On Aug 25, 2004, at 7:48 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
Reports had filtered out earlier, IIRC, though I don't think they'd been given much credence.
There is documented skepticism about the "whining of the Jews" concerning
them being targeted by the Nazis.
Whoops, I think that's what I was thinking of; but that doesn't exactly amount to general disgust, does it? (Quite the opposite, sigh.) My mistake. I'm not sure how I got the idea that the death camps were known outside Nazi borders ... maybe I was thinking prewar, with Hitler's endless rhetoric.
Its fairly well established
Among the brass, certainly -- I was referring to the people in the trenches and the civilians left behind.
Among those folks too. That is fairly well established, as Gautam has shown here.
I must have missed that discussion.
That sounds like arguing what happened must have been inevitable.
I think it was inevitable, yes.
But, if the US didn't exist as a powerful unified country, then things would have been much different.
I should have clarified. In the absence of a competing, nontotalitarian system, the Nazis might have done fairly well for themselves. But because there were nations that resisted them, and because there were dawning superpowers capable of rallying against the Nazi depredations, the fall of the Nazi regime was inevitable. (Or so I think.)
That existance is dependant on the North winning the Civil War. If Lincoln was not a singular talent; the North would probably not have won.
Possibly. It's interesting to reorder history like that and see where the dominoes topple, isn't it? I like your take on this, that in a surprising way the US Civil War, had its outcome been different, might have changed the entire political face of the Twentieth Century. It's an intriguing suggestion.
After WWII, you mean? No -- presumably the USSR would have been
carrying on a long war of attrition with the Nazis, but there were
really two major powers at work on the side of belligerence. I think
the major players would have eventually been whomever won the Nazi/USSR
standoff, and Japan/Asia. (The USSR could very well have won the
European conflict, I think.)
And none of them were
[systems that promoted liberty.]
Yes, but again, in the absence of a competing non-liberty-centric system it's easy for dictatorships to thrive. There's no alternative, and there's little to no opportunity for an alternative to develop.
But, that is a very suspect arguement. Very unethical systems have suceeded for centuries.
That's true but it doesn't make my way of judging which systems are ethically preferable "suspect". In the absence of competition, a given social system might very well persist for centuries, whether it's relatively more or less ethical.
But, what about more ethical systems being destroyed by less ethical systems?
As with Tibet's crisis? What about it? If a less ethical system is more powerful, that means only that it's likely to bully its way to ascendancy. However I'd argue that its inferiority is demonstrated by the fact that it is such a bully system ... power doesn't mean it's better, any more than failure necessarily indicates worse. (As you might guess I'm not judging good versus bad based on success or failure; or at least not automatically.)
At the present time, the US is the lone superpower, so it appears that our system is inevitably the best.
Not to me. Actually I liked the model the ancient Greeks were toying with, on and off, for a while (if my recollection of Hellenic history is any good, which it might or might not be). The system we have in place is possibly one of the better available, but I think other modern cultures have quite a lot to offer as well, and would like seeing some of their elements added to ours. (As an example the sociosexual mores of Thai culture, which isn't hung up on definitions like gay or straight.)
25 years ago, many bright people thought the the triumph of Communism was an inevitable result of the historical dielectic in action.
I bet they wanted to think it was inevitable, but deep down knew (or suspected) better. Communism wants (needs?) humans to be high-minded, hardworking and *honest*, not self-centered, opportunistic and devious. Unfortunately humans are not all that good all the time, and in a system that is prone to failure if laziness and corruption reach a critical mass, the effects of human failings can become magnified.
So Perestroika and Glasnost and so on, and eventually Communism in Russia went away (for now!). The same will *probably* happen in China and North Korea, but I'll say again that it doesn't magically happen. There must be competition from other societies, if for no other reason than to get the oppressed thinking in terms of their own rights and liberties (as being at least as valid as those of the Great Leader).
OK, does free will exist. You know there is no experimental evidence for it.
As I said, I really don't know whether free will exists or not. I
believe it does, but if it doesn't then I have no choice but to believe
it does -- and since I believe it does, that means I believe
responsibility exists as well.
OK, why isn't this irrational? What makes a belief rational or irrational?
Evidence. I can test my view that free will exists; I can make decisions on my own. While I cannot prove that there isn't a deep, unknown force at work that's actually dictating everything I do and say, I can fall back on Occam's Razor and decide that my answer -- that free will exists, that I can make my own choices -- is simpler than the alternative -- that cosmic forces of universal scale have conspired to dictate every action I take *and in addition* have robbed me of any ability to know I am a puppet to the universe -- and is probably the correct one.
That is, I can demonstrate, as often as necessary, behavior that appears to be free choice. If I am wrong then the only way that is possible is the universe is somehow making me act as though there is free will, and unknowingly pretend that free will exists in order to demonstrate it. That strikes me as being quite unlikely.
Perhaps part of my belief in free will is romantic; and perhaps part of it is my (surprise!) anti-astrology tendencies. Saying that physics, chemistry or anything else is responsible for what I do and say smacks a little too much of blaming my bad day on Mars ascendant in Pisces or some such.
Therefore if someone I know does something baffling, strange or extraordinary, I'm more likely to be forgiving because I know that I don't always know myself, and it would be unfair, to say the least, of me to expect others to be perfect.
But, we don't expect forest fires to be perfect either. What is the difference?
The difference is (as you mentioned earlier with the puma) that forest fires are not volitional. I was only saying that I'm more inclined to cut others slack because of my own introspections.
Does that make sense and/or answer your question?
Yes/ no. :-)
Oh good. Half done is well begun. ;)
-- WthmO
This email is a work of fiction. Any similarity between its contents and any truth, entire or partial, is purely coincidental and should not be misconstrued.
--
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
