[Peace-discuss] Limits of allowable debate
LAURIE SOLOMON
LS_64 at LIVE.COM
Wed Nov 25 11:00:36 CST 2009
Yes you can be wrong about all those things; but neither you nor anyone else
would know it or be able to prove it unless one first accepted and
presupposed a position, a specific logical system, ethical system,
epistemology, ontology, and cosmology as well as view of the world from
which to make one's interpretations and assessments. I realize that you
assume and assert that there are absolutes and universals; and I do not. As
a result you can make your claims, denials, and evaluations and stipulate
that they are THE TRUTH; I, on the other hand, reject such assumptions,
assertions, and conclusions. However, that is not to say for purposes of
living in a society and surviving, I may abide by many of them and use them
as practical working premises but not as absolutes or as universal truths.
I would interpret Wittgenstein as saying that "logic or ethics being a
condition of the world and not external to it means that logic and ethics
are existential phenomena and not universals; and as such, can or cannot
exist to varying degrees, can or cannot be recognized and/or known by actors
in the world, and can or cannot take varying manifestations and forms which
can vary as to their nature, quality, and type.
As for your statement or assertion, "Someone who thought (2 + 2 = 5) would
be wrong," one would have to ask in the context of what arithmetic or
mathematical system since that would only be the case in the context of some
arithmetic or mathematical systems and not so in all. I remind you that
2+2= 4 (just as the notion of parallel lines not meeting) is an abstract
product of analytic thought and not an empirical condition of any concrete
historical world (even as we commonsensically perceive and accept it as a
taken-for-granted given); hence its validity and truth is dependent upon the
theoretical system or context in which is is being asserted and does not
stand alone in isolation from said context.
>So would someone who thought the Shoah was acceptable behavior.
Of course , here you are technically playing word games since the original
statement was not about whether or not the Shoah was acceptable behavior; it
was whether or not it was "a vast objective evil." The former pertains to
the acceptability of behavior while the second refers to the character of an
object or event; they are not identical or even equivalent subjects. Even
if one asserted that the Shoah was or was not a "vast objective evil", one
could on a whole variety of non-ethical grounds find the Shoah to be
unacceptable and the behavior that it involved as being unacceptable
behavior on purely practical, political, social, or economic grounds. This
would be true even if one asserted that the Shoah was a "vast objective
good." Analytically, "good" or "evil" as moral characteristics or as
objects are not necessarily relevant to evaluations of "acceptability" of
behaviors and practices; they are quite distinct and different things.
If one were to not make the assumption that "life is valuable" and that
"people have some inherent value and intrinsic worth different from other
species, from a head of lettuce or from a rock," then the destruction of
them as individuals, as groups, or as a species would not be either "a vast
objective evil" or an unacceptable behavior. Under those conditions,
someone who did not accept or make those assumptions and asserted that the
Shoah was acceptable behavior would not be wrong in the moralistic sense
that your assertion implies. I do not think that it would make them
necessarily right either since I do not think that "right" or "wrong" are
appropriate characterizations to use with respect to things that may be
adimensional (e.g., without dimensionality) such as to be in this case
neither right nor wrong but neutral.
--------------------------------------------------
From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 11:25 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
> 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