This is not a blog it's a list. You are not a lone voice. Peirce himself said. "Nor must any synechist say, 'I am altogether myself, and not at all you.' If you embrace synechism, you must abjure this metaphysics of wickedness. In the first place, your neighbors are, in a measure, yourself, and in far greater measure than, without deep studies in psychology, you would believe. Really, the selfhood you like to attribute to yourself is, for the most part, the vulgarist delusion of vanity."
*@stephencrose <https://twitter.com/stephencrose>* On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Edwina Taborsky <tabor...@primus.ca> wrote: > Well, I don't know if this blog is the place to debate the values of war > versus no-war, and I know I'm almost a lone voice among a blog that seems > heavily slanted towards 'the left' ideologies which to me, are always > utopian rather than pragmatic, but I'm certainly not a pacifist. That's > because I support the rule of law versus the rule of thugs. > > Phyllis, I don't think that your dandelion analogy can really be compared > with fascist and fundamentalist ideologies. You seem to be saying that > rather than confronting them and denying their legitimacy, one should 'just > leave them alone'. The problem is, that this moves to the Rule of Thugs. > Dandelions can be far more powerful and invasive than grass. Now, does > grass have any 'rights to life'? Or is it just 'whichever is more > powerful'? > > The interesting thing is that nature doesn't function by 'whichever is > more powerful. Naturally, those dandelions would be eaten by browsing > herbivores, supplying a certain amount of protein and other minerals. > > I feel that fundamentalist ideologies - if they keep their ideologies and > actions confined to themselves - well, I'd agree with 'who cares'. But when > their ideology includes as a basic axiom, the actual necessity to kill > others, to enforce their beliefs and way of life on others - well, I think > that the State and humanity - have the duty, moral as well as legal, to > step in and stop them. Otherwise - it's 'rule by thugs'. > > The Taliban and their fundamentalist ideology were far greater in power > than the people of Afghanistan. Should such a regime - with its stoning of > women, its refusal to allow education, be allowed to do this? > > Should ISIS - with its crucifixions, beheadings, stonings, mass slaughter, > openly stated agenda of taking over villages and towns and forcing people > into fundamentalism - should it be allowed to continue to do this to people > who simply don't have the strength to defend themselves? > > I'm sure you've heard of the term of 'Just War' . There's a nice book by > Jean Bethke Elshtain (who also wrote a superb book on 'Sovereignty: God, > State and Self). The book is 'Just War Against Terror: The burden of > American power in a violent world'. > > She refers to Camus' The Plague, where people refuse to see evil; they > have simply banished the word 'evil ' from their vocabularies. (Heh, rather > similar to renaming terrorism to 'man-caused disasters'; or 'work-place > violence' or calling ISIS 'just JV players'). But evil exists and we can't > hide from it. > > Taking over a population by ruthless force, dictated by an ideology of > biological or religious or ideological racism, i.e., exclusionary - and > repressing by force, expelling, murdering anyone who does not submit to > this ideology...I don't think that pacifism is the moral response to such > thuggish behaviour. > > Edwina > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Phyllis Chiasson <ath...@olympus.net> > *To:* Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> ; Eugene Halton > <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu> > *Cc:* Peirce List <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> > *Sent:* Monday, October 13, 2014 2:19 AM > *Subject:* [PEIRCE-L] Re: PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less" > > > Main > > Benign neglect was a policy proposed in 1969 by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, > who was at the time on Nixon's White House Staff as an urban affairs > adviser. > > I see the problem of wars in the way I see the problem of dandelions. I > admit that I feel a sort of visceral hatred of dandelions. I want them gone > from my life. Several years ago I began a campaign to extract them from the > yard. I was not allowed to use chemicals, as neither my husband nor i > support the use of chemical pesticides or herbicides. > > So, I bought a nifty little dandelion extractor and began pulling them out > by the roots. For a short time (very short considering all my efforts) I > had a dandelion free yard. Then POW! A plethora of dandelions. I tried a > new approach, a weed burner, guaranteed to work. And it did work, but not > as I wanted; weed burning resulted in even more dandelions than before. I > tried an all organic herbicide, but without any luck at all. We vetoed > salt, as that would kill the grass too. > > It was around that time of the salt discussion that Hal pointed out to me > that the empty lot next door to us was practically dandelion free. Someone > comes around every year with a big mower to keep the grass down and that is > the sum total of gardening work on that lot. > > Of course, it did not require a degree in horticulture for me to > understand what i had been doing by means of my exertions. I had been > preparing the soil for to receive and sprout ever more of the very things > that i didn't want. (Yes, i know dandelions have herbal and medicinal uses; > I have even read Ray Bradbury's book, Dandelion Wine, several times.) > > However, I still think there is a big connection between my attempts to > eradicate dandelions and our country's attempt to eradicate radical Muslim > organizations. We are just preparing the ground for more dandelions, only > in this case, dandelions with bombs and rocket launchers. So, to me, the > most problematic effect of our military/industrial/congressional complex is > that they just keep tilling the soil to encourage more and more dandelions > to take root. > > Based on intentions measured against results, which I see as the essence > of pragmatism, we are not really eradicating ISIS; we are recruiting for > them. We have prepared the soil by previous wars and skirmishes and every > time a drone hit produces collateral damage we are blowing fluffy dandelion > seeds to take root all over the world. > > I don't have THE solution; but I do think it resides in Retroduction, not > just in pragmatism. > > > Gary Richmond <gary.richm...@gmail.com> wrote: > Gene Halton wrote: > > I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito > and Gary R's claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided and > yet you continue, Gene, that "Mumford's allowance of the emotions was > closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks's understanding of > "pragmatism," whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow." So which > is it Gene? Did Joseph and I perhaps get a sense of Brooks' shallowness as > you termed it? Our "take" was certainly more about Brooks than Mumford. > > > I thought I made it quite clear that I have been "generally" quite > sympathetic to Mumford's arguments (one of the reasons why I posted the > group of quotations of his which I did), but, again, I found, as did you, > "Brooks's understanding of 'pragmatism' . . . .shallow." So Joseph and I > agree with you at least in that. > > > It is possible that when I read your book *Bereft of Reason* a few years > ago I may have concentrated too heavily on such lines as the one you just > quoted regarding the USA's involved in the WW2 that "Perhaps American > involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic complex and > McCarthyism after the war. . ." > > > Now, am I so "uniformed and misguided" if indeed our involvement in WW2 > perhaps led, as you wrote, "to the military-industrial-academic complex" > (Truman was strongly advised to leave out the third term of that diabolical > triad, btw, which was NOT "academic" but "Congressional")? And what have we > now in American and, indeed, global 'culture' but precisely the > military-industrial-congressional complex writ large: the *military-global > corporate--governments-corrupted-by-power-and-money complex*? And the > women and children still suffer, as Camus wrote. Thanks for all those "good > wars," those "wars to end all wars," etc., etc., etc., etc. > > > Your modifying the last passage from your book which I quoted above with > "perhaps" suggests to me that even you too may have some reservations about > how throwing millions of American military lives into the WW2 fodder (and > the Korean War fodder, and the Vietnam War fodder, and the Iraq wars > fodder, and the Afghanistan fodder, and, and, and--who knows what the > future may bring in the way of human fodder offered to the war machine?), > that these wars may have proved historically, at least, *problematic,* > especially given the fact that those resolved nothing, and that we have > been and are still slaughtering children and young men and women and old > men and women in battle, soldiers and civilians send to there deaths for. . > .. what values?--to what end? (certainly in this sense at least, I > completely agree with Dewey and Tori Alexander, most recently, that there > is a case to be made for pacifism). > > > So to my way of thinking--after all the Brooks' nonsense is cleared > away--it's not just a black and white issue that Mumford was completely > correct and Dewey completely wrong, say. And, btw, I consider myself > considerably less "uniformed and misguided" than you present me, and Joseph > Esposito, whom I greatly respect, as being. I doubt that you or anyone has > all the answers to the question of war and peace. > > > Best, > > > Gary > > > > > *Gary Richmond* > *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* > *Communication Studies* > *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* > *C 745* > *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* > > On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Eugene Halton <eugene.w.halto...@nd.edu> > wrote: > >> I read David Brooks' piece in the New York Times, and have had a long >> term interest in pragmatism and in the work of Lewis Mumford. I actually >> discuss Mumford's essay described by Brooks in my book,* Bereft of >> Reason*, on page 147 forward. >> >> I find the both the letter to the New York Times from Joseph Esposito and >> Gary R's claim that Brooks misused Mumford uninformed and misguided, and >> Helmut's claim that Mumford's position is close to ISIS to be amazingly >> thoughtless, 180 degrees from the truth, missing Mumford's point in this >> context being described that living for immediate pleasure gratification >> regardless of purpose is wrong. In my opinion Mumford's position regarding >> intervention against Nazi Germany was correct and Dewey's at the time >> before World War II was incorrect. Mumford's allowance of the emotions was >> closer to Peirce's outlook, and in that sense Brooks's understanding of >> "pragmatism," whatever he meant by using the term, was shallow. And the >> term Mumford was using was "pragmatic liberalism." >> >> Ironically, by the very same logic, Mumford came to condemn the United >> States' use of the atomic bomb at the end of World War II, and became a >> critic of the US military megamachine and political megamachine, and turned >> against the Vietnam War by 1965-6, one year after he had received the >> Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Lyndon Johnson. I would like >> to see what conservative David Brooks would do with that. >> I have quoted some excerpts from my chapter in *Bereft of >> Reason*, on "Lewis Mumford's Organic World-View" below. >> >> Gene >> >> >> >> excerpt from *Bereft of Reason*: "The second confrontation with Dewey >> and pragmatism occurred on the eve of World War Two, and concerned what >> Mumford termed "The Corruption of Liberalism." Mumford believed that >> fascism would not listen to reasonable talk and could not be appeased, and >> urged strong measures as early as 1935 against Hitler and in support of >> European nations which might be attacked by Hitler. By 1938 he urged in *The >> New Republic* that the United States "Strike first against fascism; and >> strike hard, but strike." His militant position was widely attacked by >> the left, and he lost a number of friends in the process, including Frank >> Lloyd Wright, Van Wyck Brooks, Charles Beard, and Malcolm Cowley among >> others. >> >> To give an idea of the opinions and climate of the prewar debate, just >> consider the titles of commentaries published in the March, 1939 issue of >> *Common >> Sense* on the question "If War Comes--Shall We Participate or be >> Neutral?": >> >> Bertrand Russell, "The Case for U.S. Neutrality;" Max Lerner, "`Economic >> Force' May Be Enough;" Charles A. Beard, "America Cannot 'Save' Europe;" >> John T. Flynn, "Nothing Less Than a Crime;" and Harry Elmer Barnes, "A War >> for 'Tory Finance'?". Dewey's contribution was titled, "No Matter What >> Happens--Stay Out," and it could not have been more opposed to Mumford's >> piece, "Fascism is Worse than War." Mumford believed that the inability of >> the left to see that rational persuasion and appeasement were inadequate to >> stem Hitler's Hell-bound ambition indicated a corruption in the tradition >> of what Mumford called "pragmatic liberalism." The fatal error of >> pragmatic liberalism was its gutless intellectualism, its endorsement of >> emotional neutrality as a basis for objectivity, which he characterized as >> "the dread of the emotions." He illustrated why the emotions ought to play >> a significant part in rational decisions with an example of encountering a >> poisonous snake: "If one meets a poisonous snake on one's path, two things >> are important for a *rational* reaction. One is to identify it, and not >> make the error of assuming that a copperhead is a harmless adder. The other >> is to have a prompt emotion of fear, if the snake *is* poisonous; for >> fear starts the flow of adren[al]in into the blood-stream, and that will >> not merely put the organism as a whole on the alert, but it will give it >> the extra strength needed either to run away or to attack. Merely to look >> at the snake abstractedly, without identifying it and without sensing >> danger and experiencing fear, may lead to the highly irrational step of >> permitting the snake to draw near without being on one's guard against his >> bite." Emotions, as this example makes clear, are not the opposite of the >> rational in the conduct of life, and therefore should not be neutralized in >> order for rational judgments to be made. The emotion of fear in this >> example is a non-rational inference which provides a means for feeling >> one's way in a problematic situation to a rational reaction before the >> rationale becomes conscious... >> >> ... In my opinion Dewey's concept that the "context of situation" should >> provide the ground for social inquiries remains an important antidote to >> empty formalism and blind empiricism. Yet the clearest evidence of its >> shortcomings in the practice of life was Dewey's belief on the eve of World >> War II that the United States should stay out of the impending war against >> Nazi Germany, because it did not involve the American situation. As he put >> it in 1939, "If we but made up our minds that it is not inevitable, and if >> we now set ourselves deliberately to seeing that no matter what happens we >> stay out, we shall save this country from the greatest social catastrophe >> that could overtake us, the destruction of all the foundations upon which >> to erect a socialized democracy." Dewey criticized the idea that >> American involvement was "inevitable" while simultaneously assuming such >> participation would somehow produce inevitable results. >> >> Perhaps American involvement did lead to the military-industrial-academic >> complex and McCarthyism after the war--though the former would likely have >> emerged in any case--but Dewey's localism blinded him to the fact that >> Western and World civilization were being subjected to a barbaric assault, >> an assault from fascism and from within, which would not listen to verbal >> reasoning. By ignoring the question of civilization as a legitimate broader >> context of the situation and the possibility that the unreasonable forces >> unleashed in Hitler's totalitarian ambitions could not be avoided >> indefinitely, Dewey was unable to see the larger unfolding dynamic of the >> twentieth-century, and was led to a false conclusion concerning American >> intervention which only the brute facts of Pearl Harbor could change. >> >> Was Mumford the reactionary that the pre-war left attacked him for being? >> Consider that by the end of World War two Mumford was attacking the allies' >> adoption of Nazi saturation bombing, both in the firebombing of Dresden and >> in the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He decried the fall of >> military standards and limits in the deliberate targeting of civilians. >> Mumford was among the earliest proponents of nuclear disarmament, having >> written an essay on the nuclear bomb within a month of the bombing of >> Hiroshima and a book within a year, as well as helping to organize the >> first nuclear disarmament movement. He was an early critic of the Vietnam >> War, expressing opinions publicly in 1965 which again cost him friendships. >> Mumford's last scholarly book, *The Pentagon of Power* (1970) was, among >> other things, a fierce attack on the antidemocratic >> military-industrial-academic establishment." >> >> Eugene Halton, *Bereft of Reason*, University of Chicago Press, 1995, >> pp147f. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Helmut Raulien <h.raul...@gmx.de> >> wrote: >> >>> My post was a bit polemic, because I was mad at Mumfords neglection >>> of the value of life and that he called that "universalism". And I was >>> indeed thinking of the nazis. I think, a culture that is not based on the >>> value of life is not universalist, but the opposite: Particularist. >>> Universalism for me is eg. Kants categorical imperative, and Kants other >>> imperative, that humans (so also human life) should be treated as aims, not >>> as means. And scientists like Kohlberg and pragmatists like Peirce were >>> scolars of Kant. So my conclusion was, that, when someone is attacking >>> scientists and pragmatists, his "universalism" is in fact particularism. >>> And his concept of "culture" too, because for him, culture is not based on >>> the value of life, but vice versa. But I was refering to a quote out of its >>> context, maybe. >>> Best, >>> Helmut >>> >>> "Gary Richmond" <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>> >>> Ben, Helmut, Stephen, list, >>> >>> I certainly won't defend Brooks because I think he misuses Mumford. and >>> even in the choice of this early material taken out of context, to support >>> his argument *contra* Pragmatism in the article cited. I have always >>> had a generally positive take on Mumford's ideas, although I don't believe >>> I have ever read an entire book by him. >>> >>> This evening as I browsed through a selection of quotations from his >>> books I found more which resonated positively with me than did not--which >>> is not to say that I agree with him in each of the ideas expressed. Still, >>> some of his ideas do not seem opposed to philosophical pragmatism, although >>> his critical purposes aren't much attuned to it, at least as I see it at >>> the moment. >>> See: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Lewis_Mumford >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Gary >>> >>> >>> *Gary Richmond* >>> *Philosophy and Critical Thinking* >>> *Communication Studies* >>> *LaGuardia College of the City University of New York* >>> *C 745* >>> *718 482-5690 <718%20482-5690>* >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Benjamin Udell <bud...@nyc.rr.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Helmut, list, >>>> >>>> I seldom am inclined to defend Brooks. I haven't read Mumford, although >>>> I have somewhere his book on Melville that I meant to read. For what it's >>>> worth, I'll point out that Mumford wrote the Brooks-quoted remark in 1940, >>>> when the horrors of WWII had not fully unfolded yet. Maybe he never backed >>>> down from it, I don't know. In a box somewhere I have another book that I >>>> meant to read, about how in the Nazi death camps sheer survival, fighting >>>> just to live, became a kind of heroism. The higher ideals ought to serve >>>> life, not tell it that it's full of crap, only to replace the crap with >>>> other crap, a.k.a. brainwashing and Mobilization (quick flash of Pink >>>> Floyd's marching hammers). "They want politics and think it will save them. >>>> At best, it gives direction to their numbed desires. But there is no >>>> politics but the manipulation of power through language. Thus the latter's >>>> constant debasement." - Gilbert Sorrentino in _Splendide-Hôtel_. >>>> >>>> Best, Ben >>>> >>>> On 10/11/2014 5:41 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi! I think, that Mumford, to whom Brooks refers, is quite close to >>>> the Isis: ""Life is not worth fighting for: bare life is worthless. >>>> Justice is worth fighting for, order is worth fighting for, culture ... .is >>>> worth fighting for: These universal principles and values give purpose and >>>> direction to human life." That could be from an islamist hate-preaching: >>>> Your life is worthless, so be a suicide bomber and go to universalist(?) >>>> heaven. Brooks and Mumford are moral zealots and relativists who project >>>> that on the people who have deserved it the least. They intuitively know >>>> that they havent understood anything, the least the concept of >>>> universalism, and bark against those who have, because they are jealous. >>>> >>>> *Gesendet:* Samstag, 11. Oktober 2014 um 20:38 Uhr >>>> *Von:* "Gary Richmond" <gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>>> <http://gary.richm...@gmail.com> >>>> *An:* Peirce-L <peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>>> <http://peirce-l@list.iupui.edu> >>>> *Betreff:* [PEIRCE-L] "More Pragmatism, Not Less" >>>> List, >>>> >>>> Joseph Esposito responded to David Brooks' Oct.3 New York Times column, >>>> "The Problem with Pragmatism," with this letter to the editor today. >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/11/opinion/more-pragmatism-not-less.html?ref=opinion >>>> >>>> >>>> To the Editor: >>>> >>>> David Brooks paints an all too convenient caricature of American >>>> pragmatism ("The Problem With Pragmatism >>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D>," >>>> column, Oct. 3). Even the slightest reading of Charles Peirce, William >>>> James, John Dewey and Sidney Hook will reveal pragmatists who were >>>> passionate about values as well as the means of realizing them in enduring >>>> democratic social institutions. >>>> >>>> The problem the United States confronts in the Middle East is not >>>> paralysis or doubt but the adherence to many years of contradictory and >>>> self-defeating values and policies that will make matters worse. What is >>>> needed is more pragmatism, not less. >>>> >>>> JOSEPH L. ESPOSITO >>>> Tucson, Oct. 4, 2014 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *The writer is a lawyer, philosopher and former student of Sidney Hook.* >>>> >>>> Brooks >>>> ' article, >>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/03/opinion/david-brooks-the-problem-with-pragmatism.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Ar%2C%7B%221%22%3A%22RI%3A10%22%7D >>>> which quotes heavily from some of Lewis Mumford's critiques of Liberalism, >>>> may have a different kind of Pragmatism in mind than that which Esposito >>>> points to, perhaps what Susan Haack in *Evidence and Inquiry* terms >>>> "vulgar Pragmatism" >>>> (182-202) by which she means especially Richard Rorty's version. >>>> >>>> Apropos of the theme Brooks takes up, near the end of the chapter >>>> "Vulgar Pragmatism: An Unedifying Prospect," she quotes Peirce as writing: >>>> ". . . if I should ever tackle that excessively difficult problem, 'What is >>>> for the true interest of society?' I should feel that I stood in need of a >>>> great deal of help from the science of legitimate inferences. . ." ( >>>> op. cit. >>>> 201). Here, as everywhere, Peirce shows himself to be essentially a >>>> logician. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Gary >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ----------------------------- >> PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON >> PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to >> peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L >> but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the >> BODY of the message. More at >> http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm . >> >> >> >> >> >> > ------------------------------ > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > > > ----------------------------- > PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON > PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to > peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L > but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the > BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm > . > > > > > >
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
