Let me finally return to Dwight Macdonald and the responsibility of intellectuals. Macdonald quotes an interview with a death-camp paymaster who burst into tears when told that the Russians would hang him. "Why should they? What have I done?" he asked. Macdonald concludes: "Only those who are willing to resist authority themselves when it conflicts too intolerably with their personal moral code, only they have the right to condemn the death-camp paymaster." The question, "What have I done?" is one that we may well ask ourselves, as we read each day of fresh atrocities in Vietnam—as we create, or mouth, or tolerate the deceptions that will be used to justify the next defense of freedom.
If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.- I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Thoughts? — ssu
Thoughts? — ssu
Lousy me for this. Hope the answers to your comments make this more clear.Wait. What is the thesis of the initial post? I can't figure out what you want us to focus on/address. — Terrapin Station
This is part of it, Tiff. Now it's understandable for Americans to focus on the actions of their country, but what I'm arguing is that it goes beyond that. As I stated, it's good to be critical about policies of one's government. Yet just being critical, not seeing any things positive, creates a serious bias. Also, when the starting point is "How has the US made things worse on this or that issue / country?" gives likely a negative US centric answer. This naturally opens the doors for a guilt syndrome. Why I picked as an example Noam Chomsky is because he at least is very consistent and quite open about his agenda. For example this video below tells it well what I tried to portray in the OP:My initial thought from what you posted is that unless the West is involved, often times if the US isn't involved, conflicts go unnoticed or under noticed. I am not sure if that is what you are saying but maybe you can expand on your thought. — ArguingWAristotleTiff
If we only could. The present day discourse goes against this. Because if you say that we are all equally guilty, equally innocent, you are actually sexist or racist etc.So let's drop the obsession with sexism, racism, imperialism, nationalism, and all that. We are all about equally guilty, and equally innocent. — Bitter Crank
It doesn't entail that, but it does have a big effect on the discourse. The thing is that unlike with the effects of Leather working, where the topic and perspective are quite narrowly defined, the discourse here is general.But the existence of narratives of western responsibility (especially when put in the service of determining one's own responsibilties as westerners) does not entail that those who create or consume such narratives must necessarily discount other narratives. — csalisbury
"It is the responsobility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies" — ssu
if you say that we are all equally guilty, equally innocent, you are actually sexist or racist etc. — ssu
Me neither. In fact it seems even the racists have let go of the idea of whites being so superior to Asians, which is telling (and amusing). Yet it feels like that above definition of racism, the way I interpret it also, is being replaced with a broader or another definition. Perhaps as a justification to seeing abundant racism when the old-school late 19th - early 20th Century ideas of white supremacy are quite dead.I do not think one race is superior to another, or even much different. — Bitter Crank
Chomsky doesn't even hide this.It would seem that it must be Chomsky himself who would be the top intellectual, which should come as no surprise. — Hanover
As Πετροκότσυφας pointed out, the definition of the West is quite vague and hence the question of it being shameful or not overall is a quite confusing question. Yet the stands taken by the political field here, even if a bit stereotypical, are how you define it. The sad thing is that when there is this kind of division along the political fault lines, people think that you are making a political statement when discussing the issue. Or worse, just reurgitating what the talking heads on your side have poured in your head.The bigger question is whether the West has been overall shameful in its behaviors. The predominant liberal view is that it has, despite the view of the right that says it has not. The left is thought of as apologetic and therefore understanding and the right unapologetic and therefore stubborn. — Hanover
It's just politically motivated rhetoric. — Πετροκότσυφας
What do you mean by this? And how has Andorra exported it's trauma?I think every “nation,” or otherwise arbitrary geographic delineation, is guilty of exporting it’s trauma to gain immediate benefits. — I like sushi
Are they in this case? Just take South Korea and America. How many American see it as a positive outcome that South Korea survived and then accept responsibility of the positive outcome? When put like this, few might disagree (and assume the Koreans would be better off with the whole Korean Peninsula under the juche-ideology). However this isn't the point. How many talk of this?We know that humans are all too willing to accept responsibility for positive outcomes (even when they did literally nothing) — I like sushi
The hubris is in self-declaring one's self an intellectual, suggesting one belongs in the court of philosopher kings. It is at the heart of liberal elitism, and it forms the core of the left/right polarization. Who is the intellectual in Chomsky's view? I'd suggest it's Obama and not Trump, despite Trump hardly being an intellectual light weight. It's hard to read that without laughing isn't it, it being so ingrained in us that the right and its leadership is thought to either be composed of simpletons or those puppeteers manipulating simpletons.
So, per Chomsky, the duty then is shifted upon those who know better, not the simpletons, not the manipulators, but those even tempered, well educated, well informed academics whose wisdom should guide us. It would seem that it must be Chomsky himself who would be the top intellectual, which should come as no surprise. — Hanover
Are they in this case? Just take South Korea and America. How many American see it as a positive outcome that South Korea survived and then accept responsibility of the positive outcome? When put like this, few might disagree (and assume the Koreans would be better off with the whole Korean Peninsula under the juche-ideology). However this isn't the point. How many talk of this? — ssu
I'll take an example of NATO enlargement. One dominant narrative is that Russia was weak, Clinton wanted votes of those with East European ancestry and didn't think that Russia would ever be a problem. The points are true, how this nice US centric narrative forgets totally the other countries involved: the countries wanting to join NATO and the other NATO countries. For example with the Baltic States, the US (and actually the UK) approached behind closed doors Sweden and Finland first if our countries could give security guarantees for the newly independent again Baltic states. Our answer was "HELL NO!!!" and both countries were genuinely happy that the Baltic states did join NATO. — ssu
But maybe you don't like Buckley either? — csalisbury
I have a strong feeling ithat you'll adjust to whatever the circumstances are, so long as you can can maintain a no-nonsense persona. — csalisbury
You have ideas, but you're content to bracket them, in order to get a rise. Racy joke --> the lesser sense of humor of others --> self-identity, and political ideas confirmed. There's something to that. But there are others as well-rounded as you, and they're not all dry, sardonic trumpians. — csalisbury
tldr: you're playing on an old 'smart 'experts'' vs 'honest, realistic americans' trope, even if you would balk at that trope put so baldly. And you're making that trope align with the liberals vs conservatives dichotomy, even though that isn't accurate, and would give most traditional conservatives minor seizures. — csalisbury
Well, it goes to the narrative of how NATO enlargement is explained. Was it an example of American hegemonic expansionist imperialism or had it something to do with the countries (and former Soviet states) that had been occupied by the Soviet Union not trusting Russia? Or more clearly: do you think that the war in Ukraine can be blaimed on the US? And if not fully, at least partly? That's the guilt hubris I refer to.I admit, I'm probably missing something due to my own historical ignorance, but I don't understand the relevance of that to what we were talking about. — csalisbury
Lol. Indeed we Europeans can be confusing to Americans. Our right wing conservatives might seem not even to be RINOs, but some centrist Democrats if not pure pinko-liberals.ssu, who seems aligned with me (and typically he's very much not, so I'm trying to get use to this) is Finnish, a progressively liberal Scandinavian country — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.