[Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate
LAURIE SOLOMON
LS_64 at LIVE.COM
Tue Nov 24 23:14:20 CST 2009
Thanks for telling me what "The Shoah" is; but it still does not change
anything that I said. If I were to condemn it, it would not be from a moral
point of view but from a practical point of view (I.e., it would have been
directed toward me and my family should we have been there at that time - it
would be possibly not in my self-interest not to oppose it. Personally, I
think it is discriminatory in that it singles out specific groups of humans;
I might not view it as see it as a "vast objective evil" it was directed at
all human beings since I view the development of the species as vast
objective evil of sorts and think the world would be better off without
people.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:52 PM
To: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <LS_64 at live.com>
Cc: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; "Stuart Levy"
<slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate
> "The Shoah" is an englishing of the Hebrew word for the Judeocide or
> Holocaust, the murder of Jews in Europe by the Nazis.
>
>
> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>>> A "value judgment" can be a recognition of a moral fact, not merely an
>>> expression of opinion
>>
>> A "judgment" none the less, regardless if it is about a "historical fact"
>> or a "moral fact." Moreover, one can legitimately hold - unless it is
>> excluded from the realm of allowable discourse - that all facts are
>> merely expressions of believed opinion in one fashion or another that are
>> ultimately based on a set of presumed assumptions and presuppositions of
>> one sort or another and typically that even the methods by which one
>> argues , acquires evidence, supports or proves the factual status of a
>> "fact" is grounded on the assumption of certain taken-for-granted
>> suppositions.
>>
>>> To condemn the Shoah is to recognize it as a vast objective evil, a
>>> crime, not just to express a taste, like preferring chocolate to
>>> vanilla.
>>
>> I am afraid that I do not know what the Shoah is; nor do I care. So I do
>> not think it or recognize it as a vast objective evil. But even if I did
>> know what it was, that does not mean that I would recognize or accept it
>> as a "vast evil" nor that you could empirically or logically prove to me
>> that it was objectively so and capable of existing as such apart from or
>> independent of any presumptions or theoretical framework of
>> interpretation. However, I would guess that that would probably only mean
>> that I would then be classified as being ignorant, blind, from Neptune,
>> or some other dismissive name or description.
>>
>>> As Wittgenstein said, "Ethics does not treat of the world. Ethics must
>>> be a condition of the world, like logic."
>>
>> It is easy to quote philosophers or other so-called authorities from
>> within an accepted collection permitted by the definitions of allowable
>> debate as the proponent sees it (you do it frequently and very well); but
>> a part from my not really seeing the relevance of the quote, you and I
>> among others know very well that for every supporting quotation or person
>> of authority being quoted one can find an opposite existing and available
>> that could have been tossed into the mix. However, just to play your
>> game; what theory of ethics are we talking about as being a condition of
>> the world like logic - and for that matter what theory of logic are we
>> holding to be a condition of the world. There are a number of different
>> logics in use in the world - each based on different sets of
>> assumptions - just as there are different sets of ethics. Moreover, in
>> the cited quote, the use of the notion of "must" suggests to be some sort
>> of "imperative" in the sense of "ought" which stands as some sport of
>> preferred alternative and not a necessary and sufficient constitutive
>> requirement of the world. Nevertheless, even if ethics were a
>> constitutive requirement, the type and content of that ethics is still
>> open to question and a matter of preference.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 10:49 PM
>> To: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <LS_64 at live.com>
>> Cc: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; "Stuart Levy"
>> <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate
>>
>>> A "value judgment" can be a recognition of a moral fact, not merely an
>>> expression of opinion.
>>>
>>> To condemn the Shoah is to recognize it as a vast objective evil, a
>>> crime, not just to express a taste, like preferring chocolate to
>>> vanilla.
>>
>>> As Wittgenstein said, "Ethics does not treat of the world. Ethics must
>>> be a condition of the world, like logic."
>>>
>>>
>>> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>>>> It is true enough that if you control the scope and range of questions
>>>> asked, you circumscribe the scope and range of allowable responses that
>>>> will be regarded as legitimate meaningful answers. It does not
>>>> necessarily limit the scope and range of responses which may be larger
>>>> than that of legitimate meaningful answers that are allowed by the
>>>> questions. However, that is true for all sides - yours, theirs,
>>>> mine, etc. Moreover, this is the case for everyone and a tacit
>>>> unintended or explicit intended strategy that all sides engage in via
>>>> the mere framing of questions.
>>>>
>>>> What is a right or a wrong question is a value judgment and a matter of
>>>> perspective - not an empirical "objective" value neutral fact.
>>>>
>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 3:36 PM
>>>> To: "LAURIE SOLOMON" <LS_64 at LIVE.COM>
>>>> Cc: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>; "Stuart Levy"
>>>> <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate
>>>>
>>>>> "If they can get you asking the wrong questions,
>>>>> they don't have to worry about answers."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>>>>>> Not that any of these are actual (allowable, productive, or
>>>>>> informative) debates between parties sharing a common set of
>>>>>> definitions and rules of debate as much as sets of parallel one-way
>>>>>> articulations. assertions, presentations of each parties point of
>>>>>> view and interpretation of history and the way the world works, the
>>>>>> policies, decisions, and actions that are taken in the world as they
>>>>>> see it. What I find most interesting and peculiar is that all debate
>>>>>> or discussions imply boundaries and rules of allowable or legitimate
>>>>>> interpretations, rules of interaction and argumentation, and
>>>>>> conceptions of rationality and reasoning. In a real debate, the
>>>>>> parties share these elements; in parallel conversations, discussions
>>>>>> and talks, they do not share such elements in common, although they
>>>>>> may assume or pretend that they do. Hence, they are talking past
>>>>>> each other and more focused on asserting one's claims than on
>>>>>> reaching any sort of shared agreement or common conclusions.
>>>>>> Intellectually, in these parallel articulations, each party according
>>>>>> to its own definition of legitimate and allowable rationality (i.e.,
>>>>>> rules of reasoning and logic), interpretations of activities and
>>>>>> events, and acceptable definitions of the "facts" denies the other
>>>>>> legitimacy and disallows what they have to say - often by personal
>>>>>> attacks, ad homenem arguments, and/or declaring the logic of the
>>>>>> argumentation to be fuzzy or irrational according to one's own
>>>>>> definitions of the rules of rationality and logic, which they assert
>>>>>> are the true, objective, and universal ones.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While the notion of whether or not this is a debate or what the rules
>>>>>> of what is or is not allowed in the discussion are questionable, what
>>>>>> is not is that you obviously disagree with those who you derisively
>>>>>> cite and with the arguments that they make. However, this
>>>>>> disagreement has little to do with the limits of allowable debate
>>>>>> (except that you seem to want to exclude those you disagree with from
>>>>>> the conversation and would presumably do so if you had the power to
>>>>>> do so); what it has to do with is differing points of view. It is
>>>>>> more than likely that others who subscribe to the establishments
>>>>>> limits of allowable debate might very well disagree with the
>>>>>> assertions and conclusions of Wilentz (and even some others who you
>>>>>> also disagree with) on either the same or other grounds as you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, November 22, 2009 12:57 PM
>>>>>> To: "Stuart Levy" <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu>
>>>>>> Cc: "Peace Discuss" <peace-discuss at anti-war.net>
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's a positive review of a new book on James K. Polk and the theft
>>>>>>> of half of Mexico (which even A. Lincoln knew was wrong).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wilentz thinks the Mexicans had it coming (cf. S. Hussein) on the
>>>>>>> grounds that they were really Spaniards and Catholics.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it didn't have anything to do with slavery. Nothing. No way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stuart Levy wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 12:31:58PM -0600, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The same edition of the NYT (I really won't miss it when it goes)
>>>>>>>>> includes a review by the awful Clintonoid pop-off Sean Wilentz,
>>>>>>>>> justifying particularly speciously 19th c. US imperialism, with
>>>>>>>>> obvious present-day implications...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Justifying as in US national interest? White Man's Burden?
>>>>>>>> Societal Darwinism, as in, If we did it, it must have been
>>>>>>>> because we were Better?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> David Green wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/opinion/22wright.html?ref=opinion&pagewanted=print>
>>>>>>>>>> The NYT brings in Robert Wright, a liberal heavy thinker known
>>>>>>>>>> among other things for his contributions to the dubious field of
>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary psychology, to define the LOAD for Hasan/Ft. Hood:
>>>>>>>>>> "Conservatives backed war in Iraq, and they’re now backing an
>>>>>>>>>> escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Liberals (at least, dovish
>>>>>>>>>> liberals) have warned in both cases that killing terrorists is
>>>>>>>>>> counterproductive if in the process you create even more
>>>>>>>>>> terrorists; the object of the game isn’t to wipe out every last
>>>>>>>>>> Islamist radical but rather to contain the virus of Islamist
>>>>>>>>>> radicalism."
>>>>>>>>>> As long as we discuss various perspectives on "terrorism," we
>>>>>>>>>> can't consider that this was not terrorism as commonly defined as
>>>>>>>>>> attacks against civilians. Whatever the pathology of Hasan, we
>>>>>>>>>> might compare him to a black soldier from segregated American
>>>>>>>>>> asked to kill Asians (and perhaps return home to enforce martial
>>>>>>>>>> law in Newark or Detroit) in the 1960s. What the LOAD will not
>>>>>>>>>> allow us to do is to think of this event in terms of rebellion.
>>>>>>>>>> DG
>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>>>>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>>>>>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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