[Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???

[C. G. Estabrook]

But there were/are anti-semites.

And surely it's objectively true that anti-semitism is wrong...


LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
> Fine, I have no problem applying what I said to Hitler and Anti-Semitism.  I
> may have my personal opinion on the facts and/or factual accuracy of the
> various believes and accounts on this subject; but I am fully willing to say
> that they are mine and not some objective truth that all can, do know, and
> agree with.  And you can quote experts and authorities all you want, I do not
> care.  That is an academic game which I stopped playing long ago.  Just
> because you , they, or anyone else claims that the people you quote or cite
> are experts or authorities does not mean that I or anyone else has to accept
> those credentials. I am sure that Arendt saw such candidates and believed in
> what she thought she saw and understood such that it was for her a reality
> which she could convince others to accept or which they also saw and believed
> in. I do not question that at all.  In fact, I strongly believe that we all
> live and believe in our own meaningful social worlds of reality that we make
> intersubjective through symbolic social interaction and communications.
> Those realities and the factual contents of those worlds of reality along
> with the rules and ethnomethodologies that produce and sustain them are
> socially negotiated by the interacting actors during the course of their
> interactions and communications.  But again that is my belief, which I may
> share with a number of others; I am and do not postulate it as an absolute
> universal given that everyone knows, understands, believes in, or agrees
> with.
> 
> It may not be difficult to say (accurately or inaccurately) that there was
> the possibility of there being anti-semitic candidates in France and even the
> US; but it is difficult to prove that one can assume an objective detached
> from one's perspective, cultural values and norms, philosophical assumptions
> and beliefs, etc. stance to say with certainty that it is true or accurate
> that there definitely were identifiable anti-semitic candidates that
> acknowledged and accepted their anti-semitism as such and who everyone else
> identified as being such.  You seem to choose to make absolutist and
> universal non-probabilistic statements and deny that there are no such things
> in an empirical world populated by different actors having different
> perspectives, beliefs, weltanschungs, and understandings.
> 
> -----Original Message----- From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
> [mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of C. G.
> Estabrook Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 12:24 PM To: LAURIE SOLOMON Cc:
> 'Morton K. Brussel'; peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net Subject: Re:
> [Peace-discuss] Bellicose rhetoric???
> 
> 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. ...