennan criticism, although it probably won't be too
> instructive:
Thanks for posting this, Ray.
> I don't want to write to
> Chomsky again, because again, he said "short of [the] condition that
> you provide me with a sample of [the] enormous correspondence [between
> you and proponents of US policy], I'm afraid I have to conclude that
> this is only a form of harassment, of a familiar kind, on the part of
> those who seek to immobilize critical discussion and activism" :-(
> (Jeez, I feel like a horrible person now).
Again, I don't think you did anything wrong by asking Chomsky for
his response to my criticism. I think it's unfair for Chomsky to say
that you're harassing him.
Chomsky writes:
> On Kennan, the charges you quote are so outlandish that I really have
> to wonder what you think you are doing.
Ad hominem.
> There is nothing in the
> Kennan quote raising the points brought up in the quote; that is all
> fantasy and apologetics.
I assume that "fantasy and apologetics" (another ad hominem) refers
to what I was saying:
I looked up PPS 23. In fact, Kennan was arguing that human rights
were irrelevant in the Far East -- *regardless* of US policy --
because of the problems of population growth and food supply,
particularly in China and India; that many countries in Asia
would probably fall into the Soviet sphere of influence; that
US wealth would arouse envy and resentment; and that the US
needed to focus on keeping Japan and the Philippines in the
US sphere of influence, to prevent a future attack from the
Pacific.
That's all straight from PPS 23, but Chomsky omitted this context
when quoting Kennan. (For anyone reading this who wants to see
what PPS 23 says, I've posted a long excerpt at
http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/chomsky.html.)
> Rather, the explicit context is Kennan's
> insistence that our task is to "maintain this position of disparity"
> that affords us 1/2 the world's wealth with 6.3% of the population,
> which we will have to do by dispensing "with all sentimentality and
> day-dreaming," and not "deceive ourselves that we can afford today the
> luxury of altruism and world benefaction." Therefore, we should put
> aside considerations of "human rights, raising of the living
> standards, and democratization," and should "deal in straight power
> concepts" without being "hampered by idealistic slogans." It is
> impossible to read this disgraceful paragraph in the way you and your
> correspondent suggest.
Impossible for Chomsky, perhaps. :-) He's not really answering the
question, he's just repeating what he quoted before.
> That becomes even more obvious when we look at
> the broader context, in the same document and elsewhere at the same
> time, where Kennan and his staff call for returning the Far East to
> its "function" of providing resources and raw materials to the West,
> offering Africa to Europe to "exploit" for its reconstruction (since
> we don't particularly want it), insisting that the US control Middle
> East oil to have "veto power" over Japan, proposing police states for
> Latin America because we cannot afford democracy given the need to
> "protect our resources," etc. The man [Kennan] is an incredible
> villain ...
I guess at some point I'll need to tackle these accusations as well.
But again, Chomsky's not answering the question, he's just making
more accusations (yet another ad hominem).
Ray writes:
> I didn't mention how Kennan said "The people of the Far East are going
> to go ahead, whatever we do....[and] further violence is inevitable"
> which is probably the cornerstone of your "regardless of US policy"
> argument.
Correct.
> For Chomsky to say that this is outlandish and fantasy
> would be to dismiss that phrase. However, I do think Chomsky has read
> that part,
I guess so.
> and I can only suggest this: When Kennan discusses how the
> Far East people are going to go ahead with their political forms, he
> puts that in the paragraph that begins "For these reasons, we must
> observe great restraint...". What are "these reasons"?
> Syntactically, and transitionally, the "reasons" are the ones in the
> paragraph before it: all center around the suggestion that we should
> "maintain this disparity," whether you think that disparity is
> legitimate or not. So in other words, "To maintain this disparity, we
> must observe great restraint..." All other factors follow from that
> central suggestion.
Er, I would have to disagree with this. Kennan is identifying a
number of limitations on US policy in the Far East: resentment
of US wealth is only one of these. Others:
Our political philosophy and our patterns for living have very
little applicability to masses of people in Asia. They may be all
right for us, with our highly developed political traditions
running back into the centuries and with our peculiarly favorable
geographic position; but they are simply not practical or helpful,
today, for most of the people in Asia.
The peoples of Asia and of the Pacific area are going to go ahead,
whatever we do, with the development of their political forms and
mutual interrelationships in their own way. This process cannot
be a liberal or peaceful one. The greatest of the Asiatic peoples--
the Chinese and the Indians--have not yet even made a beginning at
the solution of the basic demographic problem involved in the
relationship between their food supply and their birth rate. Until
they find some solution to this problem, further hunger, distress,
and violence are inevitable.
All of the Asiatic peoples are faced with the necessity for evolving
new forms of life to conform to the impact of modern technology.
This process of adaptation will also be long and violent. It is not
only possible, but probable, that in the course of this process many
peoples will fall, for varying periods, under the influence of Moscow,
whose ideology has a greater lure for such peoples, and probably
greater reality, than anything we could oppose to it.
And Kennan's recommendations aren't aimed at maintaining the disparity
in wealth (he doesn't suggest setting up puppet governments in China
and India to collaborate in robbing those countries of their wealth,
for example); they're aimed at maintaining US security.
> "Whatever we do" in the Far East is based on the
> suggestion that we maintain our disparity, so you can't really
> conclude that promoting human rights will have no effect "regardless
> of US policy."
I have to disagree here. The US isn't all-powerful; there's limits
to what it can do, especially in such a huge and alien society as
China. What Kennan's saying is that no matter how much effort the
US put into promoting human rights in China and India, it would have
been ineffective. I think he's right. (In "Foreign and Other Affairs,"
John Paton Davies Jr. notes that 100 years of missionary work in China
was swept aside by the CCP.)
> Instead, it would be better to conclude that promoting
> human rights won't have an effect because if we want to maintain our
> disparity, nothing we can do will prevent further violence and abuse.
But Kennan's not saying that promotion of human rights will be ineffective
(A) because the US wants to maintain its disparity of wealth (B); he's
saying that promotion of human rights will be ineffective (A) because
of the demographic challenges faced by China and India (C). A because
of C, not A because of B.
> I can't really word it any better, and Chomsky didn't discuss this at
> all in his letter.
Right, he doesn't really seem to be answering your question. I mean,
one possible counterargument would be to say that Kennan is exaggerating
the demographic problems faced by China and India, but Chomsky doesn't
address Kennan's argument at all, he just repeats what he quoted
before, and brings in some other accusations against Kennan.
> If my logic is correct, there is nothing wrong with how Chomsky is
> wording the quote. Kennan suggests we need to maintain a huge
> disparity between wealth and population, and in order to do that, we
> have to dispense with day-dreaming, observe restraint in the Far East,
> put aside considerations of "human rights, [etc.]."
I disagree. Kennan isn't concerned with how to maintain a huge disparity
between wealth and population; that's a result of US industrialization.
He's concerned with how to maintain US security against an attack from
the Pacific.
As I said in the critical review:
I think Kennan's point of view, although pessimistic, is a
reasonable one. The objective was to prevent a future attack
from the Pacific; what else was the US going to do, impoverish
itself so as to avoid being envied and resented? (Kennan's
comment about US wealth was correct: at the end of World War II,
the US produced roughly 50% of world manufacturing output.)
> By the way, he responded to some questions I had on Nicaragua. I
> don't really understand what he was saying. Perhaps someone can help
> me on this. I'll post my questions, and his answers to this later.
Sure. Actually, if you could post the original letter that you sent
to Chomsky asking about the Kennan quote, that'd be great.
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
www.geocities.com/rwvong
Ray
display of idiocy, I overwrote the file with something else. Anyway,
I wrote Chomsky a letter with questions on Nicaragua and added a
question on Wvong's Kennan criticism. Although I can't remember what
I said word for word, I do remember that I asked Chomsky to respond to
"a criticism that does appear valid at the moment." I said how many
of his works quote Kennan in PPS23, and how, according to Chomsky,
Kennan lucidly describes the need for us to "cease talk of unreal
objectives like human rights, [etc.]" (I'm sure you're familiar with
the quote) IF we want to "maintain the [huge] disparity" in terms of
wealth and population between the US and the world. (Year 501, Chapter
2 & Turning the Tide discuss this in detail).
If you go to Wvong's site, you'll notice that Wvong argues that this
is not what Kennan was suggesting when he said we should cease talk.
Instead, according to Wvong, Kennan was _lamenting_ that human rights,
living standards, and democratization were an inevitable failure in
the Far East, and so he suggested we cease trying to promote them.
Pessimism, not bluntness, according to Wvong. Just for the record,
the question of whether the US promotes human rights, democratization,
etc. was not the issue at all...instead it was whether or not Kennan
was being pessimistic or crudely inhumane, two different things. I
think this question can easily be answered by asking Kennan what his
thoughts were when he said this; is he still alive?
"How would you respond to this criticism?" is basically what I asked
Chomsky. I included _only_ the main thesis of Wvong's criticism in my
letter (no PPS23 quotes or anything else), so that probably didn't
help Chomsky to see what Wvong was arguing. In any case, his response
is what you see, save for a typo I made. The whole issue is
becoming a headache and a triviality to me ("Who cares what Kennan
said?" is the conclusion I am approaching) but Chomsky still claims
that Kennan's context explicitly shows inhumanity, not pessimism.
> By the way, don't feel bad. Normal, reasonable people do not become
> outraged when you ask them to justify their interpretations, accusing
> you of harrassing them in order to quash their activism. That is
> megalomaniacal lunacy, indicative of extreme elitism and intolerance
> for others' views. *Always* question, especially those who exhibit
> such high opinions of their own morality and intellectual capacity,
> and such low opinions of everyone else's.
On the one hand I understand where Chomsky was coming from. He was up
at 4AM writing me the letter, only because he thought I was serious
about my questions. Not only is he very busy, but the fact that he is
a dissident leaves him susceptible to a barrage of criticism, that
probably does immobilize him from his work. For him to respond to
_all_ of my past letters in this context is pretty incredible and
commendable. On the other hand, I was asking a serious question that
my own research wouldn't answer, and even though there weren't any ad
hominems in his response, I still felt like a total idiot for even
writing to him, and wished he hadn't even responded at all. His
response to the first letter I'd ever written him portrayed an
attitude like the one I see in person - amicable and understanding.
This was certainly not the case in the last two responses I've gotten,
and I hope it's not just because I am questioning some of his
arguments.
Ray
Since your criticism, I have been going to the UCR library, and
looking at PPS23, PPS39, Kennan's memoirs, and a very detailed book
about Kennan released in 1992 called "George F. Kennan and the Making
of American Foreign Policy," by Wilson D. Miscamble.
Like I said before, if you read what Kennan says in PPS23, and compare
it to what he said in PPS39, your criticism stands. If you look at
Kennan's memoirs he only says a small sentence about his position with
regard to the Far East, but would also support you _and_ Chomsky
(something like "Things were bad. We were greatly overextended in
what we were trying to do." kind of ambiguous). Miscamble's book
doesn't discuss any of this much. My thoughts are that you should
write to Kennan and ask him exactly what he meant when he said for us
to dimiss human rights, democratization, and living standards. Is he
still alive? I am planning on writing to Miscamble to ask him about
Chomsky's interpretation and his understanding of it.
After reading PPS23 many many times, I still find the language a
little ambiguous. Kennan uses the famous "cease talk about ..." in
the paragraph that begins, "In the face of this situation..." For
you, the "situation" is the preceding paragraph and some comments in
the introduction. For Chomsky, it seems it is the paragraph before
that. Maybe it's both.
Anyway, although I think your criticism is important and would be
important for Chomsky to address if he's going to continue to say that
Kennan was clearly and lucidly being a crude individual, I still think
the actions of the US are of much more significance than what Kennan
or Truman said at the time.
Oh yes, you asked me to provide you with the exact text of the Kennan
criticism. Please read my response to Folkert's post. :)
Talk to you later.
Sincerely,
Ray Amberg
Russil Wvong
> Since your criticism, I have been going to the UCR library, and
> looking at PPS23, PPS39, Kennan's memoirs, and a very detailed book
> about Kennan released in 1992 called "George F. Kennan and the Making
> of American Foreign Policy," by Wilson D. Miscamble.
Great! I hadn't seen the Miscamble book before. After looking
up the reviews, I think I'll have to find it. :-) One reason
Kennan's views from 1947 (and Chomsky's representation of them)
are important is that Kennan was a central figure in the early
Cold War.
> Like I said before, if you read what Kennan says in PPS23, and compare
> it to what he said in PPS39, your criticism stands. If you look at
> Kennan's memoirs he only says a small sentence about his position with
> regard to the Far East, but would also support you _and_ Chomsky
> (something like "Things were bad. We were greatly overextended in
> what we were trying to do." kind of ambiguous). Miscamble's book
> doesn't discuss any of this much.
From the table of contents, it looks like Chapter 7 ("The Limits of
America's China Policy") would be the most relevant one.
[http://pup.princeton.edu/titles/5020.html]
> My thoughts are that you should
> write to Kennan and ask him exactly what he meant when he said for us
> to dismiss human rights, democratization, and living standards. Is he
> still alive?
Yes, amazingly. (He's 98!) Even more amazingly, he's continued
writing, at least up until quite recently: his most recent book
(An American Family) was published in October 2000. I was planning
to write him to ask for his permission to put his memoirs on the
Internet, so I'll try to ask him about this as well.
> I am planning on writing to Miscamble to ask him about
> Chomsky's interpretation and his understanding of it.
Good idea.
> After reading PPS23 many many times, I still find the language a
> little ambiguous. Kennan uses the famous "cease talk about ..." in
> the paragraph that begins, "In the face of this situation..." For
> you, the "situation" is the preceding paragraph and some comments in
> the introduction. For Chomsky, it seems it is the paragraph before
> that. Maybe it's both.
>
> Anyway, although I think your criticism is important and would be
> important for Chomsky to address if he's going to continue to say that
> Kennan was clearly and lucidly being a crude individual, I still think
> the actions of the US are of much more significance than what Kennan
> or Truman said at the time.
That's definitely the case: in politics, actions and consequences
are more important than motives. As Hans Morgenthau says:
... There can be no political morality without prudence; that is,
without consideration of the political consequences of seemingly
moral action. Realism, then, considers prudence-the weighing of the
consequences of alternative political actions-to be the supreme
virtue in politics. Ethics in the abstract judges action by its
conformity with the moral law; political ethics judges action by
its political consequences. Classical and medieval philosophy knew
this, and so did Lincoln when he said:
I do the very best I know how, the very best I can, and I mean
to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all
right, what is said against me won't amount to anything. If
the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right
would make no difference.
[http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/morg6.htm]
> Oh yes, you asked me to provide you with the exact text of the Kennan
> criticism. Please read my response to Folkert's post. :)
Oops. :-) Oh well.
Russil Wvong
Vancouver, Canada
alt.politics.international FAQ: www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/apifaq.html
john smith
Nathan Folkert wrote:
>
> What was the question you posed to Professor Chomsky?
>
> By the way, don't feel bad. Normal, reasonable people do not become
> outraged when you ask them to justify their interpretations, accusing
> you of harrassing them in order to quash their activism. That is
> megalomaniacal lunacy, indicative of extreme elitism and intolerance
> for others' views.
> *Always* question, especially those who exhibit
> such high opinions of their own morality and intellectual capacity,
> and such low opinions of everyone else's.
agreed. although I often find it hard to argue with people
who seem to feel that arguing that - people should have roof over their heads
food in their bellies, decent healthcare, be equal under law,
have safety for their family and their old age etc.
(_and_ be free from oppression of any kind on any grounds)
- is somehow putting oneself on ones high horse and exhibit high opinions
of their own morality (and perhaps also their intellectual capacity)...
I find/feel that hard to grasp, stomach etc.
because it _is_ about _humans_
and _not_ about "winning" arguments,
"just politics" or anything else,
I see there's always much room for misinterpretation,
but arguing with people who actually believe their opponent
has not heard about Kennedy or his "religious background"
or any similarly ridiculuos claim, is so insane it cannot
warrant any lengthy "discussion".
heard a lyric once that went something like this -
(I'll bet Ollie's never heard this one, but
I wouldnt put it past him to critisise my interpretation again....*sigh*
anyway - it goes _something like this:
"We've all seen a man at the liquor store beggin' for your change
The hair on his face is dirty, dread-locked, and full of mange
He asks a man for what he could spare, with shame in his eyes
"Get a job you f***ing slob," is all he replies
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in his shoes
'Cause then you really might know what it's like
to sing the blues
Then you really might know what it's like... "
its not the 50s anymore,
we produce 5 times more than then
but the inner cities all over the world are flowing over with
homeless, jobless, drug addiction, people in need of
psychiatric help etc. ad infinitum.
If you feel its their own fault and I argue its mostly
"system oriented" and you feel I'm pulling the high horse
morality "card" then.... what should I reply?
does it even matter what I'd reply?
would my opponent ever find some common ground with me?
I'm hoping, but.... usenet probably isnt "the best place" for...
well, lets hope something comes out of it all...
I'm trying to moderate _my_ replies so they
wont come out as if I felt I was jesus' representative on earth
and I cannot see how anyone would think I thought I was etc..
but...
enough said maybe.
more than enough perhaps,
too little _and_ too much probably.
what does it matter?
...
"You know where it ends, usually depends on where you start,
God forbid you ever had to walk a mile in his shoes
'cause Then you really might know what it's like...to have to lose."
> thought...@hotmail.com (Ray) wrote in message news:<514a6774.02031...@posting.google.com>...
> > Hey everyone,
> > This message is directed to Russil Wvong, but since this is a
> > newsgroup thread, any input from anyone else would be great.
( I actually took the time to print the 18 page article,
read some of it, and will read it all and try to
come up with some - hopefully reasonable - comment in a while)
> [snip]
>
> - Nate
-- js
===========http://www.fair.org/ ====================================
"Freedom without opportunity is a devils gift, and the refusal (by
government) to provide such opportunity is criminal" --Noam Chomsky
====================================================================
Russil Wvong
> Nathan Folkert wrote:
> > *Always* question, especially those who exhibit
> > such high opinions of their own morality and intellectual capacity,
> > and such low opinions of everyone else's.
>
> agreed. although I often find it hard to argue with people who seem
> food in their bellies, decent healthcare, be equal under law,
> have safety for their family and their old age etc.
> (_and_ be free from oppression of any kind on any grounds)
> - is somehow putting oneself on ones high horse and exhibit high opinions
> of their own morality (and perhaps also their intellectual capacity)...
I agree that these are desirable aims, but how can they be brought
about? My own attempt to answer these questions is the Global Issues
FAQ. We don't have a world government; each national government is
responsible for the protection and well-being of its people. If
people are suffering under a bad government, to what extent should
others intervene? Should they refuse to deal with such governments?
If an outside power does topple a government and put another in its
place -- the US in Afghanistan, for example -- to what extent is the
outside power responsible for the actions of the new government?
And is such an intervention justifiable in the first place, or not?
People who are concerned with these questions seek answers, of course,
and Chomsky is one source of answers. But I don't think his answers
are very good. I don't think the aim of providing people with a decent
life can be brought about through a libertarian socialist revolution.
You need to look at the individual country in question, and think
about its history, its political and economic system, its people.
In the end, I think it's up to the people themselves to improve their
lives; outsiders can help, but only to a limited extent.
> I find/feel that hard to grasp, stomach etc.
> because it _is_ about _humans_
> and _not_ about "winning" arguments,
> "just politics" or anything else,
Understood.
> I see there's always much room for misinterpretation,
> but arguing with people who actually believe their opponent
> has not heard about Kennedy or his "religious background"
> or any similarly ridiculous claim, is so insane it cannot
> warrant any lengthy "discussion".
Kennedy?
> heard a lyric once that went something like this -
Everlast, "What It's Like."
[http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~harel/cgi/page/htmlit?What_Its_Like.html]
> its not the 50s anymore,
> we produce 5 times more than then
> but the inner cities all over the world are flowing over with
> homeless, jobless, drug addiction, people in need of
> psychiatric help etc. ad infinitum.
>
> If you feel its their own fault and I argue its mostly
> "system oriented" and you feel I'm pulling the high horse
> morality "card" then.... what should I reply?
I don't think it's their fault. But this points to a deficiency
of the West: we've assumed that social problems stem from people's
inability to meet their material needs, but our experience since
the 1960s -- a time of increasing and widespread material prosperity,
matched by a steady *increase* in crime, violence, and drug
addiction -- suggests otherwise. I remember C. P. Snow writing
about this (in the 1970s, if I remember correctly).
So what *is* the source of these problems? Erich Fromm and M. Scott
Peck suggest that *it's extremely difficult to live with freedom*,
because it means accepting full responsibility for oneself. Fromm's
book "Escape from Freedom" suggested that people were attracted to
the totalitarian ideologies of the 20th century -- Nazism, Communism --
because they found freedom intolerable, and sought to escape from it,
to give up responsibility to someone else.
Liberal democracy defeated both fascism and Communism, but human
nature hasn't changed: it's still pretty hard to take responsibility
for one's own life, and to face problems instead of avoiding them.
This is *universal* (I'm definitely including myself), not some kind
of moral failing on the part of a small number of people. Alcoholism,
drug addiction, and other forms of self-destruction are an obvious
escape route, but only one of many. Think of the vast scope of the
entertainment industry, for example, which in many ways is selling
escapist fantasy. Orwell's "Notes on Nationalism" describes another
escape route: identifying completely with an entity which is larger
than oneself, which unlike oneself is immortal. Eric Hoffer's
"The True Believer" describes yet another form of escapism: the
desire to save the world is a way to avoid one's own problems.
Solzhenitsyn also had some interesting things to say in his
1978 Harvard Address:
[http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html]
There's probably any number of other people who have commented
on this issue. Kennan's concern comes through pretty clearly in
"Sketches from a Life", for example.
So what's the answer? I thought M. Scott Peck's "The Road Less
Traveled" was pretty good. In short, life is hard; no increase
in the material comfort of our lives will change that fact. He
provides a great deal of advice on how to deal with it effectively,
reminiscent of the Stoic philosophers. (In particular, he
identifies four skills: deferring gratification; accepting
responsibility; accepting reality; and giving things up.)
That's the long-term, philosophical answer. In the short term, I
think the welfare state works reasonably well (at least in Canada).
Retooling the Canadian welfare state:
[http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/Rich-1.pdf]
Concentrated unemployment in US inner cities:
[http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/96/10.24.96/Wilson_lecture.html]
My apologies for going on at such length -- I've been thinking about
this for a while, and I'll probably add it to the Global Issues FAQ.
> ( I actually took the time to print the 18 page article,
> read some of it, and will read it all and try to
> come up with some - hopefully reasonable - comment in a while)
I'm somewhat amazed myself that it turned out to be so long. :-)
D.Teale
"Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:afe9ed76.02032...@posting.google.com...
Let us not forget that the most important thing about these questions is
that they are being asked, and for that, love him or hate him, Chomsky does
us all a great service.
Excellent post, just to clarify, one of the earliest examples I know of is
Dostoyevsky.
Fyodor Dostoyevsky wrote the 'Brothers Karamazov'. Sigmund Freud commented
"The Brothers Karamazov is the most magnificent novel ever written, and the
story of the Grand Inquisitor is one of the peaks in literature of the
world."
'The Grand Inquisitor' is one chapter of the novel, a short story told aloud
by one character to the other. What does it say ?
Dostoevsky shows freedom of conscience to be a terrible burden to mankind
causing great confusion and suffering in the face of insoluble problems.
Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor vehemently proclaims that man will seek an
answer to relieve this burden:
"Man seeks to worship only what is incontestable, so incontestable, indeed,
that all men at once agree to worship it together. For the chief concern of
those miserable creatures is not only to find something that I or someone
else can worship, but to find something that all believe in and worship, and
the absolutely essential thing is that they should do so all together. "...
"For so long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and
so painfully as to find some one to worship."
I'm sure we can all disagree on what it is we are worshipping, but much of
the contemporary philosophy is pointing towards a fundamental belief in a
society and way of life that has lost any permeating moral grounds.
Russil Wvong
> "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I agree that these are desirable aims, but how can they be brought
> > about? My own attempt to answer these questions is the Global Issues
> > FAQ. We don't have a world government; each national government is
> > responsible for the protection and well-being of its people. If
> > people are suffering under a bad government, to what extent should
> > others intervene? Should they refuse to deal with such governments?
> > If an outside power does topple a government and put another in its
> > place -- the US in Afghanistan, for example -- to what extent is the
> > outside power responsible for the actions of the new government?
> > And is such an intervention justifiable in the first place, or not?
>
> that they are being asked, and for that, love him or hate him, Chomsky does
> us all a great service.
Fair enough. It's helpful that Chomsky raises the questions; it's less
helpful that he leads people to think that they know the answers.
> Excellent post, just to clarify, one of the earliest examples I know of is
> Dostoyevsky.
Thanks. I've read "The Brothers Karamazov", but I think I was too young
to really understand it; I'll have to go back and reread it.
> Dostoevsky shows freedom of conscience to be a terrible burden to mankind
> causing great confusion and suffering in the face of insoluble problems.
> Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor vehemently proclaims that man will seek an
> answer to relieve this burden:
> "Man seeks to worship only what is incontestable, so incontestable, indeed,
> that all men at once agree to worship it together. For the chief concern of
> those miserable creatures is not only to find something that I or someone
> else can worship, but to find something that all believe in and worship, and
> the absolutely essential thing is that they should do so all together. "...
>
> "For so long as man remains free he strives for nothing so incessantly and
> so painfully as to find some one to worship."
>
> I'm sure we can all disagree on what it is we are worshipping, but much of
> the contemporary philosophy is pointing towards a fundamental belief in a
> society and way of life that has lost any permeating moral grounds.
I wouldn't say that our society and our way of life, in the West, lacks
moral grounding. We definitely have commonly accepted moral values,
but they deal primarily with *material* issues: we value people's
security, freedom, and physical well-being. Humanitarianism, in short.
Solzhenitsyn's point is that this isn't sufficient. Where does courage
fit into the picture, for example? Or, to put it differently, the
ability to endure suffering? When we see suffering, our natural
(and laudable) reaction is to try to relieve it. But some of the
time -- even a lot of the time -- suffering is unavoidable, and trying
to avoid it causes more problems than it solves. As M. Scott Peck
puts it: *life is hard.* I sometimes have the feeling that people
in the West have largely forgotten this, as we live our comfortable
lives. How well would I cope if I were hit by a bus and became a
paraplegic, for example? For that matter, how well will I cope with
aging and death?
Something I wrote elsewhere a little while ago:
--
I would agree that Western societies do a very good job of
providing for our material needs, providing abundance (at least for
most people) which is astonishing historically, but which isn't
matched by its ability to provide for our spiritual needs -- hope
for the future, knowledge of right and wrong, ability to face
adversity and death.
I don't have a clear idea of what the answer is. Some thoughts:
- I think revival of spiritual and religious faith would certainly
help, although I think it'll also require fighting against the
tide of modernity. (I admire people who have faith, but I'm
lacking in faith myself.)
- It might also be helpful to revive moral philosophy; the Stoics,
in particular, provide a great deal of practical advice on
dealing with adversity. (I suspect I find Stoic philosophy
appealing because I've internalized my parents' belief that
life is hard, which is easy to forget, living in the West.)
[http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Epictetus.html]
[http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html]
- There's a number of modern manifestations of moral philosophy:
self-help books, psychology, psychotherapy. I think M. Scott
Peck's "The Road Less Traveled" and Viktor Frankl's "Man's
Search for Meaning" are pretty good, for example.
On a more mundane level, even time management and personal
finance books (e.g. Andrew Tobias's "The Only Investment Guide
You'll Ever Need") have some useful things to say about how
one ought to live, e.g. living as though your income is lower
than it actually is.
- I suspect that the abundance and security of modern life may
be a major handicap when it comes to meeting one's spiritual
needs. I haven't figured out yet what to do about it, though.
(I think my parents would say, "Live in China for a few years."
Perhaps the important thing is to seek challenges rather than
comfort, and to strive to avoid escapism.)
D.Teale
> "D.Teale" <tea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I agree that these are desirable aims, but how can they be brought
> > > about? My own attempt to answer these questions is the Global Issues
> > > FAQ. We don't have a world government; each national government is
> > > responsible for the protection and well-being of its people. If
> > > people are suffering under a bad government, to what extent should
> > > others intervene? Should they refuse to deal with such governments?
> > > If an outside power does topple a government and put another in its
> > > place -- the US in Afghanistan, for example -- to what extent is the
> > > outside power responsible for the actions of the new government?
> > > And is such an intervention justifiable in the first place, or not?
> >
> > Let us not forget that the most important thing about these questions is
> > that they are being asked, and for that, love him or hate him, Chomsky
does
> > us all a great service.
>
> Fair enough. It's helpful that Chomsky raises the questions; it's less
> helpful that he leads people to think that they know the answers.
>
It is most helpful that he leads people to think that the one's governing
our nations don't have the answers.
I suppose, but the morality that pervades our society is purely emotivist.
There is a dissodance that plays out, condoning what others abhor, for the
most part it is a trend to be treasured for the freedom it represents, but,
there is always a but. (see following)
> Solzhenitsyn's point is that this isn't sufficient. Where does courage
> fit into the picture, for example? Or, to put it differently, the
> ability to endure suffering? When we see suffering, our natural
> (and laudable) reaction is to try to relieve it. But some of the
> time -- even a lot of the time -- suffering is unavoidable, and trying
> to avoid it causes more problems than it solves. As M. Scott Peck
> puts it: *life is hard.* I sometimes have the feeling that people
> in the West have largely forgotten this, as we live our comfortable
> lives. How well would I cope if I were hit by a bus and became a
> paraplegic, for example? For that matter, how well will I cope with
> aging and death?
>
You refer to Frankl below, his essay "A Case For Tragic Optimism"
(postscript to 1984 ed. of Man's Search) makes light of suffering.
> Something I wrote elsewhere a little while ago:
>
> --
> I would agree that Western societies do a very good job of
> providing for our material needs, providing abundance (at least for
> most people) which is astonishing historically, but which isn't
> matched by its ability to provide for our spiritual needs -- hope
> for the future, knowledge of right and wrong, ability to face
> adversity and death.
>
I'd like to ask a question. Have you read Milan Kundera's "The Unbearable
Lightness of Being" ?
I'd like to talk about your point on what society provides and answer my
above "but", in doing so I'd like to refer to Kundera's novel, it will make
things easier (or more difficult) depending on whether or not you've read
it.
> I don't have a clear idea of what the answer is. Some thoughts:
>
> - I think revival of spiritual and religious faith would certainly
> help, although I think it'll also require fighting against the
> tide of modernity. (I admire people who have faith, but I'm
> lacking in faith myself.)
>
I like Kierkegaard's ideas on faith: "I believe because it is absurd". If
our modern mentality can take comfort in anything it is our ability to use
logic and reason, we've rode these horses to hell and back then off to the
moon, they just can't seem to take us to a comforting faith.
Interestingly enough I find that the discarded school of logical positivism
is extremely useful for talking about faith. The father of logical
positivism, A.J. Ayer, points out that logic cannot apply to questions of
God or faith (something must be verifiably T or F). Now this idea caused
uproar in that it implied that a rational man must necesaarily be an
atheist.
But a funny thing happens when you take the ideas of Kierkegaard and Ayer
and lay them out side by side. Ayer believes that reason excludes faith,
Kierk believes that faith excludes reason. And yet I can reasonably state
that having faith is quite reasonable.
I guess the point I'm making, that is vaguely remiscent of the French school
of the absurd, is that some things are absurd, or better put, why is that we
cannot comprehend that ideas of faith are incomprehensible to reason when in
fact that very idea seems incomprehensible.
Modernity is natural, it has enfused mankind with power and technology, a
general conceit would be hard to avoid, how could we turn our back on reason
when it has done so much for us?
A revival or upsurge of faith would be a good thing, the dogma and doctrine
would be the bad thing.
> - It might also be helpful to revive moral philosophy; the Stoics,
> in particular, provide a great deal of practical advice on
> dealing with adversity. (I suspect I find Stoic philosophy
> appealing because I've internalized my parents' belief that
> life is hard, which is easy to forget, living in the West.)
> [http://classics.mit.edu/Browse/browse-Epictetus.html]
> [http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.html]
>
I disagree that a revival of Stoicism would be valuable. I do see your
point, Stoicism's power to deal with adversity may be second to none, but
lets consider the implications of such a doctrine.
Stoicism seeks a world where the individual is self-sufficent and detahced
from the chaos around us.
Stoicism demands that a man be free from feelings of neediness and
incompletness, these are contrary to the wisdom and insight of their
doctrine. Now, by avoiding these feelings, sympathy, empathy and compassion
are impossible. All of these emotions are the very tools that build families
and form communities-- the basis of any relationship.
> - There's a number of modern manifestations of moral philosophy:
> self-help books, psychology, psychotherapy. I think M. Scott
> Peck's "The Road Less Traveled" and Viktor Frankl's "Man's
> Search for Meaning" are pretty good, for example.
>
> On a more mundane level, even time management and personal
> finance books (e.g. Andrew Tobias's "The Only Investment Guide
> You'll Ever Need") have some useful things to say about how
> one ought to live, e.g. living as though your income is lower
> than it actually is.
>
Perhaps this is important, I never give it much thought, and my organization
is quite horrible...
Russil Wvong
> "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Fair enough. It's helpful that Chomsky raises the questions; it's less
> > helpful that he leads people to think that they know the answers.
>
> It is most helpful that he leads people to think that the one's governing
> our nations don't have the answers.
Chomsky goes further than this. He tells people that the leaders of
the liberal democracies are evil (e.g. he says that Kennan is an
"incredible villain"). I wouldn't claim that they're saints --
they're only human -- but I do think they're better than people
like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Chomsky doesn't seem to think so.
> > I wouldn't say that our society and our way of life, in the West, lacks
> > moral grounding. We definitely have commonly accepted moral values,
> > but they deal primarily with *material* issues: we value people's
> > security, freedom, and physical well-being. Humanitarianism, in short.
>
> I suppose, but the morality that pervades our society is purely emotivist.
It's not just emotional. Arguments about public policy are usually made
on grounds of overall utility, for example: will such-and-such a policy
provide net benefits or costs? Utilitarianism, in other words.
> You refer to Frankl below, his essay "A Case For Tragic Optimism"
> (postscript to 1984 ed. of Man's Search) makes light of suffering.
Thanks for the reference. I did a quick search and found an article
which explains this concept:
We certainly can learn something from Dr. Viktor Frankl, who
endured unspeakable horrors in Nazi concentration camps and
survived the Holocaust. He has developed logotherapy, and the
concept of "tragic optimism", defined as optimism in the face
of tragedy". Different from positive illusions, tragic optimism
refers to "the capacity to hope in spite of and because of
tragic experiences."
Dr. Frankl has concluded that it is not helpful to struggle
with such questions as "Why did God allow this to happen,"
because there are no satisfactory answers. He thinks that it is
more helpful to ask: "What is the meaning for me in this situation?
How can I respond in a courageous and responsible way?"
Tragic optimism is predicated on the defiant human spirit, the
belief that what cannot destroy me makes me stronger. It has no
use for wishful thinking or positive illusions. It is based on at
least five virtues:
1. Affirmation enables one to believe in the meaning and value
of life, regardless of the circumstances.
2. Acceptance enables one to confront what cannot be changed –
both past traumas and future losses.
3. Self-transcendence enables one to feel worthy of suffering
for a higher purpose.
4. Faith gives one a flickering light in an otherwise very
gloomy situation.
5. Courage enables one to endure the pain and strive for a
better future.
[www.meaning.ca/articles/presidents_column/tragic_optimism_sept01.html]
> > I would agree that Western societies do a very good job of
> > providing for our material needs, providing abundance (at least for
> > most people) which is astonishing historically, but which isn't
> > matched by its ability to provide for our spiritual needs -- hope
> > for the future, knowledge of right and wrong, ability to face
> > adversity and death.
>
> I'd like to ask a question. Have you read Milan Kundera's "The Unbearable
> Lightness of Being" ?
I'm afraid I haven't. I looked up a couple reviews on the web, but that
probably isn't enough.
> But a funny thing happens when you take the ideas of Kierkegaard and Ayer
> and lay them out side by side. Ayer believes that reason excludes faith,
> Kierk believes that faith excludes reason. And yet I can reasonably state
> that having faith is quite reasonable.
Seems reasonable to me. I certainly wouldn't automatically regard someone
who states that they have religious faith as irrational. I'm not familiar
with Ayer's logical positivism -- I'm more familiar with pragmatism (e.g.
as explained by William James).
> Modernity is natural, it has enfused mankind with power and technology, a
> general conceit would be hard to avoid, how could we turn our back on reason
> when it has done so much for us?
Agreed. Of course modern technology has brought plenty of Big Problems
with it as well, but it's hard to imagine solving them without reason,
even if a reasonable solution involves abandoning certain technologies.
> A revival or upsurge of faith would be a good thing, the dogma and
> doctrine would be the bad thing.
Maybe. I don't think doctrine is necessarily bad -- if people need
to believe *something*, then having it all worked out beforehand
may be helpful.
> Stoicism demands that a man be free from feelings of neediness and
> incompleteness, these are contrary to the wisdom and insight of their
> doctrine. Now, by avoiding these feelings, sympathy, empathy and
> compassion are impossible.
I see your point, but I disagree. I don't think that sympathy, empathy,
and compassion require a feeling of dependence.
> > On a more mundane level, even time management and personal
> > finance books (e.g. Andrew Tobias's "The Only Investment Guide
> > You'll Ever Need") have some useful things to say about how
> > one ought to live, e.g. living as though your income is lower
> > than it actually is.
>
> Perhaps this is important, I never give it much thought, and my
> organization is quite horrible...
You might want to look into it. :-) My view is that the most effective
way that each of us can make the world a better place is to try to lead
a healthy and productive life ourselves. Not that we shouldn't try to
bring about wider changes, but that wider change is much more difficult
to achieve.
D.Teale
> > "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Fair enough. It's helpful that Chomsky raises the questions; it's
less
> > > helpful that he leads people to think that they know the answers.
> >
> > It is most helpful that he leads people to think that the one's
governing
> > our nations don't have the answers.
>
> Chomsky goes further than this. He tells people that the leaders of
> the liberal democracies are evil (e.g. he says that Kennan is an
> "incredible villain"). I wouldn't claim that they're saints --
> they're only human -- but I do think they're better than people
> like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Chomsky doesn't seem to think so.
>
C'mon now, he doesn't say so, for you to say he seems to think so is a
stretch.
> > > I wouldn't say that our society and our way of life, in the West,
lacks
> > > moral grounding. We definitely have commonly accepted moral values,
> > > but they deal primarily with *material* issues: we value people's
> > > security, freedom, and physical well-being. Humanitarianism, in
short.
> >
> > I suppose, but the morality that pervades our society is purely
emotivist.
>
> It's not just emotional. Arguments about public policy are usually made
> on grounds of overall utility, for example: will such-and-such a policy
> provide net benefits or costs? Utilitarianism, in other words.
>
Emotivism is term used to described a pervading moral code of society, it
has very little to do with emotions, in actuality in refers to the tendency
for moral preference to be based on attitudinal or behavioral preferences--
as in, there is no objective or empirical moral code that everyone could
agree upon so why is anyone moral or immoral?
Utilitarianism assumes premises that are not allowed from an emotivist
standpoint. At the most basic level Util. attempts to provide the greatest
good for the greatest number, of course it has proved impossible to quantify
the "good" or to determine what individual happiness is, the refutation of
Util. inevitably leads to emotivism.
> > You refer to Frankl below, his essay "A Case For Tragic Optimism"
> > (postscript to 1984 ed. of Man's Search) makes light of suffering.
>
> Thanks for the reference. I did a quick search and found an article
> which explains this concept:
>
> We certainly can learn something from Dr. Viktor Frankl, who
> endured unspeakable horrors in Nazi concentration camps and
> survived the Holocaust. He has developed logotherapy, and the
> concept of "tragic optimism", defined as optimism in the face
> of tragedy". Different from positive illusions, tragic optimism
> refers to "the capacity to hope in spite of and because of
> tragic experiences."
>
> Dr. Frankl has concluded that it is not helpful to struggle
> with such questions as "Why did God allow this to happen,"
> because there are no satisfactory answers. He thinks that it is
> more helpful to ask: "What is the meaning for me in this situation?
> How can I respond in a courageous and responsible way?"
>
> Tragic optimism is predicated on the defiant human spirit, the
> belief that what cannot destroy me makes me stronger. It has no
> use for wishful thinking or positive illusions. It is based on at
> least five virtues:
>
> 1. Affirmation enables one to believe in the meaning and value
> of life, regardless of the circumstances.
> 2. Acceptance enables one to confront what cannot be changed -
> both past traumas and future losses.
> 3. Self-transcendence enables one to feel worthy of suffering
> for a higher purpose.
> 4. Faith gives one a flickering light in an otherwise very
> gloomy situation.
> 5. Courage enables one to endure the pain and strive for a
> better future.
>
[www.meaning.ca/articles/presidents_column/tragic_optimism_sept01.html]
>
Simply put I think of Frankl's point like this:
If this is so horrible, and I suffer so greatly then it must mean
something-- for if it were just some trivial event (life), I would not
suffer
> > > I would agree that Western societies do a very good job of
> > > providing for our material needs, providing abundance (at least for
> > > most people) which is astonishing historically, but which isn't
> > > matched by its ability to provide for our spiritual needs -- hope
> > > for the future, knowledge of right and wrong, ability to face
> > > adversity and death.
> >
> > I'd like to ask a question. Have you read Milan Kundera's "The
Unbearable
> > Lightness of Being" ?
>
> I'm afraid I haven't. I looked up a couple reviews on the web, but that
> probably isn't enough.
>
Fair enough, I was just being lazy, not wanting to re-cap the novel, but I
may not have to.
There is a German word 'kitsch' (and I'm sure Kundera would not be pleased
that I am going to define it in such a rudimentary fashion, seeing as he
comments on its over-use and mis-use), essentially it is the idea that shit
does not exist, when we attempt to paint over the defilements and wrongs in
our world and live in an ideal view.
The point he makes, and I agree with is that kitsch occurs on individual
levels and state levels, combatting kitsch is a difficult and precarious
task. On the one hand there is a certain need for comforting illusions and
the belief that 'we are doing right' or 'we have done right to get where we
are', and yet, and yet, kitsch is an illusion, shit is part of life.
If you were ever interested in how Stalin's son Yakhov died, you will find
Kundera's book has a little anecdote about it.
> > But a funny thing happens when you take the ideas of Kierkegaard and
Ayer
> > and lay them out side by side. Ayer believes that reason excludes faith,
> > Kierk believes that faith excludes reason. And yet I can reasonably
state
> > that having faith is quite reasonable.
>
> Seems reasonable to me. I certainly wouldn't automatically regard someone
> who states that they have religious faith as irrational. I'm not familiar
> with Ayer's logical positivism -- I'm more familiar with pragmatism (e.g.
> as explained by William James).
>
> > Modernity is natural, it has enfused mankind with power and technology,
a
> > general conceit would be hard to avoid, how could we turn our back on
reason
> > when it has done so much for us?
>
> Agreed. Of course modern technology has brought plenty of Big Problems
> with it as well, but it's hard to imagine solving them without reason,
> even if a reasonable solution involves abandoning certain technologies.
>
> > A revival or upsurge of faith would be a good thing, the dogma and
> > doctrine would be the bad thing.
>
> Maybe. I don't think doctrine is necessarily bad -- if people need
> to believe *something*, then having it all worked out beforehand
> may be helpful.
>
Helpful to relieve the terrible burden of responsibility that comes with
freedom, but of course any doctrine that works things out will demand that
individual give up some freedom.
> > Stoicism demands that a man be free from feelings of neediness and
> > incompleteness, these are contrary to the wisdom and insight of their
> > doctrine. Now, by avoiding these feelings, sympathy, empathy and
> > compassion are impossible.
>
> I see your point, but I disagree. I don't think that sympathy, empathy,
> and compassion require a feeling of dependence.
>
Not dependence, if you are a self contained unit--the troubles of the world
break off your back like rain on the rock, where does sympathy, empathy and
compassion fit in?
> > > On a more mundane level, even time management and personal
> > > finance books (e.g. Andrew Tobias's "The Only Investment Guide
> > > You'll Ever Need") have some useful things to say about how
> > > one ought to live, e.g. living as though your income is lower
> > > than it actually is.
> >
> > Perhaps this is important, I never give it much thought, and my
> > organization is quite horrible...
>
> You might want to look into it. :-) My view is that the most effective
> way that each of us can make the world a better place is to try to lead
> a healthy and productive life ourselves. Not that we shouldn't try to
> bring about wider changes, but that wider change is much more difficult
> to achieve.
>
I agree, but sometimes a healthy and productive life takes wide changes,
and that is hard.
Alistair Davidson
>
> "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:afe9ed76.02040...@posting.google.com...
>> "D.Teale" <tea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > I suppose, but the morality that pervades our society is purely
> emotivist.
>>
>> It's not just emotional. Arguments about public policy are usually made
>> on grounds of overall utility, for example: will such-and-such a policy
>> provide net benefits or costs? Utilitarianism, in other words.
>>
>
> Emotivism is term used to described a pervading moral code of society, it
> has very little to do with emotions, in actuality in refers to the tendency
> for moral preference to be based on attitudinal or behavioral preferences--
> as in, there is no objective or empirical moral code that everyone could
> agree upon so why is anyone moral or immoral?
That's not really true. Emotivism, if taken to be true, does present us with
the question of how we can say who is moral or immoral, but it doesn't
necessarily imply that there is *no* objective morality. It's meta-ethics, not
ethics.
> Utilitarianism assumes premises that are not allowed from an emotivist
> standpoint. At the most basic level Util. attempts to provide the greatest
> good for the greatest number, of course it has proved impossible to quantify
> the "good" or to determine what individual happiness is, the refutation of
> Util. inevitably leads to emotivism.
What about preference utilitarianism? I've not given it much thought, but on
the face of it I'd say that preference utilitarianism could be justified within
an emotivist framework.
--
Alistair Davidson
"How could you use a barking toy parrot to take over the world?"-- Goldenpi
D.Teale
"Alistair Davidson" <lord...@yahoooo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a8m2ts$tc2mt$2...@ID-110097.news.dfncis.de...
Emotivism may be socially relevant, thus allowing us to decide who is or is
not immoral within a given community. But the premise that morals are formed
within free autonomous individuals automatically refutes an objective
morality, morality is not mathematics. No moral code can be objective, there
are thousands of years of history backing that up.
> > Utilitarianism assumes premises that are not allowed from an emotivist
> > standpoint. At the most basic level Util. attempts to provide the
greatest
> > good for the greatest number, of course it has proved impossible to
quantify
> > the "good" or to determine what individual happiness is, the refutation
of
> > Util. inevitably leads to emotivism.
>
> What about preference utilitarianism? I've not given it much thought, but
on
> the face of it I'd say that preference utilitarianism could be justified
within
> an emotivist framework.
>
Interesting, considering this defintion:
"Emotivism is the doctrine that all evaluative judgments and more
specifically all moral judgments are nothing but expressions of preference"
-from A. MacIntyre "After Virtue".
Your point is valid, but getting at the core of each reveals more about
their limits.
Emotivism is axiologically skeptical, as in it denies that ethical terms are
informative, morality is based on individual preference or attitude.
Preference Utilitarianism works with the aggregate, it is axilogically
relative, values are public, but not objective.
Therefore any justification of pref.util. will ultimately lead to a conflict
with the individual preference upheld in emotivism.
Essentially I'd say this, both emotivism and pref.util. operate on the basis
of preference, the distinction between the two is in the value they place on
ethical terms. Now, in answering your query, I think that that means
pref.util. could not be justified within a framework of emotivism,
pref.util. is emotivism on a mission, emotivism stretched, it cannot fit
within... but, on the face of it... why not? =)
Russil Wvong
> "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Chomsky goes further than this. He tells people that the leaders of
> > the liberal democracies are evil (e.g. he says that Kennan is an
> > "incredible villain"). I wouldn't claim that they're saints --
> > they're only human -- but I do think they're better than people
> > like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Chomsky doesn't seem to think so.
>
> C'mon now, he doesn't say so, for you to say he seems to think so is a
> stretch.
Chomsky says that all US presidents since World War II ought to have
been hanged as war criminals; that seems pretty clear to me.
> Emotivism is term used to described a pervading moral code of society, it
> has very little to do with emotions, in actuality in refers to the tendency
> for moral preference to be based on attitudinal or behavioral preferences--
> as in, there is no objective or empirical moral code that everyone could
> agree upon so why is anyone moral or immoral?
I see. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I would disagree with the idea
that Western morality is purely emotivist. Torture, mass murder, and
starvation aren't regarded as bad because that happens to be people's
preferences at the moment; they're regarded as objectively bad.
> There is a German word 'kitsch' (and I'm sure Kundera would not be pleased
> that I am going to define it in such a rudimentary fashion, seeing as he
> comments on its over-use and mis-use), essentially it is the idea that shit
> does not exist, when we attempt to paint over the defilements and wrongs in
> our world and live in an ideal view.
> The point he makes, and I agree with is that kitsch occurs on individual
> levels and state levels, combatting kitsch is a difficult and precarious
> task. On the one hand there is a certain need for comforting illusions and
> the belief that 'we are doing right' or 'we have done right to get where we
> are', and yet, and yet, kitsch is an illusion, shit is part of life.
I'm in complete agreement. (I've heard the word "happytalk" used in
this sense.)
> > > Stoicism demands that a man be free from feelings of neediness and
> > > incompleteness, these are contrary to the wisdom and insight of their
> > > doctrine. Now, by avoiding these feelings, sympathy, empathy and
> > > compassion are impossible.
> >
> > I see your point, but I disagree. I don't think that sympathy, empathy,
> > and compassion require a feeling of dependence.
>
> Not dependence, if you are a self contained unit--the troubles of the world
> break off your back like rain on the rock, where does sympathy, empathy and
> compassion fit in?
I don't see why the ability to face one's troubles with equanimity and
the ability to empathize with someone else's troubles would be mutually
exclusive.
> > My view is that the most effective
> > way that each of us can make the world a better place is to try to lead
> > a healthy and productive life ourselves. Not that we shouldn't try to
> > bring about wider changes, but that wider change is much more difficult
> > to achieve.
>
> I agree, but sometimes a healthy and productive life takes wide changes,
> and that is hard.
No doubt, but probably easier than trying to get a whole bunch of
*other people* to try to lead healthy and productive lives. :-)
Alistair Davidson
> "D.Teale" <tea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > Chomsky goes further than this. He tells people that the leaders of
>> > the liberal democracies are evil (e.g. he says that Kennan is an
>> > "incredible villain"). I wouldn't claim that they're saints --
>> > they're only human -- but I do think they're better than people
>> > like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Chomsky doesn't seem to think so.
>>
>> C'mon now, he doesn't say so, for you to say he seems to think so is a
>> stretch.
>
> Chomsky says that all US presidents since World War II ought to have
> been hanged as war criminals; that seems pretty clear to me.
Um, IIRC he says that if the standards of Nuremberg were applied, they would be
hung. That's different from saying it's his preffered solution, and it doesn't
necessarily mean he thinks they're as bad as Stalin or Hitler. Admittedly, some
of them were responsible for millions of deaths, but generally anything
involving concentration camps was done by proxy instead of directly by the US.
Paul Simpson
russi...@yahoo.com says...
> "D.Teale" <tea...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Russil Wvong" <russi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Chomsky goes further than this. He tells people that the leaders of
> > > the liberal democracies are evil (e.g. he says that Kennan is an
> > > "incredible villain"). I wouldn't claim that they're saints --
> > > they're only human -- but I do think they're better than people
> > > like Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. Chomsky doesn't seem to think so.
> >
> > C'mon now, he doesn't say so, for you to say he seems to think so is a
> > stretch.
>
> Chomsky says that all US presidents since World War II ought to have
> been hanged as war criminals; that seems pretty clear to me.
>
No he doesn't; he says that if the Nuremberg (meaning Nuremberg and
Tokyo) laws were applied, each post-WWII US president would have been
hanged. This happens to be true, and it easy to demonstrate it on a
case-by-case basis. He also makes it clear, in that connection, that
"people ought to be pretty critical about the Nuremberg principles. I
don't mean to suggest that they're some kind of model of probity or
anything." His interpretation of the principles and their likely
outcome, were they to be applied to US presidents, is in line with that
of General Telford Taylor, Chief Prosecutor at Nuremberg.
Chomsky would agree that (say) Carter was no Stalin. However, when one
considers that since WWII (as Professor Johann Galtung has shown using
data from the CIA and the Pentagon) the US has been directly responsible
for the deaths of 12 million people worldwide, through either covert or
direct military action, one must wonder whether this makes any
difference to the equal numbers of victims and their families. To spend
a lot of one's time, as Russil does, attempting to justify the US (at
least in relative terms) on the basis of "realpolitik" and "security",
seems to me to be precisely the wrong thing to do.
Russil Wvong
> Russil Wvong wrote:
> > Chomsky says that all US presidents since World War II ought to have
> > been hanged as war criminals; that seems pretty clear to me.
>
> Um, IIRC he says that if the standards of Nuremberg were applied, they
> would be hung.
Correct.
> That's different from saying it's his preferred solution,
In what way? (Does Chomsky have some problem with Nuremberg
that I don't know about? The only criticism I've seen of Nuremberg
comes from Kennan.)
> ... and it doesn't
> necessarily mean he thinks they're as bad as Stalin or Hitler.
To me, this seems like pretty strong evidence! Who's more evil than
a war criminal?
> Admittedly, some
> of them were responsible for millions of deaths, but generally anything
> involving concentration camps was done by proxy instead of directly
> by the US.
Now I'm a little confused. It sounds like you think that
(a) some US presidents were responsible for millions of deaths
(Johnson and Nixon, I presume), but
(b) Stalin and Hitler *were* worse, because they set up concentration
camps.
I agree with (a) -- 2-3 million Vietnamese died in the Vietnam War.
(I know it could be argued that the US doesn't carry all of the
responsibility, but it gets a pretty big share of it, particularly
for continuing the war under Johnson.) I also agree that Stalin
and Hitler were worse, but not because they set up concentration
camps -- that doesn't seem like it should be the most important
factor in making moral judgments on foreign policy! If I kill a
million people without using concentration camps, that
oesn't seem significantly better than if I were to kill them
using concentration camps.
So if concentration camps aren't the issue, what is? I discussed
this in http://www.geocities.com/rwvong/future/chomsky.html:
--
... was there really no significant difference between the
objectives of the US and USSR? Both sought to maintain or increase
their power, but in addition, both also sought to replicate their
domestic economic and political systems abroad: capitalist democracy
in the case of the US, totalitarianism in the case of the USSR. As
Orwell pointed out, unfair as capitalist democracy is, it still has
laws; hypocritical though it is, it still respects human life. For
example, John Lewis Gaddis describes how the Cold War was shaped by
the behavior of the occupying armies in Germany:
... There were large numbers of communist party members throughout
Germany at the end of the war, and their prestige - because of
their opposition to the Nazis - had never been higher. Why did the
Germans so overwhelmingly welcome the Americans and their allies,
and fear the Russians?
It has long been known that the Red Army behaved brutally toward
German civilians in those parts of the country that it
occupied. This contrasted strikingly with the treatment accorded
the Germans in the American, British, and French zones. What we
did not know, until recently, is that the problem of rape was much
larger than once thought. Red Army soldiers, it now appears, raped
as many as two million German women in 1945 and 1946. There was no
significant effort to stop this pattern of behavior or to
discipline those who indulged in it. To this day, surviving Soviet
officers tend to recall the phenomenon much as Stalin saw it at
the time: troops that had risked their lives and survived deserved
a little fun.
Now, obviously rape in particular, and brutality in general, is
always a problem when armies occupy the territory of defeated
adversaries. Certainly Russian troops had good reason to hate the
Germans, given what they had done inside the Soviet Union. But
these semisanctioned mass rapes took place precisely during the
period when Stalin was trying to win the support of German people,
not just in the east but throughout the country. He even allowed
elections to be held inside the Soviet zone in the fall of 1946,
and suffered keen embarrassment when the Germans - the women in
particular - voted overwhelmingly against the Soviet-supported
candidates.
The incidence of rape and brutality was so much greater on the
Soviet than on the Western side that it played a major role in
determining which way the Germans would tilt in the Cold War that
was to come. It ensured a pro-Western orientation among all
Germans from the very beginning of that conflict, which surely
helps to explain why the West German regime was able to establish
itself as a legitimate government and the East German regime never
could. This pattern, in turn, replicated itself on a larger scale
when the West Europeans invited the United States to organize the
NATO alliance and include them within it. The Warsaw Pact, a
Soviet creation imposed on Eastern Europe in reaction to NATO,
operated on quite a different basis.
[http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/gaddis.htm]
--
Stalin killed millions of his own people; why would he have any
greater consideration for the peoples he had conquered?
A couple side notes. Kennan's criticism of Nuremberg:
I have already mentioned my aversion to our proceeding jointly
with the Russians in matters of this nature. I should not like
to be misunderstood on this subject. The crimes of the Nazi
leaders were immeasurable. These men had placed themselves in
a position where a further personal existence on this earth
could have had no positive meaning for them or for anyone
else. I personally considered that it would have been best
if the Allied commanders had had standing instructions that
if any of these men fell into the hands of Allied forces they
should, once their identity had been established beyond doubt,
be executed forthwith.
But to hold these Nazi leader for public trial was another matter.
This procedure could not expiate or undo the crimes they had
committed. It could have been justified only as a means for
conveying to the world public the repudiation, by the conscience
of those peoples and governments conducting the trial, of mass
crimes of every sort. To admit to such a procedure a Soviet judge
as the representative of a regime which had on its conscience not
only the vast cruelties of the Russian Revolution, of
collectivization, and of the Russian purges of the 1930s, as well
as the manifold brutalities and atrocities perpetrated against
the Poles and the peoples of the Baltic countries during the
wartime period, was to make a mockery of the only purpose the
trials could conceivably serve, and to assume, by association,
a share of the responsibility for these Stalinist crimes themselves.
[Kennan, Memoirs 1925-1950]
Stanley Hoffmann on the Vietnam War:
We do disagree on the subject of American objectives in
Vietnam. Professor Chomsky believes that they were wicked;
I do not. I believe that they were, in a way, far worse;
for often the greatest threat to moderation and peace, and
certainly the most insidious, comes from objectives that
are couched in terms of fine principles in which the policy-maker
fervently believes, yet that turn out to have no relation to
political realities and can therefore be applied only by
tortuous or brutal methods which broaden ad infinitum the gap
between motives and effects. What matters in international
affairs, alas, far more than intentions and objectives, is
behavior and results. Because I do not believe that our
professed goals in Vietnam were obviously wicked, Professor
Chomsky "reads this as in essence an argument for the legitimacy
of military intervention." If he had not stopped his quotation of
my analysis where he did, he would have had to show that my case
against the war is exactly the opposite: "worthy ends" divorced
from local political realities lead to political and moral
disaster, just as British resistance to the American revolution
was bound to get bankrupt. What Vietnam proves, in my opinion,
is not the wickedness of our intentions or objectives but the
wickedness that results from irrelevant objectives and disembodied
intentions, applied by hideous and massive means. It has its roots,
intellectual and emotional, in elements of the American style that
I have been at pains to analyze in detail. The Americans' very
conviction that their goals are good blinds them to the
consequences of their acts. To focus on intentions is to prolong
a futile clash of inflamed self-righteousness; to focus on behavior
and results could get us somewhere.
[http://www.nybooks.com/articles/11370]
Russil Wvong
> russi...@yahoo.com says:
> > Chomsky says that all US presidents since World War II ought to have
> > been hanged as war criminals; that seems pretty clear to me.
>
> No he doesn't; he says that if the Nuremberg (meaning Nuremberg and
> Tokyo) laws were applied, each post-WWII US president would have been
> hanged.
Correct.
> This happens to be true, and it's easy to demonstrate it on a
> case-by-case basis.
How would you demonstrate this for Carter, for example? What
about Clinton?
> Chomsky would agree that (say) Carter was no Stalin. However, when one
> considers that since WWII (as Professor Johann Galtung has shown using
> data from the CIA and the Pentagon) the US has been directly responsible
> for the deaths of 12 million people worldwide, through either covert or
> direct military action, one must wonder whether this makes any
> difference to the equal numbers of victims and their families.
I'm a little confused. So you're saying that US leaders *are* morally
equivalent to Hitler and Stalin?
> To spend
> a lot of one's time, as Russil does, attempting to justify the US (at
> least in relative terms) on the basis of "realpolitik" and "security",
> seems to me to be precisely the wrong thing to do.
IMHO, whether the US is morally equivalent to Nazi Germany is a
very important question, both for US citizens and citizens of
US allies. If this were the case, the logical next step for US
citizens would be to attempt to overthrow the US government, and
for US allies, to form an alliance *against* the US.
Conversely, if the realist view of the US as a power which
attempts to maintain the status quo is correct, then US allies
(such as Canada and the UK) which also have an interest in
maintaining the status quo should be working toward the same
goal, while at the same time trying to address inequities in
the status quo. This is my view. (a) Overthrowing the
existing status quo will involve a lot of bloodshed, and
(b) any new status quo will have its *own* injustices.
That's why I think it's worthwhile for me to spend my time
discussing US foreign policy.
I don't want to sound as though I think US foreign policy is
above criticism. I've written up a long assessment of US
foreign policy:
groups.google.ca/groups?selm=afe9ed76.0202131956.3fb1b0d0%40posting.google.com
To summarize, I think the two most important accomplishments of
US foreign policy during the Cold War were (a) rebuilding Western
Europe and Japan, and (b) avoiding war with the Soviet Union,
particularly nuclear war. But in Latin America, the Middle East,
South Asia, and Africa, people suffer a great deal under the
existing status quo, and at least in Latin America and the Middle
East, the US has had a significant role in maintaining this status
quo.