[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

[John W.]

On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:02 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:

John--
>
> I don't recognize the reflection in the mirror you hold up to my nature,
> and that may be my error, of course, but I don't identify with any of the
> usual forms of Idealism, unless you mean only that ethics and politics
> should be guided by ideals in the sense of goals -- things one wants to do
> or accomplish (and that's an Aristotelian point).
>
> Instead of being an idealist Platonist, Cartesian, Kantian, or Hegelian --
> I'd prefer to identify myself with Aristotelian, Thomist, and Marxist
> materialism (which I think by the way are more compatible with Christianity
> than the Idealisms; announcing the resurrection is asserting a materialism
> over against Pharisaic idealism...).


Oh, dear.  :-(  I haven't studied any of these things, and have no idea what
you're talking about.  :-(  I was just using the term "idealist" in its
ordinary, common-sense, dictionary definition.  The kind that Joe Sixpack
understands.  More specifically, the first three of the definitions below:

*i·de·al·ist*
<http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf><http://dictionary.reference.com/audio.html/ahd4WAV/I0018800/idealist>
 (ī-dē'ə-lĭst)  n.

   1. One whose conduct is influenced by ideals that often conflict with
   practical considerations.
   2. One who is unrealistic and impractical; a visionary.
   3. An artist or writer whose work is imbued with idealism.
   4. An adherent of any system of philosophical idealism.





> Putting aside these matters, which may be of interest only to you and me on
> this list, I will say that I do on the contrary recognize your use of
> Realism: it was classically set out by the American sociologist C. Wright
> Mills fifty years ago, in "The Causes of World War Three," which seems to me
> presciently to describe realism as promoted by Obama:


Huh?  What?  "Crackpot" realism?  Who said anything about "crackpot"
realism?  Have you NO idea how to conduct an ordinary discussion with mere
mortals, Carl?



> "In crackpot realism," Mills wrote, "a high-flying moral rhetoric is joined
> with an opportunist crawling among a great scatter of unfocused fears and
> demands ... The expectation of war solves many problems of the crackpot
> realists ... instead of the unknown fear, the anxiety without end, some men
> [sic] of the higher circles prefer the simplification of known catastrophe
> ... They know of no solutions to the paradoxes of the Middle East and
> Europe, the Far East and Africa except the landing of Marines ... they
> prefer the bright, clear problems of war -- as they used to be. For they
> still believe that 'winning' means something, although they never tell us
> what..."


All I can say is, I'm thankful that NO readers of this list fit Mills'
definition of "crackpot realism".  Which leads me to wonder why you brought
it up here....



> That sort of realism seem to me Obamaism avant la lettre.


But I wasn't speaking of "Obamaism", whatever exactly that is.  I was
speaking of two factions within AWARE.



> Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, sed libera nos a malo.


Me too.



> Amen.  --CGE
>
>
>
> John W. wrote:
>
>>
>> Your argument makes sense, Carl, as far as it goes.
>>
>> What I've seen on this list all along is basically two groups, the
>> Realists
>> and the Idealists.  (Have I said this before?)  I place myself in the
>> former
>> group for the most part.
>>
>> The Realist - which would include most of the readers of this list - says,
>> "Yes, let's learn all we can about Obama, watch him like a hawk, continue
>> to
>> express our dissent with certain of his policies in the strongest possible
>> terms.  But meanwhile, let's give him a bit of leeway, recognizing that a
>> thoughtful leader CAN change and grow in response to events and to public
>> pressure, and that in the Real World compromise is always necessary.
>>  We're
>> not gonna get all we want, but half a loaf is better than none.
>>  Especially
>> after the famine of the Bush/Cheney years."
>>
>> The Idealist - of whom you, Carl, are the principal spokesperson, joined
>> by
>> Neil and a couple of others - says, "My way is the Right Way, because I am
>> a
>> highly Moral Person!  If I don't get everything I want, I'm gonna throw a
>> temper tantrum, take my ball, and go home!"
>>
>> Of course, I'm caricaturing the Idealist just a bit, but not too terribly
>> much.  I'll hasten to say, Carl, that I always appreciate your perspective
>> and insights, and would be disappointed if you ceased to make those things
>> available to us.  You keep me on my intellectual toes, and inform me of
>> much
>> that is valuable.  So do the other Idealists, when they express themselves
>> on
>> this list.  But like any extremist, you'd be dangerous if you were a Doer
>> and
>> not just a Talker, no matter how benevolent you think your goals and
>> motives
>> are.  As a suicide bomber, you'd undermine your own cause and that of the
>> rest of us.
>>
>> I suppose, Carl, that you and I are among the few professing Christians on
>> this list.  I'm normally not much of a prayer, but recently I've found
>> myself
>> praying for Obama several times a day - for his safety and, equally
>> importantly, that he would seek and receive wisdom (as opposed to mere
>> knowledge) so as to guide our Ship of State properly.  You could do worse
>> than to spend just a fraction of the time you spend digging up dirt on
>> Obama
>> in praying for him.  Ah, well, maybe you DO pray for Obama.
>>
>> Now feel free, of course, to refute my points, pick my words apart, and
>> quote
>> Edward de Vere or some obscure Greek philsopher.
>>
>> John Wason
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20081110/6b3b8123/attachment.html