[Peace-discuss] War crime

[n.dahlheim at mchsi.com]

Laurie, you have brought such spirited debate to the table here.


----------------------  Original Message:  ---------------------
From:    "Laurie at advancenet.net" <laurie at advancenet.net>
To:      "'Morton K. Brussel'" <brussel4 at insightbb.com>, <peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
Subject: RE: [Peace-discuss] War crime
Date:    Thu, 27 Sep 2007 06:32:55 +0000

> >It never occurred to me that that the meaning of hypocrisy should be be
> applied to history. I usually apply it >to the statements of people. 
> 
>  
> 
> Hmmm!  Interesting!  I never said that hypocrisy was or should be applied to
> history, although I see no reason why that should not be possible.  I did
> say that, in light of history, the substantive meaning and significance of
> the content of the statement is hypocritical.  It appears on the face to say
> one thing while in light of the historic record it is really not the case. 
> 
>  
> 
> >Moreover, I would say that cynicism is not the same as skepticism (which I
> would agree is vital for a >thinking rational person), so your allusion of
> Candide seems far off the mark.  Cynicism" ("unbounded", no >less!) for me
> implies a destructive pessimism, not allowing for honesty or sincerity on
> the part of others.  
> 
>  
> 
> So, according to the implications of what you state, there is a
> non-destructive pessimism.  I would appreciate it if you could illustrate
> each for me and note what distinguishes them.  If one's experiences suggest
> that people are not totally honest or sincere a majority or even a high
> proportion of the time, I think it is justifiable to not allow for honesty
> and sincerity on their part as a working premise; therefore cynicism is
> justifiable and reasonable.  When one lives in an irrational world isn't it
> rational to be irrational?  But cynicism can be applied to things other than
> people.  I can be cynical about experiences, appearances, behaviors,
> policies, etc. independent of what I think about the actors or people
> involved.  
> 
>  
> 
> If  I see and experience the world as not only not being the best of all
> possible worlds but standing not possibility of ever being so, would I not
> be like Candide if I were deny my experiences and put an optimistic spin on
> them.  Call it the way I see and experience it is to make an observation
> with or without a value judgment even if that view is pessimistic; to do
> otherwise is to be Candide-like.  Thus the reference as far as I am
> concerned is not far off mark.  As for your dictionary definitions of
> "cynic," they are just that. I may distrust, be suspicious of, doubt people,
> their motives, and sincerity as an operative working premise; but I do not
> necessarily despise anyone or anything.   If one does not sarcastically
> doubts or despises human sincerity or merit but merely doubts human
> sincerity or merit, does it cease to be cynicism and start to be something
> else?  For me, "cynicism" is a combination of pessimism, skepticism, and
> distrust until proven otherwise.
> 
>  
> 
> But as you have noted, we are just playing with words.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of Morton K.
> Brussel
> Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 11:41 PM
> To: Laurie at advancenet.net
> Cc: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] War crime
> 
>  
> 
> It never occurred to me that that the meaning of hypocrisy should be be
> applied to history. I usually apply it to the statements of people. 
> 
>  
> 
> On Sep 26, 2007, at 6:02 PM, Laurie at advancenet.net wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While I am not going to question the
> 
> originator of the quotes and say that Jackson made them hypocritically; I
> 
> will say that the substantive meaning and significance of the statement in
> 
> light of history is hypocritical and serves to cover up the fact that in the
> 
> real world might does tend to make right in real politics and the spouting
> 
> of moral platitudes and absolute transcendental standards does not change
> 
> that empirically.
> 
>  
> 
> Why should my cynicism have bounds?  Are you suggesting that I should play
> 
> the role of Candide and go around saying and believing that we live in the
> 
> best of all possible worlds?
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Moreover, I would say that cynicism is not the same as skepticism (which I
> would agree is vital for a thinking rational person), so your allusion of
> Candide seems far off the mark.  Cynicism" ("unbounded", no less!) for me
> implies a destructive pessimism, not allowing for honesty or sincerity on
> the part of others.  
> 
> In fact, the Oxford dictionary defines a cynic as one "who sarcastically
> doubts or despises human sincerity or merit." It also gives the quote from
> Meredith (which I suppose you would reject), that "Cynics are only happy in
> making the world as barren to others as they have made it for themselves."
> 
>  
> 
> We are playing with words.
> 
>  
> 
>  --mkb
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss