Letters to the Editor
-
The point of having to wait until the final outcome
seems to me to be a point that could be argued both ways as well. It is almost calling for a defense of one's ontological and epistemological committments, calling for defintions of truth and certainty of final outcome. What exactly qualifies as the "end" of this now five year occupation/war/situation? etc. Charles Sanders Peirce argues that the truth is what all humans will eventually agree on, but he uses the idea as an ideal limiting point to make his definition clear. Or are Hegelians lurking amongst us, who would bid us wait until the owl of minerva flaps its wings over the middle east before any statments about it can be ventured?
-
@ Rolo Tomasi
-The seduction of WWII-
How seductive is Nagasaki and Hiroshima?
WWII is all very swell and all, until you remember the greatest terrorist act perpetrated against civilians in recorded history.
-
Then there are the moral consequences.
I was struck by a post made earlier in which Justice Jackson from the Nuremburg trials was quoted, saying something to the effect that now that we had set such high standards by which to judge our enemies, we had best live up to them, or all our fine achievments at Nuremburg would retroactively become mere farce. And it seems to me that with the Gitmo trials, and especially if people are executed without real trials, we will have achieved that condition. Already Abu Gharib (sp?) with its administrative evils has cast a stain on our honor that puts it into the qualitative realm, if your ontology admits of such. If something is intrinsically bad, then there is no measuring it: the harm is not able to be rectified on the quantitative scale. Like the Indian Removal Act, which led to the seizure of Cherokee land and their expulsion to Oklahoma, it will have become an immesurable horror.
-
Logical consequences
I'm late to the thread, but Mr. I-Was-the-First-One-Here is irresistible. Why is it that logicians so often overstate their case, and perhaps not coincidentally the importance of their craft, and frequently their own importance as well?
When they do, I generally ask them this: What is the meaning of Bach's second cello suite? It has none seems too harsh; I don't know seems a cop-out, and any attempt at citing a specific meaning seems unpardonably subjective.
The meaning is in fact irreducible, and has absolutely nothing to do with logic. Does that mean we can safely discount it? Not if we're talking about anything really important, no.
Your demand of Glenn is illegitimate, Mr. Ur-subscriber. If you can't understand why that is so, then I submit to you that you're just another yokel with more credentials than sense.
-
So I think
a defensible case can be made that Glenn is not being hyperbolic at all. In fact, I would claim he is being calm and measured.
-
ondelette
Yup, it's bad.
This talk about the consequences of the Iraq War inevitably makes me think of tonight's Bill Moyers show, about the new Body of War documentary that will hit theaters soon. It's about an incredible young man, Tomas Young, who was badly injured and disabled by a bullet in Iraq, who wanted to fight in Afghanistan in response to 911, but was diverted to the newer campaign.
Tomas' condition for being the subject of the documentary was that the film have a strong political message: wars have dire human consequences; they are not to be blithely begun like its fun and easy.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/03212008/profile.html
The most striking excerpt I saw was the one where Tomas is watching video, from his wheelchair, of the White House Correspondents Dinner in which Bush jokingly looked around the podium and the stage for the lost WMD, saying, "I thought they were around here somewhere," to the wine-sipping, tuxedo-clad raucous laughter of the celebrity journalists in attendance. It's enough to make you want to throw your TV out the window.
With that, I'm signing off for the night.
-
One similarity between WWII and Iraq
I doubt anyone will disagree with me that military troops in WWII and those serving in the current war have both received overwhelming respect from the American public. In contrast Vietnam veterans were not and have not received the same respect. During Vietnam, there were far more deserters and conscientious objectors. When current active duty and ex-military protest like the group Iraq Veterans Against the War just did in Winter Soldier, they don’t get a lot of media attention, partly because of respect to those in the war zone.
While it would be easy to blame the M$M as we often and validly do for lack of sufficient attention to war protestors, the reason for lack of attention is partly because the all volunteer military has proven itself in the mind of the American public as essentially professional and worthy of respect. As a public affairs officer before and after Vietnam, that respect took time and hard work to rebuild. Draftees during Vietnam not only touched and excited the public, many also were very unhappy to serve and in many cases, rightfully so. Now when you have volunteered, you have no one to blame but yourself if you are ordered to a combat area. I wouldn’t want any military member who has to fight for our country even when directed by very misguided civilians to go through what are Vietnam veterans have, but the current respect and lack of a draft clearly makes protesting much harder.
-
Yes, William,
as a professional practitioner of logic I heartily agree. Logic is only an organon, as the Philosopher told us. And there are many shadings and nuances in the symbolic forms of human rationality (see Ernst Cassirer for the details, or even, if I may be so bold, a book I wrote, called "Vico's Axioms: The Geometry of the Human World."
-
@Jkalos
The problem with having the Owl of Minerva flapping its wings over the middle east is that someone will probably shoot it. I propose minimizing our losses with a turkey vulture. We have many we could volunteer here in California, we often get a hundred or so fighting over a single calf afterbirth. Maybe also substitute Ann Coulter for Minerva too -- same 'second string' philosophy.
In all seriousness, one does not have to have finality to argue a superlative, if the measuring points are being passed one by one. As soon as you have passed the last one, you have the proof, regardless of what the eventual outcome will be.