[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at uiuc.edu
Wed Nov 12 13:36:19 CST 2008
Whose interests are served by making it a rule that a recent generation of
European politics may never be mentioned?
Perhaps we're not to mention fascism on the rule that one doesn't mention rope
in the house of a hanged man.
John W. wrote:
> Roughly 50 posts into the thread, this appears to be an example of the
> Hitler Phenomenon.
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:23 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu
> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
>
> 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 <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
> <mailto: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.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list