Weimar, Once Again
John Alway
Scott D. Erb wrote in message <7ua1bv$de9$2...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
>In article <19991016002408...@ng-cq1.aol.com>,
>powe...@aol.communist says...
>>>Since nazis WERE right wingers,
>>
>>Left wingers.
>
>No, scholars of political philosophy agree that Nazism lies with the
extremes
>of the right wing (nationalism, statism, etc.), far different from
Communism
>on the extreme left wing. Some points:
You'll often find that Historians aren't good at making such
determinations, since they don't usually know philosophy very well. For
instance, Newt Gingrich may now American history, but he doesn't have a good
grasp of the philosophy behind this country, which is so key to understand
it. Scholars of philosophy have come to the conclusion that Nazism is a
form of collectivism, with socialism as one of its elements, and the facts
bear this out. It's certainly a form of collectivism. Just to give an
indication of how similar, for instance, communism is to nazism, it should
be noted that during the Weimar Republic the Nazis and Communists frequently
swapped parties (depending on mood, no doubt). You can't have this
unless two parties are ideologically very close.
For those interested, there is a book titled "Ominous Parallels" by
Leonard Peikoff. It's a well researched book, and written by a
philosopher. He also has a brilliant explanation for he concentration
camps.
From "The Ominous Parallels" page 33:
"What the theoreticians of racism did was to secularize the Hegelian
approach, as Karl Popper explains eloquently. Marx he observes,"
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
replaced Hegel's 'Spirit' by matter, and by material and economic
interests. In the same way, racialism substitutes for Hegel's 'Spirit'
something material, the quasi-biological conception of Blood or Race.
Instead of 'Spirit,' Blood is the Sovereign of the world, and displays
itself on the Stage of History; and instead of its 'Spirit,' the Blood of a
nation determines its essential destiny.
The transubstantiation of Hegelianism into racialism or of Spirit into Blood
does not greatly alter the main tendency of Hegelianism. It only gives it a
tinge of biology and of modern evolutionism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
"Every central doctrine of the Nazi politics, racism included, in an
expression or variant of the theory of collectivism."
>
>"Theory was not the strong point of movements devoted to the inadequacies
>of reason and rationalism and the superiority of instict and will.
He is entirely right that they were against reason and believed in the
will. This is in absolute harmony with modern philosophical theory,
however. Romanticism was an overt rejection of the idea of obsolutes, and
placed emotions over reason. This, btw, is similar to the way Clinton
behaves. I think most people will note that he has no regard for the facts,
and appeals to emotions. He blindly asserts blatent lie after lie and gets
ovations for his efforts.
>... They
>attracted all kinds of reactionary theorists
"Reactionary" is an anti-concept. People behave in accordance with
their ideas, and people who believe that the group is above the individual,
and that there is no right and wrong, or true and false are ripe to be taken
over. For instance, environmentalism, taken seriously, is an overt hatred
of man, and the more serious environmentalists make it clear their hatred
for mankind.
>...in countries with an active
>conservative intellectual life... as we have seen fascism shared
>nationalism, anti-communism, anti-liberalism, etc. with other non-fascist
>elements on the right....The major difference between the fascist and the
>non-fascist right was that fascism existed by mobilizing masses from
>below."
This makes absolutely no sense.
Modern republicans have a religious-statist agenda. They are reverting
to the Dark Ages. Modern liberals have a statist-fascist agenda. Notice
how they use the power of the state against the tobacco industry, Bill
Gates, and are attacking our liberties in all areas. Notice the complete
disregard for the rule of law and for justice. Also notice their desire to
control all aspects of our lives. However, more ominous could be their
embracing of environmentalism, which is a pseudo-science based, anti-man,
anti-freedom, anti-capitalism movement, which would be worse than even
Nazism and Communism if it ever gains power, given the motivations
underlying it.
>>Republican agenda: Anti-race discriminitive
>>Nazi agenda: Pro-race discriminitive
>>Liberal agenda: Pro-race discriminitive
>
>That's a weird claim about the liberal agenda! You're making up nonsense!
>
>You are simply ignorant.
You don't know how ideas work. He's right, and provably so.
Clinton had a board with race "experts" who claimed that color blindness
is a bad idea. They were promoting the idea of racism, and doing so
overtly. Multiculturalism is another great example of racism, and liberals
certainly promote that! They are collectivists at heart, not
individualists.
If you are really against racism, you promote the idea of treating
people like individuals. Which is not only doable, but is easy and morally
right. They don't do it, because they are racist.
The facts or reality are there for all to see.
...John
Listen to Objectivist radio host Prodos via Real Audio:
http://www.prodos.com/radio
J. H. McCloskey
>
> Scott D. Erb wrote in message <7ua1bv$de9$2...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
> >In article <19991016002408...@ng-cq1.aol.com>,
> >powe...@aol.communist says...
> >>>Since nazis WERE right wingers,
> >>
> >>Left wingers.
> >
> >No, scholars of political philosophy agree that Nazism lies with the
> extremes
> >of the right wing (nationalism, statism, etc.), far different from
> Communism
> >on the extreme left wing. Some points:
>
> You'll often find that Historians aren't good at making such
> determinations, since they don't usually know philosophy very well. For
> grasp of the philosophy behind this country, which is so key to understand
> it. Scholars of philosophy have come to the conclusion that Nazism is a
> form of collectivism, with socialism as one of its elements, and the facts
> bear this out. It's certainly a form of collectivism. Just to give an
> indication of how similar, for instance, communism is to nazism, it should
> be noted that during the Weimar Republic the Nazis and Communists frequently
> swapped parties (depending on mood, no doubt). You can't have this
> unless two parties are ideologically very close.
((Hardly. Look at the now kook-loon-anarchos of the Rephorm Party who want Buchanan or Weicker or
Fulani or Trump or Ms. Black or Mr. White or maybe Epictetus and Clarabelle the Clown on a
time-shared basis. "Ideologically very close" certainly is not the explanation of their delightful
cavortings. Speculative psychology may score some points in politics after all.))
> For those interested, there is a book titled "Ominous Parallels" by
> Leonard Peikoff. It's a well researched book, and written by a
> philosopher. He also has a brilliant explanation for he concentration
> camps.
>>>>>>
I presume "johnz" will be filling all the newsgroupies in about exactly what
flavor philosopher Mr. Peikoff is.
Fill in the blank: "Of Leonard, Barbara says, 'He hasn't added a
word to what _____ explained to him at agonizing length.'"
This Barbara, I think, may be the all-all-all type syllogism from The Master's first
figure. Or possibly she is somebody else entirely.
== Yours, J. H. McLogicus == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
PS. Book learning can be kind of fun, if you have a suitable book in hand. the one
I quote from is a doozy.
John Alway
J. H. McCloskey wrote in message <380A9D...@iName.com>...
>John Alway wrote:
[...]
>> You'll often find that Historians aren't good at making such
>> determinations, since they don't usually know philosophy very well. For
>> instance, Newt Gingrich may know American history, but he doesn't have a
good
>> grasp of the philosophy behind this country, which is so key to
understand
>> it. Scholars of philosophy have come to the conclusion that Nazism is a
>> form of collectivism, with socialism as one of its elements, and the
facts
>> bear this out. It's certainly a form of collectivism. Just to give
an
>> indication of how similar, for instance, communism is to nazism, it
should
>> be noted that during the Weimar Republic the Nazis and Communists
frequently
>> swapped parties (depending on mood, no doubt). You can't have this
>> unless two parties are ideologically very close.
>((Hardly. Look at the now kook-loon-anarchos of the Rephorm Party who want
Buchanan or Weicker or
>Fulani or Trump or Ms. Black or Mr. White or maybe Epictetus and Clarabelle
the Clown on a
>time-shared basis. "Ideologically very close" certainly is not the
explanation of their delightful
>cavortings. Speculative psychology may score some points in politics after
all.))
There are definite divisions in that party. Iows, the party has no
ideological focus right now. It could go any number of ways. Contrast
this with communism and nazism, which were pure ideologies. So, there is a
fundamental difference between those situations which make your comparison a
non-sequitur.
Dr. Peikoff is an Objectivist philosopher (the best kind, since it is
for life on earth), and Ominous Parallels is a great piece of work which
shows the ideology which animated Nazis. In that quote, poster, he
quotes the philosopher Karl Popper (I hope you know who he is), because of
Popper's eloquence in understanding the Hegelian roots of Nazism.
However, what I expect from you poster is for you to look at the
actual *ideas* and see how they square with the *facts*. This is vital to
proper thinking. From the way you post I get the impression you are rather
a factless sort of individual. Am I correct in this impression?
...John
Listen to Objectivist Radio host Prodos via Real Audio
http://www.prodos.com/radio
Mimi Weasel
> You'll often find that Historians aren't good at making such
> determinations, since they don't usually know philosophy very well.
You're living under the bizarre delusion that you know more about the
history of political science than a professor of political science (Erb)
does???? My, you ARE delusional, aren't you?
An excerpt from The Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright©
1994.
Hitler:
He used his virulent Anti-semitism and *anti-Communism* to win the
support both of the workers and of the bankers and industrialists.
Mimi Weasel
Billy Beck
"J. H. McCloskey" <j...@iName.com> wrote:
>John Alway wrote:
>> For those interested, there is a book titled "Ominous Parallels" by
>> Leonard Peikoff. It's a well researched book, and written by a
>> philosopher. He also has a brilliant explanation for he concentration
>> camps.
> I presume "johnz" will be filling all the newsgroupies in about exactly what
>flavor philosopher Mr. Peikoff is.
Leonard Peikoff (aka "Ayatolluh Lenny") is the guy who happened
to be nearest the chair when the music stopped.
Having pointed that out, "Parallels" is nonetheless a valuable
book, even though it took him fourteen years to write it under That
Woman's editorial direction.
> Fill in the blank: "Of Leonard, Barbara says, 'He hasn't added a
>word to what _____ explained to him at agonizing length.'"
>
> This Barbara, I think, may be the all-all-all type syllogism from The Master's first
>figure. Or possibly she is somebody else entirely.
>PS. Book learning can be kind of fun, if you have a suitable book in hand. the one
>I quote from is a doozy.
You wouldn't know a "doozy" on the subject, McCloskey.
Billy
VRWC Fronteer
http://www.mindspring.com/~wjb3/promise.html
Billy Beck
Mimi Weasel <MimiW...@home.com> wrote:
>John Alway wrote:
>> You'll often find that Historians aren't good at making such
>> determinations, since they don't usually know philosophy very well.
>
>You're living under the bizarre delusion that you know more about the
>history of political science than a professor of political science (Erb)
>does???? My, you ARE delusional, aren't you?
What a completely fawning little appeal to arbitrary authority.
Look:
>An excerpt from The Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright©
>1994.
>Hitler:
>He used his virulent Anti-semitism and *anti-Communism* to win the
>support both of the workers and of the bankers and industrialists.
Uh, right. Mimi? Did you *know* that Göring administrated
Hitler's "Four Year Plan", and that they were both ardent admirers of
Stalin?
"Between 1936 and 1939 the controls to which German business was
subject were extended to include imports and foreign exchange,
allocation of raw materials, allocation of labor, prices, wages,
profits, and investment. Their impact varied between one sector and
another but extended to agriculture as well as industry, the plan
being responsible for producing and distributing the tractors and
fertilizers. Business still remained in private or corporate hands,
but to a large extent the government through the Four Year Plan
dictated what companies shoudl produce, how much new investment they
should be allowed to make, where any new plants should be sited, what
raw materials they could obtain, what prices to charge, what wages to
pay, how much profit they could make - and how they should use it
(after paying increased taxes) for compulsory reinvestment in their
business or purchase of government bonds."
(Bullock, "Hitler And Stalin: Parallel Lives", 1992, p. 448)
That's just a random taste of the action, selected without half
trying. Authoritative histories of these two regimes are thoroughly
rife with comparisons running into every aspect of their subjects'
lives. Of course, you don't have to try to think about what any of
this stuff means - kinda like Erb. However, if the best *you* can do
is "The Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia", well, then; it's
easy to see why you need to come trailing in here after The Maine
Mosquito.
johnz
>"J. H. McCloskey" <j...@iName.com> wrote:
>
>>John Alway wrote:
>
>>> For those interested, there is a book titled "Ominous Parallels" by
>>> Leonard Peikoff. It's a well researched book, and written by a
>>> philosopher. He also has a brilliant explanation for he concentration
>>> camps.
>
>> I presume "johnz" will be filling all the newsgroupies in about exactly what
>>flavor philosopher Mr. Peikoff is.
>
> Leonard Peikoff (aka "Ayatolluh Lenny") is the guy who happened
>to be nearest the chair when the music stopped.
>
> Having pointed that out, "Parallels" is nonetheless a valuable
>book, even though it took him fourteen years to write it under That
>Woman's editorial direction.
>
>> Fill in the blank: "Of Leonard, Barbara says, 'He hasn't added a
>>word to what _____ explained to him at agonizing length.'"
>>
>> This Barbara, I think, may be the all-all-all type syllogism from The
Master's first
>>figure. Or possibly she is somebody else entirely.
>
>>PS. Book learning can be kind of fun, if you have a suitable book in
hand. the one
>>I quote from is a doozy.
>
> You wouldn't know a "doozy" on the subject, McCloskey.
From the gleeful, chortling tone in McCloskey's voice, I surmise that he's
gotten hold of one of the two biographies written by the Brandens.
Undoubtedly, Billy, he intends to ambush you with selected excepts from
whichever book he has, springing odd paragraphs on you in his usual
sprightly little way, apparantly under the impression that this will
somehow discredit you, reveal irreconcilable contradictions at the heart
of your personal philosophy, cause you to run screaming in terror, etc,
etc, blah, blah, blah. I am not sure he realizes that the book (or books)
in question are mass-market publications, that they came out some time
ago, that their contents are thoroughly familiar to anyone really
interested in the history of Objectivism, and that there is nothing very
shocking in either of them, and nothing really relevent to Rand's
political or philosophical work. I havn't looked at them very closely
myself, since they seem a little sad; I find it slightly annoying that
McCloskey is getting all pixied out on someone else's personal
misfortunes, but what else is new with liberals?
At any rate, if I want to be shocked or horrified, there's no substitute
for biographies of liberal writers. A good example is Mark Schorer's (this
may not be the exact spelling, as I do not have the book at hand: back,
McCloskey) minutely detailed four-or-five inch thick biography of Sinclair
Lewis. This book consists of a virtually day by day account of Lewis's
relentless and methodical self-destruction, and at least half of it is
devoted to detailing the process of Lewis' drinking himself to death over
twenty or thirty years. Extra added features include Lewis' loathesome
treatment of his wives, embarassing letters to Dorothy Thompson, his
free-floating illwill and ingratitude towards friends, other writers, etc,
his general Philistinism, his descent into total hackwork, and his idiotic
public statements. Nothing in either of the two books McCloskey might be
reading even begins to approach this level of misery and degradation,
agonizingly protracted over decades. And Lewis is hardly the worst
example; why not peruse the inspiring life-stories of Ernest Hemingway or
the unspeakable Bertoldt Brecht, if you want that sort of thing? I don't,
generally.
Rand's life is nothing like this; although I am not an Objectivist, it
seems to me that she was a person who came to this country and succeeded
against considerable difficulty, somebody who worked hard and accomplished
a lot, and who, on the whole, had a pretty good life. Certainly a lot
better life than the repulsive characters just mentioned.
(Brecht, to be sure, seems to have enjoyed being a evil swine, and been
quite successful at it; this means nothing to me, however.)
JS
johnz
>John Alway wrote:
>>
>> Scott D. Erb wrote in message <7ua1bv$de9$2...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
>> >In article <19991016002408...@ng-cq1.aol.com>,
>> >powe...@aol.communist says...
>> >>>Since nazis WERE right wingers,
>> >>
>> >>Left wingers.
>> >
>> >No, scholars of political philosophy agree that Nazism lies with the
>> extremes
>> >of the right wing (nationalism, statism, etc.), far different from
>> Communism
>> >on the extreme left wing. Some points:
>>
>> You'll often find that Historians aren't good at making such
>> determinations, since they don't usually know philosophy very well. For
>> instance, Newt Gingrich may know American history, but he doesn't have a good
>> grasp of the philosophy behind this country, which is so key to understand
>> it. Scholars of philosophy have come to the conclusion that Nazism is a
>> form of collectivism, with socialism as one of its elements, and the facts
>> bear this out. It's certainly a form of collectivism. Just to give an
>> indication of how similar, for instance, communism is to nazism, it should
>> be noted that during the Weimar Republic the Nazis and Communists frequently
>> swapped parties (depending on mood, no doubt). You can't have this
>> unless two parties are ideologically very close.
>
>((Hardly. Look at the now kook-loon-anarchos of the Rephorm Party who
want Buchanan or Weicker or
>Fulani or Trump or Ms. Black or Mr. White or maybe Epictetus and
Clarabelle the Clown on a
>time-shared basis. "Ideologically very close" certainly is not the
explanation of their delightful
>cavortings. Speculative psychology may score some points in politics
after all.))
An example of almost breathtaking irrelevance. However, it does allow you
to use the phrase "delightful cavortings."
So, I take it you are 100% behind Prof. Erb's position on the nature of
National Socialism, McCloskey? Based on your knowledge of history, you
endorse it unhesitatingly? Any reservations at all?
Grinning fixedly,
JS
Scott Erb
says...
> Uh, right. Mimi? Did you *know* that Göring administrated
>Hitler's "Four Year Plan", and that they were both ardent admirers of
>Stalin?
They recognized that the USSR was industrializing and growing fast, and
mimicked those techniques. But ideologically Communism and fascism are on
opposite ends of the spectrum. After all, the Communists were the first
ones sent to Dachau, led the resistance fight in places like France and
Yugoslavia, and were the biggest opponents of the Nazis during their rise
to power. The allies of the Nazis were the right wing anti-communist
parties.
Scott Erb
> You'll often find that Historians aren't good at making such
>determinations, since they don't usually know philosophy very well.
That is a ridiculous statement, of course, especially since some of the
people I cited about nazi ideology were philosophers. I daresay the
historians I consider experts know philosophy quite well.
> For
>instance, Newt Gingrich may now American history, but he doesn't have a
He's not much of an historian either!
>it. Scholars of philosophy have come to the conclusion that Nazism is a
>form of collectivism, with socialism as one of its elements, and the
facts
>bear this out. It's certainly a form of collectivism.
So is conservatism and the right wing. It sees the state as a primary
value, and looks towards the traditions and culture that defines the
collective as being of value and needing to be maintained. They rely on
nationalism and elitism. It is aphilosophical to try to divide up into a
simple dichotomy wherein all "collectivist" ideologies are lumped together
to contrast to alleged "individualist" ideologies. That would be weak
thinking. Rather there are different kinds of collective ideologies, such
as the far right (nazism) and the far left (communism).
> Just to give an
>indication of how similar, for instance, communism is to nazism, it
>should be noted that during the Weimar Republic the Nazis and Communists
>frequently swapped parties (depending on mood, no doubt).
They also were enemies that fought in the streets constantly, and the
Communists were the first ones made illegal and sent to the concentration
camps by the Nazis when they grabbed power. The public jumps between
parties quite a bit since they are reacting to campaign promises, not
ideology.
> You can't have this
>unless two parties are ideologically very close.
That's not true at all -- indeed, quite often people (especially
uneducated ones) switch between ideologically distant parties.
> For those interested, there is a book titled "Ominous Parallels" by
>Leonard Peikoff. It's a well researched book, and written by a
>philosopher
>. He also has a brilliant explanation for he concentration
>camps.
>
> From "The Ominous Parallels" page 33:
>
>"What the theoreticians of racism did was to secularize the Hegelian
>approach, as Karl Popper explains eloquently. Marx he observes,"
That's silly. He's simply reinterpreting things to fit his philosophical
bias. Its weak philosophy at best, dishonest at worst.
-snip
> He is entirely right that they were against reason and believed in
>the will. This is in absolute harmony with modern philosophical theory,
>however. Romanticism was an overt rejection of the idea of obsolutes,
Science and modernism also rejects absolutes. In fact, modern philosophy
tends to reject absolutes. However, Nazism did have an absolute: will and
power. Marx was different, he was an objectivist philosopher (in the real
sense of the word), who thought that correctly understanding human nature
and the way the world operates would give you the right system. Such
beliefs are absolutist and create a faith in the inevitability of one's
own ism (and tend to create intellectual ghettos, where believers
denegrate disbelievers, and are convinced that others are either stupid or
dishonest).
>and
>placed emotions over reason. This, btw, is similar to the way Clinton
>behaves.
Wow, talk about mixing philosophy and pop psychology!
-snip insults of Clinton followed by insults of the GOP-
> They are collectivists at heart, not
>individualists.
False dichotomy
-snip-
> The facts or reality are there for all to see.
Or people can intepret their perceptions of reality and interact with the
scientific perspective that keeps and open mind and rejects absolutist
ideologies that try to say they can come up with pure ethical truth
through philosophy alone. That sounds like the really silly
philosophy of that mediocore philosopher (but decent fiction writer) Rand.
ciao, scott
Scott Erb
jo...@aa.sketchy.net says...
>
>So, I take it you are 100% behind Prof. Erb's position on the nature of
>National Socialism, McCloskey? Based on your knowledge of history, you
>endorse it unhesitatingly? Any reservations at all?
I suspect I'd have to actually state my position on the nature of National
Socialism for John to be able to do that. So far I've only noted that its
ideological base was far right, and not far left. What exactly that means
both in practice and in terms of the validity of the left-right scale is
another matter.
ciao, scott
Billy Beck
scot...@maine.edu (Scott Erb) wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com says...
>
>> Uh, right. Mimi? Did you *know* that Göring administrated
>>Hitler's "Four Year Plan", and that they were both ardent admirers of
>>Stalin?
>
>They recognized that the USSR was industrializing and growing fast, and
>mimicked those techniques. But ideologically Communism and fascism are on
>opposite ends of the spectrum.
Rubbish. Both regarded individual human lives as disposable to
the service of the state.
>After all, the Communists were the first ones sent to Dachau...
"At the same time the Party programme came out strongly against
Capitalism, the trusts, the big industrialists, and the big
landowners. All unearned income was to be abolished; all war profits
to be confiscated; the State was to take over all trusts and share in
the profits of large industries; the big department stores were to be
communalized and rented to small tradespeople, while preference in all
public supplies was to be given to the small trader. With this went
equally drastic proposals for agrarian reform: the expropriation
without compensation of land needed for national purposes, the
abolition of ground rents, and the prohibiting of land speculation."
(Bullock, "A Study In Tyranny", 1962, p. 75)
"Ideology", huh, Professorboy? Know what? Not one of you morons
has ever come to terms with the Twenty-five Points of 1920.
Billy Beck
scot...@maine.edu (Scott Erb) wrote:
>jo...@aa.sketchy.net says...
>>
>>So, I take it you are 100% behind Prof. Erb's position on the nature of
>>National Socialism, McCloskey? Based on your knowledge of history, you
>>endorse it unhesitatingly? Any reservations at all?
>
>I suspect I'd have to actually state my position on the nature of National
>Socialism for John to be able to do that. So far I've only noted that its
>ideological base was far right,...
<snicker> Yeah: it was so far right that it worked out to be far
left.
>What exactly that means both in practice and in terms of the validity of
>the left-right scale is another matter.
Well, for one thing, Usenet weezils never tire of making vritual
hay of it.
Scott Erb
says...
>
> Rubbish. Both regarded individual human lives as disposable to
>the service of the state.
Which does not at all deny that they were ideologically quite distant from
each other. Also, theres the issue of practice vs. ideology. Socialist
ideology is anti-statist in the sense that it argues that states and
nationalism are artificial construct of a class society, and that worker
unity should transcend boundaries. The practice didn't follow the
ideology, which causes many to say Stalinism was right wing, and not true
socialism (I think the practice was a consequence of the way Lenin and
others tried to use the state to create their utopia, a contradiction of
sorts which destroyed their system -- rather ironic...)
> "At the same time the Party programme came out strongly against
>Capitalism, the trusts, the big industrialists, and the big
>landowners.
The party program was, of course, designed for mass consumption. Party
actions were very much designed after taking power to win over the support
of the big wigs not by taking them over or nationalizing them, but
creating a corporatist partnership.
-rest snipped-
Scott Erb
says...
> <snicker> Yeah: it was so far right that it worked out to be far
>left.
Or one could say Stalinism was so far left it worked out to be far right.
Or maybe one could simply note that the ideological roots of the far left
and far right are very different, but in practice there are many
similarities (and differences) between the resulting governments. Also, I
would note that fascism, by positing that power equals truth and denying
rationalism (the opposite of communist ideology, which states there is an
objective, rational truth one can discover absolutely), thus has no one
set ideological meaning. Franco, Mussolini, and Hitler all went different
ways.
>>What exactly that means both in practice and in terms of the validity of
>>the left-right scale is another matter.
>
> Well, for one thing, Usenet weezils never tire of making vritual
>hay of it.
Its invalid. Trying to turn political thought into something that can be
put on a line between two poles just doesn't work.
ciao, scott
John H. McCloskey
>
> In article <johnz-18109...@cust46.max11.seattle-k56.aa.net>,
> jo...@aa.sketchy.net says...
> >
> >So, I take it you are 100% behind Prof. Erb's position on the nature of
> >National Socialism, McCloskey? Based on your knowledge of history, you
> >endorse it unhesitatingly? Any reservations at all?
>
> I suspect I'd have to actually state my position on the nature of National
> Socialism for John to be able to do that. So far I've only noted that its
> both in practice and in terms of the validity of the left-right scale is
> another matter.
>>>>
Unfortunately I am already 113.27% behind my own eccentric theory of the matter,
which I wouldn't expect either combatant here to want to be allied with.
But rather than bore everybody with the orthodox view, let me ask the probably
heretical Dr. Erb to clarify what he says here. He hasn't, he says, discussed what
"right(ism)" means in practice. He hasn't discussed the validity of the ideas of
"right" and "left." What, then, *has* he discussed?
Evidently, what "right" means in theory, validly or invalidly. The NSDAP
"ideological base" is, he says, definitely agreed to be "rightist" in theory.
I don't start doing politics by picking up a compass myself, but descriptively I'd
say the Nazi ideological base was racist/nationalist, both in theory and in
practice. My views get strange later on, but I do expect everybody will agree with
that much.
But does everybody go on with Erb (as I understand him) to agree that racism or
nationalism (or perhaps chauvinism-in-general?) is the theoretical core of
"rightism," with cosmopolitanism (or liberalism or Enlightenment or something
similar) correlatively the core of "leftism"?
Do not other people who call the Nazis "rightists" mean, at least sometimes, a
quite different thing, an economic thing, namely that they were not in practice
seriously against capitalism, no matter what the party name or platform implied?
As far as I can make out, the two criteria are in principle completely
independent. That is, one could with ease be any of the following:
(1) a socialist chauvinist
(2) a capitalist chauvinist
(3) a socialist cosmopolitan
(4) a capitalist cosmopolitan.
It would be easy to name personal or party names under each rubric, but it will be
more fun to let others pick their own.
Anyway, you will see that I am so far from grasping Erb's position, let alone
endorsing it, that even the part he seems to think he has settled for us eludes me.
((I apologize if I've missed any pertinent posts: deja.com's software is on
week-end strike again, and I am accordingly somewhat at a loss.))
== Yours, J. H. McFuzzimush == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
Scott Erb
-snips to get to the important points-
> But does everybody go on with Erb (as I understand him) to agree that
>racism or nationalism (or perhaps chauvinism-in-general?) is the
>theoretical core of "rightism," with cosmopolitanism (or liberalism or
>Enlightenment or something similar) correlatively the core of "leftism"?
ZAP! Liberalism is NOT leftism! Liberalism (Locke, Smith, etc. --
classical liberalism) is one reason I reject the left-right model, it
doesn't fit! American liberalism is more the progressive liberalism that
emerged with people like J.S. Mill, with a twist of leftism thrown in,
while American conservatism is a mix of classical liberalism with
nationalist statism thrown in...creating really odd political parties as
the two main ones try to mix this ideological cocktail into something
palatable.
> Do not other people who call the Nazis "rightists" mean, at least
>sometimes, a quite different thing, an economic thing, namely that they
>were not in practice seriously against capitalism, no matter what the
>party name or platform implied?
I think the nazis were anti-communist, anti-capitalist, anti-rationalist,
anti-liberal, and even anti-conservative. But they certainly were not
leftist by the common definition of the word! Their ideology emerged on
the right, but twisted it away from traditional German conservatism as
well (though building on its statist roots)>.
> As far as I can make out, the two criteria are in principle completely
>independent. That is, one could with ease be any of the following:
>
> (1) a socialist chauvinist
> (2) a capitalist chauvinist
> (3) a socialist cosmopolitan
> (4) a capitalist cosmopolitan.
>
>It would be easy to name personal or party names under each rubric, but
>it will be more fun to let others pick their own.
You add a dimension to this, but fascist economics seem neither socialist
nor capitalist at base.
> Anyway, you will see that I am so far from grasping Erb's position, let
>alone endorsing it, that even the part he seems to think he has settled
>for us eludes me.
Only that it is wrong to label Hitler and Stalin as both left wing in
order to posit a false dichotomy of left being all the bad guys, and right
being the good upright folk.
ciao, scott
Billy Beck
jo...@aa.sketchy.net (johnz) wrote:
>wj...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>>"J. H. McCloskey" <j...@iName.com> wrote:
>>
>>>John Alway wrote:
>>
>>>> For those interested, there is a book titled "Ominous Parallels" by
>>>> Leonard Peikoff. It's a well researched book, and written by a
>>>> philosopher. He also has a brilliant explanation for he concentration
>>>> camps.
>>
>>> I presume "johnz" will be filling all the newsgroupies in about exactly what
>>>flavor philosopher Mr. Peikoff is.
>>
>> Leonard Peikoff (aka "Ayatolluh Lenny") is the guy who happened
>>to be nearest the chair when the music stopped.
>>
>> Having pointed that out, "Parallels" is nonetheless a valuable
>>book, even though it took him fourteen years to write it under That
>>Woman's editorial direction.
>>
>>> Fill in the blank: "Of Leonard, Barbara says, 'He hasn't added a
>>>word to what _____ explained to him at agonizing length.'"
>>>
>>> This Barbara, I think, may be the all-all-all type syllogism from The
>>>Master's first figure. Or possibly she is somebody else entirely.
>>
>>>PS. Book learning can be kind of fun, if you have a suitable book in
>>>hand. the one I quote from is a doozy.
>>
>> You wouldn't know a "doozy" on the subject, McCloskey.
>
>From the gleeful, chortling tone in McCloskey's voice, I surmise that he's
>gotten hold of one of the two biographies written by the Brandens.
I have been moderately curious to know which one he picked up.
It's a safe bet he won't go anywhere near Sciabarra. That would
require an intellectual courage and initiative quite beyond him...
reminiscent of the Big-O types, actually.
>Undoubtedly, Billy, he intends to ambush you with selected excepts from
>whichever book he has, springing odd paragraphs on you in his usual
>sprightly little way, apparantly under the impression that this will
>somehow discredit you, reveal irreconcilable contradictions at the heart
>of your personal philosophy, cause you to run screaming in terror, etc,
>etc, blah, blah, blah. I am not sure he realizes that the book (or books)
>in question are mass-market publications, that they came out some time
>ago, that their contents are thoroughly familiar to anyone really
>interested in the history of Objectivism, and that there is nothing very
>shocking in either of them, and nothing really relevent to Rand's
>political or philosophical work. I havn't looked at them very closely
>myself, since they seem a little sad; I find it slightly annoying that
>McCloskey is getting all pixied out on someone else's personal
>misfortunes, but what else is new with liberals?
Not much.
In any case, Barbara's book is quite worthwhile to me. Very
even-handed, in spite of ample opportunity for spite. The Shi'ites
ran from it screaming in outrage, of course, simply because it was she
who wrote it, and have been lying about it ever since, but none of
that has anything to do with the portrait she rendered, which was very
important to me at the time. It's true that bits of it are "a little
sad", but that's the way her life went, so it's only natural.
Meanwhile, it's very informative of things that the Orthodoxy had
never attended before in their proper depth. Some are relatively
trivial, perhaps (Bennett Cerf remarking on the drawn-out drama of
editing "Atlas" as the toughest thing he ever did) but nonetheless
really insightful, while others a lot more substantial. (The picture
of Alice Rosenbaum's early years - say; up to her escape from the USSR
- had been virtually ignored, and my own conclusion is that that was
deliberate as a matter of cultivating a myth of Rand exploding upon
the philosophical scene fully-bloomed from a rib of Aristotle without
prior formative experience.)
I recommend it.
>At any rate, if I want to be shocked or horrified, there's no substitute
>for biographies of liberal writers. A good example is Mark Schorer's (this
>may not be the exact spelling, as I do not have the book at hand: back,
>McCloskey) minutely detailed four-or-five inch thick biography of Sinclair
>Lewis. This book consists of a virtually day by day account of Lewis's
>relentless and methodical self-destruction, and at least half of it is
>devoted to detailing the process of Lewis' drinking himself to death over
>twenty or thirty years. Extra added features include Lewis' loathesome
>treatment of his wives, embarassing letters to Dorothy Thompson, his
>free-floating illwill and ingratitude towards friends, other writers, etc,
>his general Philistinism, his descent into total hackwork, and his idiotic
>public statements. Nothing in either of the two books McCloskey might be
>reading even begins to approach this level of misery and degradation,
>agonizingly protracted over decades. And Lewis is hardly the worst
>example; why not peruse the inspiring life-stories of Ernest Hemingway or
>the unspeakable Bertoldt Brecht, if you want that sort of thing? I don't,
>generally.
Nor I. Last year, I was working up a review of the despicable
Rorty's "Achieving Our Country - Leftist Thought In Twentieth-Century
America" (Harvard University Press, 1998). What I had going on
required reference to biographies of imbeciles like Sartre, for
instance, which is about where I lost my stomach for it. I got about
1300 words into it and decided to leave them untouchable.
>Rand's life is nothing like this; although I am not an Objectivist, it
>seems to me that she was a person who came to this country and succeeded
>against considerable difficulty, somebody who worked hard and accomplished
>a lot, and who, on the whole, had a pretty good life. Certainly a lot
>better life than the repulsive characters just mentioned.
No question about it. At the age of seventeen years, during a
final examination under the Russian Idealist N.O. Lossky at Petrograd
U., she flatly stated that, although her ideas were not yet a part of
the history of philosophy, but they certainly would be. These various
clowns around here can stick beans in their ears and wail "I'm not
listening!" all day long if they want to, but that won't alter the
facts of her work or influence one bit. They're losers. And; I'm
convinced that there is also nothing at all the least informed or
truly critical in anything they have to say about her: it's all
handed-down from others of similarly imperious ignorance long before
they came along, and *that* has mainly to do with the fact that she
deliberately worked outside the lines of academia, on her own. In
short: she didn't join the club, and I think you might know how that
sort of thing tends to piss-off the members.
Fuck 'em.
>(Brecht, to be sure, seems to have enjoyed being a evil swine, and been
>quite successful at it; this means nothing to me, however.)
Me either. A long time ago, as a theater technical director, I
had the artistic director of a small-town theater company (who is now
artistic director of a second-rate big-city company) explain to me, at
some length and in rapturous tones, some of the rationale behind
Brecht's, uhm, "work". I was completely revolted, immediately, and
have never since regarded him as remotely worthwhile except as a
signpost along the road of ruin of western culture.
John H. McCloskey
>
>
> ZAP! Liberalism is NOT leftism! Liberalism (Locke, Smith, etc. --
> classical liberalism) is one reason I reject the left-right model, it
> doesn't fit! American liberalism is more the progressive liberalism that
> emerged with people like J.S. Mill, with a twist of leftism thrown in,
> while American conservatism is a mix of classical liberalism with
> nationalist statism thrown in...creating really odd political parties as
> the two main ones try to mix this ideological cocktail into something
> palatable.
>>>>>>
Yeah, "Locke, Smith, etc." are all very well in their way, but what do you
call the FDR, Bradley, etc. stuff if not "liberalism"?
The Great Hellword must be allowed to have a lot of different local meanings,
I'm afraid. It's mere Humpty-Dumpty to claim either that FDR "wasn't really a
liberal" in 1936, or to refuse to call Locke a "liberal" in discussing 1688.
The weirdest usage I ever encountered was in something translated from the
French. The writer was discussing British politics in the second half of
Century XIX. He kept saying "liberal(s)" in a way that made no sense to me,
who thought, of course, of Gladstone & Co. I eventually figured out that by
"liberal" he had to mean "anti-protectionist" and absolutely nothing else
whatsoever: the exact opposite of his "liberalism" was "tariffs."
On the Nazis: I wrote up a question for you and don't recall whether I ever
posted it or not. Excuse me if I repeat myself, but your remarks about current
textbooks seemed to imply that "totalitarianism" (which allows lumping Stalin &
Hitler together) has become an unfashionable category. Is that right? And
then, no matter what the textbook-writers think, do *you* think it is a useful
category?
== Yours, J. H. McCloskey == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
Scott Erb
>
>Scott Erb wrote:
>> ZAP! Liberalism is NOT leftism! Liberalism (Locke, Smith, etc. --
>> classical liberalism) is one reason I reject the left-right model, it
>> doesn't fit! American liberalism is more the progressive liberalism
that
>> emerged with people like J.S. Mill, with a twist of leftism thrown in,
>> while American conservatism is a mix of classical liberalism with
>> nationalist statism thrown in...creating really odd political parties
as
>> the two main ones try to mix this ideological cocktail into something
>> palatable.
>>>>>>>
>
> Yeah, "Locke, Smith, etc." are all very well in their way, but what do
>you call the FDR, Bradley, etc. stuff if not "liberalism"?
I believe that's answered above where I describe American liberalism and
American conservatism. Or do you mean something else?
> The Great Hellword must be allowed to have a lot of different local
>meanings, I'm afraid. It's mere Humpty-Dumpty to claim either that FDR
>"wasn't really a liberal" in 1936, or to refuse to call Locke a
>"liberal" in discussing 1688.
>
> The weirdest usage I ever encountered was in something translated from
>the French. The writer was discussing British politics in the second
>half of Century XIX. He kept saying "liberal(s)" in a way that made no
>sense to me, who thought, of course, of Gladstone & Co. I eventually
>figured out that by "liberal" he had to mean "anti-protectionist" and
>absolutely nothing else whatsoever: the exact opposite of his
>"liberalism" was "tariffs."
In economic texts the term liberal is often used to refer to free
trade/free market thinking. That's why I try to stick to the
philosophical meaning and not the current political jargon, noting of
course how American liberalism got the name growing from the mid/late
ninteenth century British "new liberalism."
> On the Nazis: I wrote up a question for you and don't recall whether I
>ever posted it or not. Excuse me if I repeat myself, but your remarks
>about current textbooks seemed to imply that "totalitarianism" (which
>allows lumping Stalin & Hitler together) has become an unfashionable
>category. Is that right?
Not that I know of. Certainly poli-sci texts discuss authoritarianism and
totalitarianism as types of government.
> And
>then, no matter what the textbook-writers think, do *you* think it is a
>useful category?
Yes.
John Alway
Billy Beck wrote in message <380a94d8...@news.mindspring.com>...
>>> determinations, since they don't usually know philosophy very well.
>>
>>history of political science than a professor of political science (Erb)
>>does???? My, you ARE delusional, aren't you?
No. I've never been delusional. I am, however, fact oriented.
The fact is that I've noted lots of historians who don't seem to have a
grasp of fundamental ideas that guide societies. Worse, some seem bent on
distorting history since postmodernism has taken root. I am always very
leery of what modern intellectuals put out, because they are often very poor
at anything they do. I praised, in another thread, Thomas Sowell,
because he is how I wish that all modern intellectuals were: fact oriented,
able to logically integrate the facts, and *honest*. If the vast majority
of intellectuals were like him, we'd have a far better world today. Most
intellectuals, sadly, churn out junk that only ends up obfuscating and
making life more difficult for people.
Keep in mind that both Nazism and Communism were born out of the
universities. Nazis, for instance, got their big support from students.
Environmentalism, btw, is likely going to be the next big world hell if it's
not stopped.
Now, if you are looking for an appeal to authority, then you might note
that there was a Karl Popper quote in my posting.
> Look:
>>An excerpt from The Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright©
>>1994.
>>Hitler:
>>He used his virulent Anti-semitism and *anti-Communism* to win the
>>support both of the workers and of the bankers and industrialists.
> Uh, right. Mimi? Did you *know* that Göring administrated
>Hitler's "Four Year Plan", and that they were both ardent admirers of
>Stalin?
Quite right. And that's not a hidden fact, but available from
multiple sources. Also, the fact that they were "anti-communist" hardly
means that they didn't accept the same essentials as communists. After
all, ideological factions have a history of being at each other's throats.
Monty Python did a great bit on this in The Life of Brian. I wish I could
remember exactly, but the only difference appeared to be the word order of
the faction's names.
...John
Scott Erb
>
> No. I've never been delusional. I am, however, fact oriented.
>The fact is that I've noted lots of historians who don't seem to have a
>grasp of fundamental ideas that guide societies.
Or, perhaps, they just don't share your opinion?
>Worse, some seem bent on
>distorting history since postmodernism has taken root. I am always
Post-modernism is very weak really, save a few small pockets of academia.
Get past your Foucault and Derridas and there isn't much there. What do
you understand post-modernism to be, and how on earth can you claim it has
"taken root"??!!!
>very leery of what modern intellectuals put out, because they are often
>very poor at anything they do. I praised, in another thread, Thomas
>Sowell, because he is how I wish that all modern intellectuals were: fact
>oriented, able to logically integrate the facts, and *honest*.
So do you think that being honest about the epistemological problems in
determining what is and is not a fact (note, that doesn't mean
post-modernism, that's much different) is bad? Usually when someone says
they are dealing with just the FACTS my scientific skepticism arises, and
I wonder "what biases and assumptions are they smuggling into their
discourse hidden by the claim they are simply providing the FACTS."
-snip-
> Keep in mind that both Nazism and Communism were born out of the
>universities.
Na, nazism came from a beer hall. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop
enjoying German beer!
-snip other bits, my response to Billy covers that, but...-
>Monty Python did a great bit on this in The Life of Brian.
Your praise for my all time favorite movie is at least something I can
agree on, though I'm not sure what bit you're talking about!
ciao, scott
John H. McCloskey
>
> >[Old JHM] Your remarks
> >about current textbooks seemed to imply that "totalitarianism" (which
> >allows lumping Stalin & Hitler together) has become an unfashionable
> >category. Is that right?
>
> Not that I know of. Certainly poli-sci texts discuss authoritarianism and
> totalitarianism as types of government.
>
> > And
> >then, no matter what the textbook-writers think, do *you* think it is a
> >useful category?
>
> Yes.
>>>>>
I think you ought to say a little more than just "Yes."
I now gather that you don't care for people who lump S&H together as being
both "left" (or, for that matter, as both being "right"), but you yourself *do*
lump them together as both "totalitarian."
OK so far?
Assuming I have the hang of it and you in fact classify Hitler as
"totalitarian right" to Stalin's "totalitarian left," the next question would be
about the comparative importance of the left/right dimension as opposed to the
totalitarian/partialitarian dimension. I'm not thinking so much of the
ax-grinders you argue with around here; setting that ilk aside, I'd guess that
most people would say that being totalitarian is so awful that the left/right
business matters hardly at all by comparison. Is that your view?
By now I'm probably completely out of synch with you, but on the off chance,
I'll press on and let the ax-grinders back in again (on terms and conditions, at
least from my point of view) by asking this: despite the ultimate extreme
discrepancy in importance of the two dimensions, might it not nevertheless be
the case that a partialitarian right is decidedly more (or less) likely to
degenerate into rightist totalitarianism that is its leftist counterpart?(*)
That is to say, once we're down at the bottom of the pit it may not matter
much how we got there, but nevertheless the slope on one side might be much
steeper or slipp'rier(**) than the slope on the other side.
To be very concrete, which is historically the less likely or more accidental
or arbitrary phenomenon, the Bolsheviks or the Nazis?
Or do you think it absurd to ask such questions at all?
== Yours, J. H. McStoricist == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
(*) Far from Hooker's high-water mark, that one, but not a bad sentence all the
same.
(**) A fun word. No matter how I try to spell it, it still looks wrong. With
the apostrophe, I at least know for sure it *is* spelled wrong and thus know
where I stand.
PS. If you don't like my US-patent-pending "partialitarian," what should I say
instead? I have a feeling you'd bite my head off if I were to go with instinct
and simply say "l*b*r*l."
Scott D. Erb
>
>> > And
>> >then, no matter what the textbook-writers think, do *you* think it is a
>> >useful category?
>>
>> Yes.
> I think you ought to say a little more than just "Yes."
You asked a yes/no question...
> I now gather that you don't care for people who lump S&H together as being
>both "left" (or, for that matter, as both being "right"), but you yourself
>*do* lump them together as both "totalitarian."
I'm not sure, Nazism was more authoritarian in that the set up was more like
competing fiefdoms than a real centralized government. That could be an
interesting discussion. Still, I'd probably categorize Nazi Germany more as
totalitarian than authoritarian during the war period, authoritarian pre-war.
But even if they are both totalitarian, that means little. There are many
ways they can be 'lumped together.' They both had armies. They both had
political parties. They were both men. There are probably zillions of ways
they could be lumped together...but I think the way that the original poster
tried to do so is invalid.
> OK so far?
>
> Assuming I have the hang of it and you in fact classify Hitler as
>"totalitarian right" to Stalin's "totalitarian left," the next question would
I'd not use left and right in *my* classification scheme, but would note that
the ideologies underlying each tend to come from what most people call right
in Hitler's case, and Left in Stalin's.
>be
>about the comparative importance of the left/right dimension as opposed to
>the totalitarian/partialitarian dimension. I'm not thinking so much of the
>ax-grinders you argue with around here; setting that ilk aside, I'd guess
that
>most people would say that being totalitarian is so awful that the left/right
>business matters hardly at all by comparison. Is that your view?
I don't think treating this as a dichotomy (totalitarian/partialitarian) makes
much sense. I think that totalitarianism has many faults, and those faults
vary depending on other aspects of the regime. I'd say both totalitarianism
and authoritarianism are morally wrong.
> By now I'm probably completely out of synch with you, but on the off
>chance, I'll press on and let the ax-grinders back in again (on terms and
>conditions, at
>least from my point of view) by asking this: despite the ultimate extreme
>discrepancy in importance of the two dimensions, might it not nevertheless be
>the case that a partialitarian right is decidedly more (or less) likely to
>degenerate into rightist totalitarianism that is its leftist counterpart?(*)
The so-called 'right' might be more likely to be authoritarian than
totalitarian, just like Hitler's regime leaned more authoritarian. That is a
more useful distinction than left/right. The ideological roots of nazism
remain fundamentally different than those of communism, to be sure.
> That is to say, once we're down at the bottom of the pit it may not matter
>much how we got there, but nevertheless the slope on one side might be much
>steeper or slipp'rier(**) than the slope on the other side.
I doubt it, and the difference between authoritarianism and totalitarianism
may not be near as great as one might suspect (the former may often be as bad
if not worse than the latter -- Cuba may be totalitarian, but may have been a
much better run country than some authoritarian states for instance), and it
really doesn't do anything concerning the left/right distinction.
> To be very concrete, which is historically the less likely or more
>accidental or arbitrary phenomenon, the Bolsheviks or the Nazis?
Equal. The Nazis lost a war, and the Russians became a superpower, so the
Russians spread their system. When their empire collapsed, so did the
"bolshevist" regimes. I suspect the same kind of result would have happened
had the nazis won the war (though the Nazis were much more war like and
aggressive than the Soviets, meaning that maybe right wing
totalitarianism/authoritarianism is more dangerous).
> Or do you think it absurd to ask such questions at all?
Fine questions.
>PS. If you don't like my US-patent-pending "partialitarian," what should I
>say instead? I have a feeling you'd bite my head off if I were to go with
>instinct and simply say "l*b*r*l."
That's the problem with categorizations. We look for neat packages, often
dichotomies, but rarely is reality that simple. I'd look at social
democratic, liberal, conservative, authoritarian, totalitarian, fascist, etc.,
that's better than left/right, but still represents simplifications.
ciao, scott
Scott D. Erb
John Alway
Scott Erb wrote in message <7ufs7m$t3a$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
>In article <nwJO3.414$b4....@news.intnet.net>, jal...@icsi.net says...
>>
>
>> No. I've never been delusional. I am, however, fact oriented.
>>The fact is that I've noted lots of historians who don't seem to have a
>>grasp of fundamental ideas that guide societies.
>
>Or, perhaps, they just don't share your opinion?
Opinion? Certainly I don't share their opinion, but opinion is hardly
the point. What is necessary are logically validated opinions supported by
the evidence. Engineers could never build air planes on the basis of
opinion alone, they need scientific principles, i.e. ideas grounded in fact.
The same goes for any profession concerned with facts.
>>Worse, some seem bent on
>>distorting history since postmodernism has taken root. I am always
>Post-modernism is very weak really, save a few small pockets of academia.
>Get past your Foucault and Derridas and there isn't much there. What do
>you understand post-modernism to be, and how on earth can you claim it has
>"taken root"??!!!
Post-Modernism is very strong. Enviromentalism, multiculturialism, and
feminism are all forms of post modernism. Post modernism is a rejection
of scientific induction, endorses that idea that all truth is relative and
that "we are locked within a closed system of language and culture, which
refers not beyond our minds to an outsdie world but only inwardly to
itself." [The Killing of History, by Keith Windschuttle] Focault and
Derrida don't have to write something to make it post modernist, rather it
is the fundamental approach that determines that, just as there is a
fundamental approach that makes on Aristotelian or Platonistic.
>>very leery of what modern intellectuals put out, because they are often
>>very poor at anything they do. I praised, in another thread, Thomas
>>Sowell, because he is how I wish that all modern intellectuals were: fact
>>oriented, able to logically integrate the facts, and *honest*.
>So do you think that being honest about the epistemological problems in
>determining what is and is not a fact (note, that doesn't mean
>post-modernism, that's much different) is bad? Usually when someone says
>they are dealing with just the FACTS my scientific skepticism arises, and
>I wonder "what biases and assumptions are they smuggling into their
>discourse hidden by the claim they are simply providing the FACTS."
Needless to say, it would be ridiculous for me to give a disseration on
how knowledge is acquired in the margins of this posting, but you hit on the
heart of the matter with your very question. Are you of the opinion that
there are no facts and that man can't know?
In 1776 was the Declaration of Independence signed?
>-snip-
>
>> Keep in mind that both Nazism and Communism were born out of the
>>universities.
>
>Na, nazism came from a beer hall. But that doesn't mean I'm going to stop
>enjoying German beer!
I should have said, they were supported by the universities. The
earliest supporters were professors and students.
>
>-snip other bits, my response to Billy covers that, but...-
>
>>Monty Python did a great bit on this in The Life of Brian.
>Your praise for my all time favorite movie is at least something I can
>agree on, though I'm not sure what bit you're talking about!
>ciao, scott
I much prefer The Holy Grail, but it had its moments.
...John
John H. McCloskey
> > To be very concrete, which is historically the less likely or more
> >accidental or arbitrary phenomenon, the Bolsheviks or the Nazis?
>
> Equal. The Nazis lost a war, and the Russians became a superpower, so the
> Russians spread their system. When their empire collapsed, so did the
> "bolshevist" regimes. I suspect the same kind of result would have happened
> had the nazis won the war (though the Nazis were much more war like and
> aggressive than the Soviets, meaning that maybe right wing
> totalitarianism/authoritarianism is more dangerous).
Here I thought *I* was the Aristotle fan! But it is you, O Erb, who judge the
likelihood or accidentality or arbitrariness of these regimes teleologically,
strictly from what came after rather than from what went before.
Since they're both dead in 1999, you retrospectively declare them both EQUALLY
dead. As nobody can deny, of course, but saying so really is not an adequate answer
to the question I asked, which was about the regimes' origins and not about their
destinies.
Well then, let's simplify it all down another level or three to just asking
whether you think it is our now "leftism" or "rightism" that most threatens to
become "totalitarian." I'm not afraid of either, myself, but perhaps you can alrm
me.
== Yours, J. H. McCloskey == ... sobie spiewam a Muzom ... ==
Scott D. Erb
>
> Opinion? Certainly I don't share their opinion, but opinion is hardly
>the point. What is necessary are logically validated opinions supported by
>the evidence. Engineers could never build air planes on the basis of
>opinion alone, they need scientific principles, i.e. ideas grounded in fact.
>The same goes for any profession concerned with facts.
You're being illogical. You're trying to assert that your opinions are facts
because engineers build air planes on the basis of scientific principles.
That says nothing about your opinions. You need to defend your opinions on
their own ground, not try to build them up by comparing them to other things.
>>Post-modernism is very weak really, save a few small pockets of academia.
>>Get past your Foucault and Derridas and there isn't much there. What do
>>you understand post-modernism to be, and how on earth can you claim it has
>>"taken root"??!!!
>
> Post-Modernism is very strong.
No...
>Enviromentalism, multiculturialism, and feminism are all forms of post
>modernism.
You don't understand philosophy if you make a stupid statement like that.
SOrry to be blunt, but if the shoe fits. There are some post-modern
feminists, most are not post-modern. Multiculturalism and environmentalism
run the gambit as well, with post-modernists the extreme minority. You do not
know what you are talking about in this case.
> Post modernism is a rejection
>of scientific induction, endorses that idea that all truth is relative and
>that "we are locked within a closed system of language and culture, which
>refers not beyond our minds to an outsdie world but only inwardly to
>itself."
Most feminists, environmentalists (who are concerned with the OUTSIDE world,
HINT: the ENVIRONMENT! How can you be so self-evidently contradictory?) and
people concerned with multiculturality do not accept what you just describe.
> [The Killing of History, by Keith Windschuttle] Focault and
>Derrida don't have to write something to make it post modernist, rather it
>is the fundamental approach that determines that, just as there is a
>fundamental approach that makes on Aristotelian or Platonistic.
There's a lot of ground in between post modernism and Aristotle.
> Needless to say, it would be ridiculous for me to give a disseration on
>how knowledge is acquired in the margins of this posting, but you hit on the
>heart of the matter with your very question. Are you of the opinion that
>there are no facts and that man can't know?
That was really awkwardly worded. I do note that science runs on the idea
that all scientific facts are contingent, potentially replaced if new evidence
or a better theory emerges. I also know quite a bit with certainty.
> In 1776 was the Declaration of Independence signed?
All evidence points that way, I have no reason to doubt it. Being true to the
scientific perspective I recognize new evidence COULD emerge to cause me to
change my view since I was not present and did not directly experience it, but
true to the scientific perspective I act with this knowledge as a fact and do
not challenge it without need.
> I should have said, they were supported by the universities. The
>earliest supporters were professors and students.
Students support all new ideas first, good and bad. That's what universities
are for. But, of course, that's an illogical argument, you're trying to
attack all intellectuals (or were in your original posts) because some (a
minority) of students and professors accepted a particular point of view we
agree is bad. That is not a logical proposition.
ciao, scott
Scott D. Erb
>
>Scott D. Erb wrote:
> Here I thought *I* was the Aristotle fan! But it is you, O Erb, who judge
the
>likelihood or accidentality or arbitrariness of these regimes teleologically,
>strictly from what came after rather than from what went before.
No, I make my own judgement based on evidence and my interpretation of
history.
Do you think I'm wrong?
> Since they're both dead in 1999, you retrospectively declare them both
>EQUALLY dead. As nobody can deny, of course, but saying so really is not an
>adequate answer to the question I asked, which was about the regimes'
>origins and not about their destinies.
Wait a minute, I answered with quite a bit of depth about authoritarianism,
its relation to totalitarianism, and the problems of left-right. Those seem
to answer your questions, if not I wish you'd explain why, otherwise I fear
I'll only end up repeating myself.
> Well then, let's simplify it all down another level or three to just
>asking whether you think it is our now "leftism" or "rightism" that most
>threatens to become "totalitarian." I'm not afraid of either, myself, but
>perhaps you can alrmme.
I don't think that either is more dangerous than the other, nor do I really
look at this in those terms, as my post explained with more detail.
ciao, scott
John H. McCloskey
>
> In article <380BB7...@iName.com>, j...@iName.com says...
> >
> >Scott D. Erb wrote:
> Those seem to answer your questions, if not I wish you'd explain why, otherwise I fear I'll only end up repeating myself.
>>>>
Sorry if I started to get on your nerves. I think it comes to my
asking questions that don't make much sense to you, which is OK because
I am far from sure how sensible they are myself. (In particular: "are
some historical events antecedently 'less accidental' than others?"
Unless you have a high tolerance for Hegel and such, that will probably
seem quite a silly thing to worry about. And you may be right.)
You brought up "authoritarianism." Can I ask whether that, like
"totalitarianism," comes in both leftist and rightist regimes? I think
journalists (and Jeane Kirkpatrick originally) use it exclusively of the
right. How would you describe Cuba at present?
Scott Erb
>
> Sorry if I started to get on your nerves.
Not at all, I just thought that I'd gone over totalitarianism and the
left/right question with some detail, so I didn't see how your question
had not been answered.
> I think it comes to my
>asking questions that don't make much sense to you, which is OK because
>I am far from sure how sensible they are myself. (In particular: "are
>some historical events antecedently 'less accidental' than others?"
>Unless you have a high tolerance for Hegel and such, that will probably
>seem quite a silly thing to worry about. And you may be right.)
>
> You brought up "authoritarianism." Can I ask whether that, like
>"totalitarianism," comes in both leftist and rightist regimes? I think
>journalists (and Jeane Kirkpatrick originally) use it exclusively of the
>right. How would you describe Cuba at present?
Usually totalitarianism means that the government wants to control
culture, economic production, and society. Usually authoritarianism means
that the government simply wants power, and as long as no one rocks the
boat or goes against the government, they'll be OK.
Is China totalitarian or more authoritarian these days? How about Cuba?
Maybe Iran? Hard to say...China seems to be opening up, moving away from
Maoist style totalitarianism to an authoritarian stance. I'm not sure
about Cuba, I'd need to look into the case more...I'd guess that it
probably is also shifting away from totalitarianism towards a type of
authoritarianism, but I don't have a lot of evidence on that case. I
suspect that authoritarianism can persist, totalitarianism tends to fall
apart more quickly. Each becomes harder to maintain as openness, trade,
and technology increases, I believe.
Kirkpatrick simply, in my opinion, tried to rationalize US support for
some dictatorships and not others, and her distinction was based less on
any real left/right difference between the two, and more on the fact she
wanted to justify giving aid to US allies and condemning Soviet allies.
Naturally most Soviet allies were defined as "leftist" by her, while US
allies were considered "right wing." I'm not sure how valid her
distinctions were.
ciao, scott
John Alway
Scott Erb wrote in message <7uf4p8$n04$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
>>determinations, since they don't usually know philosophy very well.
>
>people I cited about nazi ideology were philosophers. I daresay the
>historians I consider experts know philosophy quite well.
I don't think it is ridiculous. I've observed it all too often.
>
>> For
>>instance, Newt Gingrich may now American history, but he doesn't have a
>He's not much of an historian either!
Well, I don't know about that. He must know history, given how long
he has taught.
>>it. Scholars of philosophy have come to the conclusion that Nazism is a
>>form of collectivism, with socialism as one of its elements, and the
>facts
>>bear this out. It's certainly a form of collectivism.
>So is conservatism and the right wing. It sees the state as a primary
>value, and looks towards the traditions and culture that defines the
>collective as being of value and needing to be maintained.
Well, I'd be more inclined to peg the extreme conservatives as focused
on god and family, in that order. That's what lots of them say the do.
Alan Keys, for instance. They would be more inclined to create a theocracy,
ala Iran.
>They rely on
>nationalism and elitism.
Buchanan is a nationalist, but he's being rejected by conservatives.
>...It is aphilosophical to try to divide up into a
>simple dichotomy wherein all "collectivist" ideologies are lumped together
>to contrast to alleged "individualist" ideologies. That would be weak
>thinking. Rather there are different kinds of collective ideologies, such
>as the far right (nazism) and the far left (communism).
It's not weak thinking if you realize it's the more fundamental
foundation. Collectivism actually goes back to Plato, and his concept of
the world of forms. The idea that all people are merely a reflection of
a perfect person in the world of forms is the root of collectivism. This
connects us all together. Plato also held that the majority of men are
ignorant and must be told what to do by a select elite, i.e. those who are
enlightened with wisdom of the world of forms (they achieve this wisdom by
contemplation and dialog with wise men). For Plato, the moral is the
renunciation of the self, of the material, in favor of the ideal. (This all
contrasts sharply with Aristotle, btw).
Immanuel Kant's "attack on reason, this world, and man's happiness"
[Ominous Parallels page 25] made possible a resurrection of Platonism in an
extreme and militant form. Respect for reason was at a low. Germany was
particularly bad in this way, since they had no real opposition to these
ideas. The final big philosopher in the line was Hegel, who built on and
accepted the logical implications of Kant's philosophy and took it to its
extreme.
So, this anti-reason, anti-individualism philosophy imbued Germany, and
is what resulted in collectivism in all its variants.
>> Just to give an
>>indication of how similar, for instance, communism is to nazism, it
>>should be noted that during the Weimar Republic the Nazis and Communists
>>frequently swapped parties (depending on mood, no doubt).
>They also were enemies that fought in the streets constantly, and the
>Communists were the first ones made illegal and sent to the concentration
>camps by the Nazis when they grabbed power.
These are all non-essentials. The fact that communists were murdered
by Nazis doesn't mean that they don't hold to the same fundamental ideology.
> The public jumps between
>parties quite a bit since they are reacting to campaign promises, not
>ideology.
Ideology, ones core beliefs, are what determines how one will behave.
To be either a communist or a nazi you must be a collectivist, and have
disregard for reason and the individual. An individualist would be
repelled by both. Furthermore, I'd have to double check, but I believe
that was elected party members that were swapping parties.
>> You can't have this
>>unless two parties are ideologically very close.
>That's not true at all -- indeed, quite often people (especially
>uneducated ones) switch between ideologically distant parties.
Germans were generally well educated.
>> For those interested, there is a book titled "Ominous Parallels" by
>>Leonard Peikoff. It's a well researched book, and written by a
>>philosopher
>
>>. He also has a brilliant explanation for he concentration
>>camps.
>>
>> From "The Ominous Parallels" page 33:
>>
>>"What the theoreticians of racism did was to secularize the Hegelian
>>approach, as Karl Popper explains eloquently. Marx he observes,"
>That's silly. He's simply reinterpreting things to fit his philosophical
>bias. Its weak philosophy at best, dishonest at worst.
Sounds post modernist, and it's certainly not a worthy counter argument
on its own, and is all the weaker considering Popper and Peikoff hold to
different philosophies. You'll also find von Mises holds to a similar
view.
>-snip
>> He is entirely right that they were against reason and believed in
>>the will. This is in absolute harmony with modern philosophical theory,
>>however. Romanticism was an overt rejection of the idea of obsolutes,
>Science and modernism also rejects absolutes.
Science doesn't reject absolutes. Science was made possible by an
Aristotelian approach to the world. However, there are scientists who
mistakenly believe that it does, this is because they hold to the same
Kantian ideas regarding absolutes.
> ...In fact, modern philosophy
>tends to reject absolutes.
Absolutely! Modern philosophy is in harmony with Kantianism on
fundamentals. Science
>... However, Nazism did have an absolute: will and
>power.
In point of fact, you can't escape absolutes even if you claim there
are none. The position is an impossible one. The Nazis certainly
proclaimed that there are no absolutes, that there is right and wrong, no
true and false. This was fundamental to their rise to power.
> Marx was different, he was an objectivist philosopher (in the real
>sense of the word),
He was not in the least bit objective. He was Kantian-Hegelian just
as the Nazis were. And, in truth, he was a minor figure philosophically.
What he did was capitalize on the work of Kant and Hegel.
> ..who thought that correctly understanding human nature
>and the way the world operates would give you the right system.
Huh! He was at war with human nature! It's hard to find a more
thoroughly anti-man system than communism. It rejects the individual.
>...Such
>beliefs are absolutist and create a faith in the inevitability of one's
>own ism (and tend to create intellectual ghettos, where believers
>denegrate disbelievers, and are convinced that others are either stupid or
>dishonest).
If you claim that there are no absolutes, you leave yourself wide
open to domination, for you then have nothing to hang your hat on concerning
true/false, right/wrong. What has to be understood about the Communists
and Nazis is that their ideologies were *wrong*, so they contradicted
reality. Their desire for no absolutes didn't make one wit of difference
to reality.
Anyway, the thing you should think about is what the notion of no
absolutes means in practice.
>>and
>>placed emotions over reason. This, btw, is similar to the way Clinton
>>behaves.
>Wow, talk about mixing philosophy and pop psychology!
Psychology? I don't need to study psychology for this statement,
this is plainly obvious be a rational analysis of the facts. Clinton lies,
lies, and lies continually, and in the most brazen way, as if reality has no
say. He is rarely logical, and rarely right. Yet, he appeals to
emotions endlessly. The emphasis of emotions over reason (and the endless
attempts to muddy the waters to obfuscate the facts) is entirely in harmony
with the Nazi/Communist approach.
>-snip insults of Clinton followed by insults of the GOP-
Accurate depictions of Clinton are insults? The emperor has no
clothes, chief.
>> They are collectivists at heart, not
>>individualists.
>False dichotomy
They are collectivists. You can't be a collectivist and an
individualist in logic. The dichotomy is not false.
>-snip-
>
>> The facts or reality are there for all to see.
>Or people can intepret their perceptions of reality and interact with the
>scientific perspective that keeps and open mind and rejects absolutist
>ideologies that try to say they can come up with pure ethical truth
>through philosophy alone.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is post-modernist thinking. Horribly
contorted thinking at that. Notice the rejection of absolutes, just as
collectivists in the past have done.
>...That sounds like the really silly
>philosophy of that mediocore philosopher (but decent fiction writer) Rand.
The greatest philosopher known to me is Aristotle. Ayn Rand is the
second. Read her philosophy, think about it, and you'll see that your
ideas will be replaced by better ones.
...John
Scott Erb
(on historians)
> I don't think it is ridiculous. I've observed it all too often.
I haven't, at least not as you describe it. So we have different
subjective experiences, I guess.
-snip-
> Well, I'd be more inclined to peg the extreme conservatives as
>focused on god and family, in that order. That's what lots of them say
>the do. Alan Keys, for instance. They would be more inclined to create a
>theocracy, ala Iran.
They can also focus on tradition, custom, and nationalism, as in right
wing nationalist movements.
>>They rely on
>>nationalism and elitism.
>
> Buchanan is a nationalist, but he's being rejected by conservatives.
American conservatism is split between people who mix ideological
liberalism (more classical liberalism) with some conservative tendencies.
I think America has two "liberal" parties, with twinges of traditional
conservatism and social democratic leftism on the edges of the major
parties.
-snip my claim you can't dichotomize all thought between collectivism and
individualism-
> It's not weak thinking if you realize it's the more fundamental
>foundation. Collectivism actually goes back to Plato, and his concept
>of the world of forms. The idea that all people are merely a
>reflection of a perfect person in the world of forms is the root of
>collectivism. This connects us all together.
But beliefs like that do not deny liberal or individualist political
ideologies by any stretch of the imagination. Mystical belief systems
often bridge this gap as well. Its more complex than simply two
categories.
>Plato also held that the majority of men are
>ignorant and must be told what to do by a select elite, i.e. those who
>are enlightened with wisdom of the world of forms (they achieve this
>wisdom by contemplation and dialog with wise men). For Plato, the moral
>is the renunciation of the self, of the material, in favor of the ideal.
OK...
> Immanuel Kant's "attack on reason, this world, and man's happiness"
>[Ominous Parallels page 25] made possible a resurrection of Platonism in
>an extreme and militant form. Respect for reason was at a low.
>Germany was particularly bad in this way, since they had no real
>opposition to these ideas.
Yikes, Kant was not anti-reason, he simply recognized limitations! The
characterization of Kant above is really off base. Also your claim about
Germany is also misguided -- are you getting this all from that book? If
so, I suspect you've got a book with a purpose, and not an honest analysis
of the issues at hand.
> The final big philosopher in the line was Hegel, who built on and
>accepted the logical implications of Kant's philosophy and took it to its
>extreme.
Your categorization of philosophies and links between them seem awful ad
hoc and questionable. There are real differences between Kant and Hegel
(Kant being in my opinion the superior philosopher, perhaps THE most
impressive philosopher of history, though I still enjoy Descartes
immensely...yeah, Plato and Aristotle are giants, I know...).
> So, this anti-reason, anti-individualism philosophy imbued Germany,
Balderdash! Kant's philosophy is used by many as the basis for
establishing the notion of individual human rights, and his ethical
propositions expressly state humans are ends in and of themselves, and not
simply means to ends. You are misguided on your read. Many people use
Kant to establish notions of human rights based on philosophical
reasoning, you seem to suggest the opposite!
>and
>is what resulted in collectivism in all its variants.
That's not a good causal claim. To jump from bad characterizations of two
philosophers, to a collective judgement about a country, to a causal leap
towards political outcomes...that's simply untenable!
> These are all non-essentials. The fact that communists were
>murdered by Nazis doesn't mean that they don't hold to the same
>fundamental ideology.
The fact their fundamental ideology was based on totally different beliefs
and assumptions is what means they didn't hold the same fundamental
ideology. The fact the Nazis killed the Communists over that difference
simply shows what kind of people they were.
> Ideology, ones core beliefs, are what determines how one will
>behave. To be either a communist or a nazi you must be a collectivist,
>and have disregard for reason and the individual.
Nope. Marx's philosophy was objectivist and based on reason. He believed
completely in rationalism and reason as a way to understand reality, and
he rejected the idealist aspects of Hegel to focus on materialism. Marx's
"utopia" was individualist, his argument was that only through communism
could true individual liberty be obtained and people freed from the
alienation of slave wage labor and exploitation. To him capitalism was
collectivising the workers into a class of near slaves, and freedom would
come from ending the collectivist horror of capitalism.
His solution -- revolution and a change led from the top -- was unworkable
because it centralized power and that made a move to something like
Leninism or Stalinism near inevitable. But his goal was a type of
individual libertarianism, based on an objectivist philosophy designed
around the idea of reason and rationality.
> An individualist would be
>repelled by both. Furthermore, I'd have to double check, but I believe
>that was elected party members that were swapping parties.
Again, you gotta avoid these individualist/collectivist dichotomies.
Reality is a feedback between culture/society and individual interest.
Radicalism in either direction usually leads to bad analysis and a misread
of reality.
>>That's not true at all -- indeed, quite often people (especially
>>uneducated ones) switch between ideologically distant parties.
>
> Germans were generally well educated.
Not the masses, really -- at least not on those sorts of issues in the
1920s. They aren't today in America either. The elites may or may not
have been, and of course the Nazis before taking power tried to use a mix
of nationalist rhetoric to win the conservatives and socialist rhetoric to
win the workers in a naked appeal for support, but once they took power
the socialist types were eliminated or pushed aside.
-snip bit on Popper, Hegel and racism-
> Science doesn't reject absolutes. Science was made possible by an
>Aristotelian approach to the world. However, there are scientists who
>mistakenly believe that it does, this is because they hold to the same
>Kantian ideas regarding absolutes.
You're not being clear there. What do you mean by "reject absolutes."
Give examples. And what exactly do you mean bringing Kant into this, how
does Kant impact the philosophy of science on this issue. You need to be
specific, you're making vague assertions, but I'm not sure why or on what
basis you make them.
>> ...In fact, modern philosophy
>>tends to reject absolutes.
>
> Absolutely! Modern philosophy is in harmony with Kantianism on
>fundamentals. Science
I think you probably misunderstand Kant completely, especially if you
think he's at all post-modernist or anti-reason! Have you read him, or
just the stuff the objectivists (who tend to demonize Kant in a rather
bizarre way) write about him? Perhaps it would help if you would be
specific as what kind of absolute you would accept, what kind you might
reject and why. Give examples too, its easy to do a lot of these things
in very abstract ways, but applying them to reality is a bit trickier.
>>... However, Nazism did have an absolute: will and
>>power.
>
> In point of fact, you can't escape absolutes even if you claim there
>are none. The position is an impossible one. The Nazis certainly
>proclaimed that there are no absolutes, that there is right and wrong, no
>true and false. This was fundamental to their rise to power.
No, the nazis had very specific claims about absolutes and what is right,
what is wrong, and what is true, and what is false. I read their
propaganda (in German), and have heard recordings of Hitler's speeches.
They have very specific claims on these issues. They certainly aren't
tolerate of those deviating from their absolutist claims!
> He was not in the least bit objective. He was Kantian-Hegelian
>just as the Nazis were.
You're being vague and making claims I don't think are defensible. Where
are you getting this?
> And, in truth, he was a minor figure philosophically.
!!!! How do you define "minor figure"???
>What he did was capitalize on the work of Kant and Hegel.
What debt does Marx specifically owe Kant? How do you tie these
philosophers together? Please be a tad more specific.
> Huh! He was at war with human nature! It's hard to find a more
>thoroughly anti-man system than communism. It rejects the individual.
Wait a sec, Marx himself talked a lot about individuals, and how
alienation in the collectivist pit of proletarian life prevented
individuals from being truly free. Alienation is a strong point in Marx's
theory. You are CORRECT (I can agree with you sometimes!) in that
communism as a system was anti-human, BUT that was its implementation, and
Marx's big mistake to expect any sort of system to be achieved through
revolution (or class struggle) with government implementing the change
from above (esp. Leninism and of course Stalinism). Marx's philosophy did
not desire the results, it was a sadly typical result when someone thinks
they have the objectively true system of government, and try then to
implement it. One reason I'm convinced democracy of some sort (a
constitutional republic) is necessary -- to stop those who think they know
for certain what is right from trying to impose it on the rest of us.
Democracy can turn to that as well, but with more checks and balances and
more say to more people its less likely. An oligarchy is more dangerous
(again, that's straight from Aristotle as well).
> If you claim that there are no absolutes, you leave yourself wide
>open to domination, for you then have nothing to hang your hat on
>concerning true/false, right/wrong.
I would not claim there are no absolutes.
> What has to be understood about the Communists
>and Nazis is that their ideologies were *wrong*, so they contradicted
>reality. Their desire for no absolutes didn't make one wit of
>difference to reality.
Thats an interesting claim, can you test it scientifically? Note, you
can't claim that since they failed, it must be because they contradicted
reality, since that is both too vague and doesn't reach the standard for
asserting causality. You have to precisely say what it was about reality
that they contradicted, and look at the mechanisms through which that
particular failure led to the failure in those systems. I suspect we
agree more than we disagree on this issue, but you're approach tends to be
very much based on vague assertion, and I want to know the specifics.
> Anyway, the thing you should think about is what the notion of no
>absolutes means in practice.
I'm not even sure what it means in theory, its a very vague and apparently
contradictory claim. But even post-modernists don't make that claim, they
know enough to avoid the rather kindergarden attack that "saying no
absolutes is an absolute so you contradicted yourself nanana." They put
that aside long ago. They still fail for other reasons, but its more
complex than you make it out to be.
But please be clear that you at least don't consider Kant a
post-modernist! :)
-snip-
> Accurate depictions of Clinton are insults? The emperor has no
>clothes, chief.
I'm no Clinton fan, but it distracts from an interesting philosophical
discussion...
>>> They are collectivists at heart, not
>>>individualists.
>
>>False dichotomy
> They are collectivists. You can't be a collectivist and an
>individualist in logic. The dichotomy is not false.
Here's it in a nutshell. One essential question in political science is
the agent/structure debate. Radical individualism is rejected because
humans get identity, preferences, tastes, beliefs, understandings and
world views from their culture, language, socialization, and environment.
Humans are social creatures, part of their essence is to be in a society.
Radical collectivism is bunk because humans are self-interested, have an
ego, and act independently within a society, changing and altering their
beliefs both by will and social pressures. The reality is that neither
extreme (collectivism or individualism) is realistic, both deny reality
(how's that for using the root 'real' three times in a sentence). How do
you balance...I lean towards the agent side, others lean to the structural
side. That makes me more 'liberal' (in the philosophical sense),
structuralists are more to the 'socialist' side (in the philosophical
sense). But each side has good points, and trying to posit as a dichotomy
where you say "they (the collectivists) are wrong so by process of
elimination we (the individualists) must be right" is invalid. That is a
false dichotomy, a logical error. There are a lot of other possibilities
inbetween, and only the ones inbetween correpond to reality.
>>Or people can intepret their perceptions of reality and interact with
the
>>scientific perspective that keeps and open mind and rejects absolutist
>>ideologies that try to say they can come up with pure ethical truth
>>through philosophy alone.
>
> That, ladies and gentlemen, is post-modernist thinking. Horribly
>contorted thinking at that. Notice the rejection of absolutes, just as
>collectivists in the past have done.
No, you just don't understand science or post-modernism. Post-modernists
take on and detest the scientific perspective I described. For you to
consider it post-modern simply shows that you haven't really understood
what these things mean, you are arguing by labels rather than learning the
details.
> The greatest philosopher known to me is Aristotle. Ayn Rand is
>the second. Read her philosophy, think about it, and you'll see that
>your ideas will be replaced by better ones.
Her fiction is good, and she's provacative, which I like. But she's
second tier in terms of the philosophy. As I recall when I considered her
philosophy, I concluded that her ideas are based on tautologies or
assumptions which can be questioned and/or rejected. I like Kant, Hume,
and Descartes.
ciao, scott
John Alway
I'm going to focus on the more important points, so that this
conversation doesn't get wildly out of hand.
Scott Erb wrote in message <7uilt9$jfq$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
>In article <e52P3.420$b4....@news.intnet.net>, jal...@icsi.net says...
[...]
>> It's not weak thinking if you realize it's the more fundamental
>>foundation. Collectivism actually goes back to Plato, and his concept
>>of the world of forms. The idea that all people are merely a
>>reflection of a perfect person in the world of forms is the root of
>>collectivism. This connects us all together.
>
>But beliefs like that do not deny liberal or individualist political
>ideologies by any stretch of the imagination. Mystical belief systems
>often bridge this gap as well. Its more complex than simply two
>categories.
Sure they do, when you realize that individualism and liberalism (of
the old kind, not to be confused with modern liberalism), were born of
reason and this worldliness. Religion had men looking to "The City of
God" (per St. Thomas Aquinas), and away from this low, material world
(Platonistic element). Even Locke, who quoted the Bible extensively in his
Second Treatise on Civil Government, didn't require anything but reference
to nature for his theory, because his emphasis was "reason". Reason is the
law that makes possible natural rights. I fully acknowledge that there
were people with mixed premises. That's quite common, but contradictions
have to be hammered out when you are up against them. You can't do x and y
simultaneously.
>>Plato also held that the majority of men are
>>ignorant and must be told what to do by a select elite, i.e. those who
>>are enlightened with wisdom of the world of forms (they achieve this
>>wisdom by contemplation and dialog with wise men). For Plato, the moral
>>is the renunciation of the self, of the material, in favor of the ideal.
>
>OK...
>
>> Immanuel Kant's "attack on reason, this world, and man's happiness"
>>[Ominous Parallels page 25] made possible a resurrection of Platonism in
>>an extreme and militant form. Respect for reason was at a low.
>>Germany was particularly bad in this way, since they had no real
>>opposition to these ideas.
>Yikes, Kant was not anti-reason, he simply recognized limitations!
He put on a good show, but his entire view of reason was a joke. The
Critique of Pure reason is pure garbage. He didn't recognize its
limitations, he concocted wildly absurd limitations building on Hume's view.
He was not pro-reason, his protestations to the contrary not withstanding.
>The
>characterization of Kant above is really off base.
Not if you look deeply.
>... Also your claim about
>Germany is also misguided -- are you getting this all from that book? If
>so, I suspect you've got a book with a purpose, and not an honest analysis
>of the issues at hand.
No, not from that book alone, though it's a solid and insightful piece
of work. Are you familiar with German romanticism in philosophy? I
suspect that the book is an exceedingly honest analysis.
>
>> The final big philosopher in the line was Hegel, who built on and
>>accepted the logical implications of Kant's philosophy and took it to its
>>extreme.
>Your categorization of philosophies and links between them seem awful ad
>hoc and questionable. There are real differences between Kant and Hegel
Of course there are differences, but we are referring to fundamentals
here. Hegel was very much influenced by Kant, and took Kant's
epistemological absurdity an extra step. The German Romantics went berserk.
>(Kant being in my opinion the superior philosopher, perhaps THE most
>impressive philosopher of history, though I still enjoy Descartes
>immensely...yeah, Plato and Aristotle are giants, I know...).
Kant has done nothing positive for mankind, and a great deal
negative. Without him no Nazism or Communism. He has been wrong on all
fundamentals. Aristotle and Plato have done a great deal of positive, even
though Plato was more of a mixed blessing. Descartes was a great
mathematician, but as a philosopher he was a pure subjectivist.
I'll skip ahead a bit in the interest of focus and brevity.
An absolute is something that is _so_ independent of one's wishes.
It says that reality is a certain way. Nobody can escape absolutes. The
Nazis explicitly rejected absolutes in the same way that skeptics do.
There is no right/wrong, or true/false. By doing this nobody can stop them
by moral persuasion, or facts.
As to science, it was made possible by a belief that there is a world
out there with a certain nature that can be known by man. I understand
science quite thoroughly and intimately.
As to Ayn Rand, she has a complete, integrated philosophical system.
She has an entire theory of concept formation, and foundational premises.
Her biggest advance is in epistemology, and on that foundation she advanced
ethics, politics, and even esthetics, as will be seen with time.
..John
Scott Erb
> I'm going to focus on the more important points, so that this
>conversation doesn't get wildly out of hand.
Sounds good! Some old bits snipped for space...
>>But beliefs like that do not deny liberal or individualist political
>>ideologies by any stretch of the imagination. Mystical belief systems
>>often bridge this gap as well. Its more complex than simply two
>>categories.
>
> Sure they do, when you realize that individualism and liberalism
>(of the old kind, not to be confused with modern liberalism), were born
>of reason and this worldliness.
Actually, Marxian thought is also based on reason (he disdained mysticism
and the like), and modern liberalism grew out of classical liberalism, and
share similar roots.
Again, beware of dichotomizing the categories too much.
> Religion had men looking to "The City of
>God" (per St. Thomas Aquinas), and away from this low, material world
Not exactly. Augustine's idea of the City of God was put alongside the
real world (hence things like Just War theory and the like). It was still
otherworldly, and Augustine later supported/encouraged monks just leaving
the world for their monastaries, but they certainly did not disdain reason
(Aquinas really was into Aristotle after all, and he came up with a
secular grounding for ethics that connected church thinking with
Aristotle), or want to completely look away from the world.
>(Platonistic element). Even Locke, who quoted the Bible extensively in
>his Second Treatise on Civil Government, didn't require anything but
>reference to nature for his theory, because his emphasis was "reason".
The emphasis of most philosophers is reason (there are the romantics that
disdained reason), Kant for instance used reason to show the limits to
reason. Almost all also brought up God and the like. Be careful not just
to interpret the ones you "like" as being reason based, and the ones you
"dislike" as somehow being anti-reason.
>Reason is the law that makes possible natural rights.
Please explain this notion that reason is a "law." What do you mean, and
more explicitly, how are you defining reason here?
> I fully acknowledge that there
>were people with mixed premises. That's quite common, but
>contradictions have to be hammered out when you are up against them. You
>can't do x and y simultaneously.
Actually, some of what's happening in quatum mechanics suggests we may
have a too pedestrian view of contradiction, but your statement is a bit
messy. We can't do x and y simultaneously only if the doing of X makes
the doing of Y impossible (or vice-versa). Determining if something is
really a contradiction in the real world (rather than the abstract sense)
is often quite difficult.
>>Yikes, Kant was not anti-reason, he simply recognized limitations!
>
> He put on a good show, but his entire view of reason was a joke.
?????
Please explain that.
> The Critique of Pure reason is pure garbage.
By the way, such overstatements make it sound like you're not thinking
this through. The work has withstood the test of time and continues to be
regarded as a philosophical masterpiece, even by those who disagree with
Kant. To call it garbage is bizarre, it makes you look like you don't
understand philosophy.
> He didn't recognize its
>limitations, he concocted wildly absurd limitations building on Hume's
>view. He was not pro-reason, his protestations to the contrary not
>withstanding.
That's a really vague broadside against Kant, contradicting my read, as
well as how he is understood (and admired) by even philosophers who
disagree with him. But I can't begin to defend him yet because you
haven't said anything specific that causes you to come to this conclusion,
You threw out a broadside general attack. Can you explain WHY you make
those claims?
-snip-
>>Your categorization of philosophies and links between them seem awful ad
>>hoc and questionable. There are real differences between Kant and Hegel
>
> Of course there are differences, but we are referring to
>fundamentals here. Hegel was very much influenced by Kant, and took
>Kant's epistemological absurdity an extra step. The German Romantics
>went berserk.
Can you explain specifically what he did and how he did this, and how
you're linking Hegel to Kant? I mean, yes, Kant influenced Hegel and most
philosophers that came afterwards, he was (and is) a giant. But to
suggest influence is different than lumping them together.
> Kant has done nothing positive for mankind, and a great deal
>negative. Without him no Nazism or Communism.
That is speculation that seems virtually indefensible. I suspect that
times and ideas would have developed towards radical nationalism and
communism with or without Kant. Kant is used more directly by those
stressing individual human rights and deontological ethics, so his
influence actually seems much more in the opposite direction.
> He has been wrong on all fundamentals.
Again, which ones? Be specific. It sounds more like an emotion anti-Kant
rant than a reasoned statement of the problems.
> Aristotle and Plato have done a great deal of positive, even
>though Plato was more of a mixed blessing. Descartes was a great
>mathematician, but as a philosopher he was a pure subjectivist.
What do you think is exactly wrong with Cartesean "subjectivism." After
all, usually its the post-modernists that attack Descartes on that.
Kant's response to Descartes was intriguing, by the way -- it got me
interested in Kant.
> I'll skip ahead a bit in the interest of focus and brevity.
No problem, but please try to provide some specifics on this so I know why
you're making those claims. We may at this point be talking past one
another.
> An absolute is something that is _so_ independent of one's wishes.
>It says that reality is a certain way. Nobody can escape absolutes.
OK...
>The Nazis explicitly rejected absolutes in the same way that skeptics do.
>There is no right/wrong, or true/false.
Skeptics deny absolutes? In what way? The Nazis certainly seemed to spew
forth a bunch of absolutes.
Remember, Hume and others acknowledged epistemological skepticism, but
made a strong argument why it should not be considered debilitating. Also
epistemological skepticism is different than "absolute" skepticism. It
only means that we don't have certainty about absolutes, not that they
don't exist. Most say that this is simply a fact we have to accept, but
that even without certainty we can act on evidence and experience -- the
need to believe one has certainty may even be a psychological weakness.
After all, no one has certain knowledge of the future, but if one doesn't
act with hesitancy, one accepts lack of certitude and acts on the basis of
experience and calculation. A skeptic does the same in the world,
recognizing only that the possibility of being wrong should keep him or
her open to new evidence and potentially superior theories and
explanations.
> By doing this nobody can stop them
>by moral persuasion, or facts.
More dangerous is someone who convinces themself that there is a moral
absolute, and they interpret reality and assume the facts in a way as to
make that unquestionable.
And, of course, the skeptical view that there may be no objectively
provable right and wrong (that this could all be a human construct or
choice) does not make it impossible to build ethical systems or posit some
as superior for various criteria. It also does not deny the ability of
someone to believe in a moral absolute even if they don't think it can be
proven with any certainty in the world.
> As to science, it was made possible by a belief that there is a
>world out there with a certain nature that can be known by man. I
>understand science quite thoroughly and intimately.
So do I.
> As to Ayn Rand, she has a complete, integrated philosophical system.
>She has an entire theory of concept formation, and foundational premises.
>Her biggest advance is in epistemology, and on that foundation she
>advanced ethics, politics, and even esthetics, as will be seen with time.
I doubt that very much, but time will tell.
ciao, scott
John Alway
Scott Erb wrote in message <7ul5p5$8nf$1...@rupert.unet.maine.edu>...
[...]
Just a few notes for now...
>> Religion had men looking to "The City of
>>God" (per St. Thomas Aquinas), and away from this low, material world
Egad, I meant Augustine! I shouldn't sully Aquinas like that!
Since you want to know the connection between Kant, Hegel and then
collectivism I'll write up a posting which shows the connection when I have
time. Within a week or so of today (10/21/99) I'll post it to this thread.
That'll give me motivation. I'll also show the points where Kant was in
error, and how he built on them a wildly absurd system of thought.
I noted you responded to one of my other postings concerning
postmodernism. This never came across my server, but I saw in on Deja
News. I'll forego responding to it for now, but would like to emphasize
that postmodernism is anti-science, anti-reason, and anti-Western values.
This website has references to books on postmodernism and
environmentalism:
http://ecoethics.net/bib/tl-109-a.htm
Also, if you do a search for "postmodern ecology" on Amazon.com you'll
find several books.
This was the query...
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/t/002-4237483-2661845
If you look up "Ecofeminism", you'll find books that combine
environmentalism, feminism, and multiculturalism.
...John
Scott D. Erb
> Just a few notes for now...
>
>>> Religion had men looking to "The City of
>>>God" (per St. Thomas Aquinas), and away from this low, material world
> Egad, I meant Augustine! I shouldn't sully Aquinas like that!
Happens all the time...that's why I don't condone those who flame little slip
ups.
> Since you want to know the connection between Kant, Hegel and then
>collectivism I'll write up a posting which shows the connection when I have
>time. Within a week or so of today (10/21/99) I'll post it to this thread.
>That'll give me motivation. I'll also show the points where Kant was in
>error, and how he built on them a wildly absurd system of thought.
Thank you! I'll look forward to that.
> I noted you responded to one of my other postings concerning
>postmodernism. This never came across my server, but I saw in on Deja
>News. I'll forego responding to it for now, but would like to emphasize
>that postmodernism is anti-science, anti-reason, and anti-Western values.
Exactly -- which is why I don't see post-modernism as very prevalent right
now, more in the ghetto of most parts of academia.
> This website has references to books on postmodernism and
>environmentalism:
> http://ecoethics.net/bib/tl-109-a.htm
>
> Also, if you do a search for "postmodern ecology" on Amazon.com you'll
>find several books.
Oh yeah, people can write books I guess, but most ecologists are far from
postmodernism, you tried to claim that concern for the ecology was post-modern
(if I recall right -- or environmentalists are post-modern). There's a
little bit of everything out there, but most environmentalists I know are very
into the outdoors, reason, science, and concern for the real world outside the
human mind.
> This was the query...
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/t/002-4237483-2661845
>
> If you look up "Ecofeminism", you'll find books that combine
>environmentalism, feminism, and multiculturalism.
I've actually dealt a bit with feminist thought. Liberal feminism (tied to
philosophical liberalism like Locke) is the most popular feminist strain,
followed by other forms. There is a strong post-modern component, but that's
at best a small but vocal minority. Its easy to exaggerate the impact of
post-modernism, but I'd say less than 3% of academia is post-modern, and maybe
another 10% are sympathetic, but reject it.
I looked into it quite a bit and decided it just doesn't make sense.
ciao, scott
John Alway
I promised Scott Erb I'd show the connection between Kant, Hegel and
Collectivism. And, so, here it is.
Plato is the father of collectivism in the West. He split the world into
two realms. The world we perceive, and the ideal world of Forms. His
world of forms allow him to put forth the view that the individual is but a
part of the State, and should be obedient to it. Plato's philosophy
dominated the medieval period via Augustine, Platinus and other
philosophers.
The Renaissance was a reflowering of the Greek philosophers, most
especially Aristotle. Most of his works were lost during the Dark Ages and
in the hands of Arabic intellectuals. The reintroduction of Aristotle
into the West introduced a real world focus. Aristotle's logic, his
science, his concern with only the material realm, and his belief in the
power of the reasoning mind pulled the West from the doldrums and darkness
of mysticism. Men like Galileo, Newton, and Locke came to the fore.
Individualism, and the rights of man were being established, and America was
created. Aristotelianism pushed back Platonism, which was very
influential in Christianity.
This rise in science, reason and individualism was threatening religion,
which some intellectuals did not like. Chief among them was Immanuel Kant.
Kant set out to make room for religion, and so he did. He did so on the
basis of a very intricate epistemology, which broke the world into two
fundamental realms: the phenomenal realm (which is the world of daily
experience) and the noumenal realm (which is the world of things as they
really are, which we can't know the nature of). In devising this
split, he was able to make room for both science and religion, he believed.
Science would apply to the phenomenal realm (the world of appearances), and
faith to the noumenal realm (the real world). So, in essence, Kant's
philosophy meant that science and reason are good for our subjective mental
contents, but useless for the real world. This is really the long and the
short of Kant's epistemology, the payoff.
Kant is likely the most influential modern philosopher, because his
philosophical premises were accepted by most all who followed.
I'll quote from W.T.Jones' anthology "A History of Western Philosophy:
Kant and the Nineteenth Century" second edition, page 100: "The Age of
Reason was sustained by three basic assumptions: (1) that there is a
rational order of eternal truths, (2) that man has a mind capable of
understanding those truths, and (3) that he has a will capable of acting in
accordance with them...."
"During the ninetieth century all three of these basic propositions were
attacked from a variety of points of view, and before long there came to be
widespread scepticism about them.."
"Philosophers who followed Kant found his position an unsatisfactory form
of fence-sitting, and most of them climbed down from the fence to one side
or the other. As we have seen, Kant believed that there
things-in-themselves, but he denied that we can ever know them... ...In
general, these philosophers ... concluded that reason plays either a much
larger or a much smaller role--both in cognition and in the moral life--than
Kant had allowed for. Yet none of these philosophers was untouched by
Kant."
"Why did post-Kantian philosophers accept Kant's distinctions rather than
simply revert to earlier theories? In the first place, Kant's influence was
too powerful. ... In the second place, the whole mood of Western culture
had changed since Kant's time."
Kant's split of reality into the noumenal and phenomenal realm was
similar to Plato's split, and Platonists, especially in Germany, latched
onto this, and used it as sanction of their way of thinking. Platonism was
once again on the rise, but it was a more militant brand of Platonism.
This shows how Kant allowed for the rise of Collectivism. Kant himself was
a collectivist, upholding altruism as the ideal.
So, Hegel was likely the biggest post-Kantian philosopher. He
considered himself to be one who was continuing the work of Kant. Hegel
went absolutely to the other end of the spectrum from Aristotle. He
believed that everything is mind, or Spirit. This means that the world is
subjective. By a complicated epistemology (using "triads) he rejected
Aristotelian A, non-A distinctions in logic, and came up with his own system
of epistemology. He explicitly upheld the idea of the absolute State, and
praised men like Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon as being driven by the
higher cause of the state. Hegel was the most influential philosopher in
19th century Germany. In Germany in the early 1800s, most Germans
believed in the enlightened spirit of individualism and were strongly
opposed to collectivism, but the intellectuals pushed collectivism, and
generations of students went out and convinced the common man of their
ideas.
Hegel strongly influenced Marx, who made Hegel's ideas even more popular.
Peikoff shows (in Ominous Parallels) quotes side by side of Hegel and
Hitler where they both promote the State above the individual, and the
similarities are uncanny. The dictators didn't get their ideas out of a
vacuum, and Hitler wasn't an original thinker anyway. These men got their
ideas from intellectuals. (Another influential thinker was Schopenhauer,
who was completely subjectivist and statist like Hegel. He believed that
the world is will and idea, which very much influenced the Nazis.)
So, now you can see the connection between Kant and Hegel, and how they
were both pushers of collectivism.
If you want a more complete explanation of my argument, then I recommend
chapters 1 and 2 of "The Ominous Parallels", which gives a more complete
explanation.
...John
William S Hubbard
John Alway <jal...@icsi.net> wrote in message
news:q%oR3.754$b4....@news.intnet.net...
Scott D. Erb
> I promised Scott Erb I'd show the connection between Kant, Hegel and
>Collectivism. And, so, here it is.
>
> Plato is the father of collectivism in the West. He split the world into
>two realms. The world we perceive, and the ideal world of Forms. His
>world of forms allow him to put forth the view that the individual is but a
>part of the State, and should be obedient to it. Plato's philosophy
>dominated the medieval period via Augustine, Platinus and other
>philosophers.
A couple points of logic: first, just because the philosophy was used to
justify the existence of the state and a collectivist social organization
doesn't mean that the philosophy is wrong, or that the philosophy necessitated
that type of social organization. Both Augustine and Platinus went their own
way of course, influenced by Plato (Augustine was a follower of Platinus for
awhile, but then converted to Christianity -- it is true that the Platinus
influence remained in his ideas).
> The Renaissance was a reflowering of the Greek philosophers, most
>especially Aristotle. Most of his works were lost during the Dark Ages and
>in the hands of Arabic intellectuals. The reintroduction of Aristotle
>into the West introduced a real world focus. Aristotle's logic, his
>science, his concern with only the material realm, and his belief in the
>power of the reasoning mind pulled the West from the doldrums and darkness
>of mysticism. Men like Galileo, Newton, and Locke came to the fore.
Note that Aquinas brought Aristotle into the church. Also, you seem to be
assuming causes due to the sequence of events (the logical fallacy involved is
post hoc ergo propter hoc), and I also detect the error of non causa pro hoc,
as you are missing a lot of other causal variables besides simply which
philosopher was popular. For instance, one reason science became so prominent
in Europe starting in the 12th century was that communication was open with
China, which was technologically and scientifically ahead of Europe. Neither
Aristotle nor Plato's ideas required any particular social organization.
Certainly many of their ideas can compliment each other.
>Individualism, and the rights of man were being established, and America was
>created. Aristotelianism pushed back Platonism, which was very
>influential in Christianity.
Again, I think you're commiting those errors mentioned above concerning
misplacing causality, and at the very least you have no real evidence by which
to make such a causal link. Aristotle's teachings were "back" in Europe long
before individualism was established, and Aristotle was very much the church
authority for centuries before science really took off and the renaissance and
reformation hit. Be careful not to simply interpret history into neat
categories to fit an ideological viewpoint.
> This rise in science, reason and individualism was threatening religion,
>which some intellectuals did not like. Chief among them was Immanuel Kant.
I think if you know anything about Kant you have to realize that this was NOT
his motivation. Kant was after all a student of Newtonian physics and very
much a part of the scientific rebirth going on in Europe! For Kant, the
question was how can we PROVE that fundamental moral beliefs are true, and not
just public opinion. He was reacting to the skeptics, who took science and
reason to their logical conclusion -- namely that you could prove nothing, and
thus there was always uncertainty. Kant believed there was a natural ethic, a
true ethic that people know. His goal was to try to figure out how to prove
it. Kant's basic beliefs were that man is a rational agent, an end in and of
himself, and that man is autonomous.
>Kant set out to make room for religion, and so he did. He did so on the
>basis of a very intricate epistemology, which broke the world into two
>fundamental realms: the phenomenal realm (which is the world of daily
>experience) and the noumenal realm (which is the world of things as they
>really are, which we can't know the nature of). In devising this
>split, he was able to make room for both science and religion, he believed.
>Science would apply to the phenomenal realm (the world of appearances), and
>faith to the noumenal realm (the real world). So, in essence, Kant's
>philosophy meant that science and reason are good for our subjective mental
>contents, but useless for the real world. This is really the long and the
>short of Kant's epistemology, the payoff.
What Kant was doing, though, was reacting to the empiricists and the skeptics,
who argued that (building from Descartes 'cogito' argument) there was no
certainty about anything except ones own existence as a thinking entity. The
way Descartes worded his statement, the unity of thoughts and perceptions,
suggests certain facts about the mind, that the mind acts according to certain
rules and categories. These include such things as substance, unity,
plurality, necessity, reality, possibility, cause and effect, etc. This is,
of course, knowledge of the world of appearances, which bring us back to Plato
as you suggest. Plato argued that we could by use of reason gain knowledge of
reality. Kant says we can only have knowledge of appearances, but this is
true knowledge, and not simply unfounded belief (like the skeptics claimed).
Now, I agree that we can question this notion of appearances vs. reality, and
Kant's "solution" to the problem poised by the empiricists and skeptics has
some problems, but it certainly is not some kind of idea that brings down all
of western reason! It was built with reason and logic by a man who studied
Newton and was genuinely concerned with the issue of ethics and knowing.
> Kant is likely the most influential modern philosopher, because his
>philosophical premises were accepted by most all who followed.
They were analyzed, criticized, and rejected by many, but the power of his
ideas have given them staying power. Ideas tend not to last if they don't
have power.
> I'll quote from W.T.Jones' anthology "A History of Western Philosophy:
>Kant and the Nineteenth Century" second edition, page 100: "The Age of
>Reason was sustained by three basic assumptions: (1) that there is a
>rational order of eternal truths, (2) that man has a mind capable of
>understanding those truths, and (3) that he has a will capable of acting in
>accordance with them...."
> "During the ninetieth century all three of these basic propositions were
>attacked from a variety of points of view, and before long there came to be
>widespread scepticism about them.."
But Kant did argue that we knew ethical truths, and from him we get one of the
most powerful ethical systems in the history of philosophy (the only one that
really convinces me that ethics probably are not merely subjective whims but
do exist in the nature of reality). Kant's investigations were a natural
attempt to understand and assess the limits of those assumptions -- that's a
positive act, to think critically about assumptions we make about reality.
Recognizing the limitations (and the uncertainties) does not make the whole
edifice fall down, it merely helps us understand the epistemological
difficulties humans face acting in the world.
> "Philosophers who followed Kant found his position an unsatisfactory form
>of fence-sitting, and most of them climbed down from the fence to one side
>or the other. As we have seen, Kant believed that there
>things-in-themselves, but he denied that we can ever know them... ...In
>general, these philosophers ... concluded that reason plays either a much
>larger or a much smaller role--both in cognition and in the moral life--than
>Kant had allowed for.
That's partially true -- Kant truly believed in reason, and from my read at
least he was not trying to debunk reason, only to show that reason's limits
were NOT as severe as the limits prescribed by skeptics.
> Yet none of these philosophers was untouched by
>Kant."
Powerful ideas tend to survive.
> "Why did post-Kantian philosophers accept Kant's distinctions rather than
>simply revert to earlier theories? In the first place, Kant's influence was
>too powerful. ... In the second place, the whole mood of Western culture
>had changed since Kant's time."
Also most earlier theories were, well, like earlier science -- wrong!
Aristotle's ideas were grand for his era, but he liked the scientific
knowledge of those who would come later (witness his belief that the earth
circled the sun in crystal spheres, that all earthly movement was in lines,
while heavenly movement in circles, etc.) Aristotle was not pure reason and
rationality.
> Kant's split of reality into the noumenal and phenomenal realm was
>similar to Plato's split, and Platonists, especially in Germany, latched
>onto this, and used it as sanction of their way of thinking. Platonism was
>once again on the rise, but it was a more militant brand of Platonism.
I would not call this Platonism, even if idealism had roots in Plato and
continued here. And I don't see whats more militant about it, it seems, well,
more precise and well thought out.
>This shows how Kant allowed for the rise of Collectivism. Kant himself was
>a collectivist, upholding altruism as the ideal.
A lot of people believe altruism is good. Kant's position was intriguing -
altruism is based on self-interest, if you are altruistic you ultimately help
yourself. Kant's ideas push more towards individualism, and show that with
any epistemology you can probably build a number of different political
ideals. The politics probably comes more from mundane culture than high
philosophy.
> So, Hegel was likely the biggest post-Kantian philosopher. He
>considered himself to be one who was continuing the work of Kant. Hegel
>went absolutely to the other end of the spectrum from Aristotle. He
>believed that everything is mind, or Spirit. This means that the world is
>subjective.
Whatever Hegel thought of Kant, that broke him away from Kant's view. I'm not
sure Hegel is wrong in that view of mind and spirit, but that didn't
necessitate his political stances, and his quest for perfect knowledge via the
dialectic is something I find totally unpersausive.
Note: you sound like you're judging the rightness or wrongness of the ideology
solely by the way it might be used to justify "collectivism," NOT by the logic
of the arguments. That is also a logical fallacy.
> By a complicated epistemology (using "triads) he rejected
>Aristotelian A, non-A distinctions in logic, and came up with his own system
>of epistemology. He explicitly upheld the idea of the absolute State, and
>praised men like Alexander, Caesar, and Napoleon as being driven by the
>higher cause of the state. Hegel was the most influential philosopher in
>19th century Germany. In Germany in the early 1800s, most Germans
>believed in the enlightened spirit of individualism and were strongly
>opposed to collectivism, but the intellectuals pushed collectivism, and
>generations of students went out and convinced the common man of their
>ideas.
Again, remember the fallacies of non causa pro causa, and post hoc ergo
propter hoc. You're assuming a particular philosophical view of Kant's caused
Hegel to have his view, which caused German culture and politics to change.
At least, that's how it sounds. Actually, there were many factors driving
German politics in that era, including geography, authoritarian political
traditions, and the rise of nationalism (a form of popular sovereignty).
> Hegel strongly influenced Marx, who made Hegel's ideas even more popular.
Yeah, but Marx was a materialist and objectivist who turned Hegel's idealist
and subjectivist notions on their head!
> Peikoff shows (in Ominous Parallels) quotes side by side of Hegel and
>Hitler where they both promote the State above the individual, and the
>similarities are uncanny.
That adds the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, comparing to Hitler, and
comparing particular quotes about politics says NOTHING about many of the
other philosophical positions which do not necessitate that kind of view of
politics. Indeed, Kant is seen as the father of notions of individual rights
and democratic norms, and used as a force against philosophies of
authoritarianism. You're mixing small dabs of philosophy, with political
views and results which are not connected by causal links or logical chains.
> The dictators didn't get their ideas out of a
>vacuum, and Hitler wasn't an original thinker anyway. These men got their
>ideas from intellectuals. (Another influential thinker was Schopenhauer,
>who was completely subjectivist and statist like Hegel. He believed that
>the world is will and idea, which very much influenced the Nazis.)
But the fact the Nazis used some ideas doesn't mean that all their ideas were
wrong, or even that the ideas which the Nazis used were wrong; ideas are wrong
on their merit, not on the basis of who believes them or who uses them.
Furthermore, as I point out with Kant, anti-fascists and individualists also
use these philosophies, these philosophies (except for some of the overtly
statist political ones) have no necessary political form, they could
compliment an individualist or collectivist political system. (note: beware of
false dichotomies, humans are social creatures with individual identity, you
can't really go to either extreme to categorize them).
> So, now you can see the connection between Kant and Hegel, and how they
>were both pushers of collectivism.
Not really -- Again, note the logical fallacies I point out, and recognize
that you are only picking on political views of Hegel (who had weird political
views) and quotes from some later German philosophers, whose politics probably
came more from culture than the philosophy, to try to assert Kant was wrong.
The links aren't there, and none of that proves anything wrong with Kant's
philosophy.
Kant, Hume, Descartes, and others are taught in all philosophy programs and
are read by most educated people for one reason: the power of their ideas, the
way they have withstood the test of time. Plato and Aristotle as well -- even
though people recognize that there have been advances since then, and holes in
arguments have been found. Some people try to demonize them or claim tie it
to politics in a way to promote their own ideological preference. I don't
find that at all persuasive.
Thanks for the post -- if the tone in response sounded harsh it wasn't meant
in a negative manner, just the normal "argumentation." I appreciate your
straight forward argument and style, and look forward to discussing any
portions of this if you believe I'm wrong or my criticisms off base.
ciao, scott
> If you want a more complete explanation of my argument, then I recommend
>chapters 1 and 2 of "The Ominous Parallels", which gives a more complete
>explanation.
OK, but I suggest you look at other sources as well -- remember, a philosophy
is not a religion, one always has to question with a mind willing to accept
better arguments or new evidence! Thanks though for the thoughtful post, and
I'll try to check out that book -- though it may be a month or so before I get
to it.
ciao, scott
Buck
politics than others, because some junior college instructor gave you a
piece of paper with all the "correct" answers on it??
Your delusions make you a common scold, a public fool, and boring.
Try having an original thought someday.
Buck
Mimi Weasel wrote in message <380A75AE...@home.com>...
>John Alway wrote:
>> You'll often find that Historians aren't good at making such
>> determinations, since they don't usually know philosophy very well.
>
>You're living under the bizarre delusion that you know more about the
>history of political science than a professor of political science (Erb)
>does???? My, you ARE delusional, aren't you?
>
>An excerpt from The Concise Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia Copyright©
>1994.
>Hitler:
>He used his virulent Anti-semitism and *anti-Communism* to win the
>support both of the workers and of the bankers and industrialists.
>
>Mimi Weasel
>
snic...@divinefart.com
>You're living under the bizarre delusion that you know more about American
>politics than others,
Judging from your intellectually vacuous bullshit, bucked up, I'd say
the less you say the better.
Buck
Buck
Your Intellectual and Moral Superior
snic...@divinefart.com wrote in message <3817b857...@news.idt.net>...
snic...@divinefart.com
>Refute a statement of fact that I have made.
can't
You haven't made any yet.
===============================================
" I would appreciate very much if you would simply ignore this
worthless piece of shit and not respond to his asinine posts.
I've filtered him out so I don't appreciate having to read his
bilge when you respond to his posts."
Lee Harrison
Buck_W...@HotMail.Com wrote on 10/28/99 11:23 AM:
> Refute a statement of fact that I have made.
Trick question - you never state verifiable facts.
> Buck
> Your Intellectual and Moral Superior
>
>
> snic...@divinefart.com wrote in message <3817b857...@news.idt.net>...
>> "Buck" <Buck_W...@HotMail.Com> wrote:
>>
>>> You're living under the bizarre delusion that you know more about American
>>> politics than others,
>>
>> Judging from your intellectually vacuous bullshit, bucked up, I'd say
>> the less you say the better.
The Lone Weasel
Not-So-Secret-Hideout
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/index.html
My Weasel Board
http://leeharrison.simplenet.com/weasel/bboard.mv
Buck
You don't want to go through all those concrete facts about the duty status
of holders of five star rank again do you?
You didn't seem to want to deal with the Acts of Congress and Resolutions of
Congress (months and years of which I gave you) did you?
Do you want to deal with them now, LEEEEEEEE?? HHMMMMMMMMMM??
I would be more than happy to repost them. Would you like me to do that Lee?
Or would you like to go on and on, about who was "a bigger general"? (I'll
bet you got that right out of your Little Golden Book Encyclopedia.
"Washington was like a totally WAY bigger General than MacArthur, boys and
girls!")
You want to count stars again Lee? Or are you still seeing stars from last
time/
Then there's the issue of the suicide rate during the Crash of '29. You
crowed loud and long about that.
I gave you the book and the author. Over and over, Lee. But you demanded the
chapter, and page, and the paragraph, and the cites.
You weren't going to read a whole book, BY, GOD!! (Intimidating prospect I
assume!)
We also had a little tiff about the crime rates and family structure
integrity during the Depression. I gave you TWO WHOLE BOOKS to read on that.
(But I made it a little easy-- Same author)
But not Little Dull Scholar Lee. OH, NO!! NO WAY!!
He wanted the chapter and the page and the verse.
Typical Liberal.
I do the work. Lee reaps the benefit.
Sorry, Lee! No deal!
Get off your ass and do some research.
Read the Acts and Resolutions of Congress. Read the books.
Django Reinhardt's citizenship?
Do you want to do that one again?
This is all proving to be so ..., shall we say..., UGLY(?) for you isn't it
Lee?
It must be very difficult, being exposed as a half-baked fraud, every time
you hit that keyboard.
Want some more, Little Boy?
Buck
Your Intellectual and Moral Superior
Lee Harrison wrote in message ...
Lee Harrison
A more interesting topic might be your own views on Campaign Finance Reform,
assuming you have any.