[Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate
C. G. Estabrook
galliher at illinois.edu
Tue Nov 24 23:25:08 CST 2009
Logic is a condition of the world; that is, you can be wrong about it.
The same is true of ethics.
Someone who thought (2 + 2 = 5) would be wrong.
So would someone who thought the Shoah was acceptable behavior.
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
> 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