[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

[C. G. Estabrook]

Q: Was Hitler an anti-semitic candidate in the election of 1933, or wasn't he?
It's not difficult to say accurately that there were anti-semitic candidates in
France and even in the US.  (See, e.g., Arendt, "Origins of Totalitarianism.")

A: "Now, as you well know, we are playing word games among other things. It all 
depends on how one defines "anti-semitic," and who is defining it. Aside from 
the fact that Hitler did not in so many words claim to be The Anti-Semitic 
Candidate and in fact said or implied in some of his talks that he was not 
literally anti-semitic or the anti-semitic candidate (it was supporters who 
typically made that claim about him), he may very well have legitimately 
considered himself to be anti-semitic and the anti-semitic candidate as he 
understands the labels - not as you understand them.  So was he or wasn't he is 
a relative question unless one imposes that they have some special insight and 
knowledge that is clearer and better than others who have different viewpoints.

"Moreover, do we use words or actions as grounds upon which we make our 
interpretations and attributions; if we use both, in what proportion do we use 
each in deciding on the accuracy and truth of an attribution?  Moreover, even if 
everyone but me agreed with you and your attributions of anti-semitism to 
Hitler, that does not make it true; it might suggest a consensus of opinion or 
illusion but not truth, accurate knowledge, or clear understanding."


LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>> Was Obama an anti-war candidate, or wasn't he? It's not difficult to say 
>> accurately that Paul, Nader, McKinney and probably Barr were anti-war 
>> candidates.  Look at what they said...
> 
> Now, as you well know, we are playing word games among other things. It all
> depends on how one defines "anti-war," and who is defining it. Aside from the
> fact that Obama did not in so many words claim to be The Anti-War Candidate
> and in fact said or implied in some of his talks that he was not literally
> anti-war or the anti-war candidate (it was supporters who typically made that
> claim about him), he may very well have legitimately considered himself to be
> anti-war and the anti-war candidate as he understands the labels - not as you
> understand them.  So was he or wasn't he is a relative question unless one
> imposes that they have some special insight and knowledge that is clearer and
> better than others who have different viewpoints.  Moreover, do we use words
> or actions as grounds upon which we make our interpretations and
> attributions; if we use both, in what proportion do we use each in deciding
> on the accuracy and truth of an attribution?  Moreover, even if everyone but
> me agreed with you and your attributions, that does not make it true; it
> might suggest a consensus of opinion or illusion but truth, accurate
> knowledge, or clear understanding.
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: C. G. Estabrook [mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu] 
> Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 9:52 PM To: LAURIE SOLOMON Cc: 'Morton K.
> Brussel'; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss]
> Bellicose rhetoric???
> 
> Of course truth is better than illusion -- and the truth of that statement 
> hardly depends on my having a "clearer and more accurate knowledge and 
> understanding than those who do not agree with [me]."
> 
> Was Obama an anti-war candidate, or wasn't he? It's not difficult to say 
> accurately that Paul, Nader, McKinney and probably Barr were anti-war 
> candidates.  Look at what they said...
> 
> If you really want to know whether Mort has attributed opinions to me that
> I've denied -- and I'm not quite sure why you would -- look at the archives.
> 
> What do you want to "balance"?  Time spent exposing McCain's position and 
> Obama's? But one was easier to do, and the audience for this list already 
> recognized that one was untenable.  --CGE
> 
> 
> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>>> It seems to me that many people good people, who opposed the war, wanted
>>> to convince themselves that Obama was an anti-war candidate, when he
>>> clearly wasn't.  The wish is father to the thought, but truth is better
>>> than illusion.
>> Even granting that it was the people who convinced themselves of this and
>> not Obama who convinced them of this, how can you assume a self-righteous 
>> position of saying that for them truth is better than illusion?  I can 
>> understand how you might say that it is better for you personally but to 
>> suggest that this is the case for others is sheer projection based on your
>>  assuming that you have clearer and more accurate knowledge and
>> understanding than those who do not agree with you, which comes down to
>> egotism clear and simple.
>> ...