[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

[Morton K. Brussel]

Good stuff, Bob.
--Mort

On Nov 10, 2008, at 1:52 PM, Bob Illyes wrote:

> Neil and Laurie-
>
> I should clarify that, as you are probably beginning to suspect,  
> there really is a consensus position in AWARE, but it is pretty  
> minimal. A rough list would be.
>
> 1) War is almost always a bad idea.
> 2) The invasion and occupation of Iraq was an incredibly bad idea.
> 3) The attacks on free speech and freedom of assembly that are  
> ongoing strike at the heart of any sort of valid democratic process.
>
> Some members might say that war is always a bad idea, but not all  
> would (I do not think that the American Revolution was a bad idea,  
> for example), so we don't have consensus on this.
>
> Beyond the above points, we disagree in so many ways that we don't  
> even break up into anything resembling factions. It follows that  
> particular ideologies, economic analyses, and party politics do not  
> belong in our AWARE-labeled literature.
>
> I'm pleased to see that Carl has declared his general position,  
> writing "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..."
>
> I go a different route, preferring science to religion in political  
> thought, though not dismissing all religious contributions. I'm  
> basically Aristotelian in my outlook. I subscribe to classical  
> liberalism (a balance between individual rights and democratic  
> rule) as not a compromise, but as optimal in the sense of  
> Aristotle's application of the mean. I consider classical  
> liberalism to be a more useful approach than Aristotle's polity,  
> which addresses the conflict between classes rather than between  
> the individual and the state. This puts me in the Locke-Jefferson  
> camp,
>
> Aristotle in the above makes me think of something funny from years  
> ago. I was waylaid by what was then called a "Jesus Freak", who  
> wanted me to read a tract he was handing out. I asked if I could  
> see the tract, and it contained the usual snippets of John, Romans,  
> and Isaiah promoted by folks who can't be bothered to read the rest  
> of the Bible. He didn't want to take it back, insisting that I read  
> it. I said "I'll tell you what, I'll read this if you'll read the  
> same number of words of Aristotle." He said that he had nothing by  
> Aristotle, so I suggested that he check something out of the  
> library. He refused, saying that he knew the truth but I didn't,  
> and that there was no point in his reading Aristotle! Decades  
> later, I still smile when I remember that goofy conversation.
>
> At the heart of a valid political science is an understanding of  
> human nature, of the inherent characteristics of people. Opinions  
> on this are the subtext of many of our differences on this list, as  
> witnessed by the ongoing "Joe six-pack" debate. Ethology is a  
> fairly new science as sciences go, but we are now making  
> substantial progress. I do not fault Marx or Locke or Jefferson  
> or ...(the list could go on for pages) for their errors. A  
> political science that is a true science is still a work in progress.
>
> Bob
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss