Edwina, Ben N., list,
I've been reading the online version of Ben N.'s thesis. I found that I
could not save it to my computer without first opening it online, and in
order to save it computer, one has to move one's mouse over some buttons
in the upper right-hand corner of the view pane till a little tool tip
says "Download". I'm convinced that visual design of computer programs
these days is largely done by sadists.
Anyway, I've been reading it, it's two PDFs, and I'm half-way through
the second one. It really is very readable, and that involvement of
Hitler does add a certain electric current to the discussion of
abductive inference. It's not a labor to read, and it's quite
interesting. There are a number of technical errors (as Ben N. warns)
evident to a Peirce scholar, but these can be corrected without damaging
the thesis.
In response to Edwina, I'd say that Ben N. does not present Hitler's
rise as having a magical or mystical element, rather a mysterious
element that requires explanation. He makes a case that many scholars
think that there are some very difficult questions as to who Hitler was
and how did he get so far. I'm no historian and hadn't read a book on
Hitler since I was a teenager. So far, I'd say that the case is not made
clear enough to the general reader that Hitler didn't just get lucky in
the sense that some party had to come out on top or, in the classic
formulation, "somebody has to be the king of France." Ben N. outlines
some argument that luck wasn't such a big part of it, but it's not clear
to me yet. On the other hand, I don't think that Ben N. is relying on a
"Great Men" theory of history - he says that Hitler might have made very
little difference in other times and circumstances.
Insofar as everybody uses abductive inference, Ben N. perhaps doesn't
bring out clearly enough the difference between Hitler's use of it and
others' use of it, instead he talks about how Hitler was the first
leader to use it. I think I know what Ben N. is getting at, but I'd
phrase it more carefully. Ben N. is saying that Hitler was the first
leader to invite the public to follow a pattern of abductive inference
like in a detective story (Who Murdered Germany?), and that Hitler
relied for credibility on the justificatory plausibility and complex
cohesion of an untested hypothesis that would take a long time to
verify. Well, there's more to it, which it would be foolish of me to try
to summarize. I'd ask, is Ben N. so sure that Hitler was the first such
leader? Many other regimes have 'explanations' that they give to their
people, sometimes involving the idea of hidden forces behind events.
Anyway, I'm enjoying reading it. One can certainly say that Ben Novak
has made a serious effort, deserving of more attention than what some
rather pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey stuff has received occasionally on
peirce-l.
Best, Ben
On 7/9/2015 7:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Ben, I'm going to disagree with your view that in order to discuss the
basic issue of your book, namely, your attempt to correlate the rise
of Hitler with abductive logic - that it requires that we either buy
your book or read it.
I think that on a Peirce-list, the members ought to have a reasonable
reading knowledge of Peirce's works, but I don't think that a research
topic dealt with by a member requires that members of this list read
that member's work. My view is that it is incumbent on YOU, to provide
members with a reasonably thorough precis of the salient points of
your argument.
With regard to the points you have so far provided, my concern is that
you seem to be trying to imbue Hitler's rise to power with some
'magical' or mystical element.
For example, you claim that when his party took power, German politics
consisted of 28 parties - why was Hitler's dominant? In Canada, at the
federal level, there are 26 political parties - and there is nothing
particularly magical or surprising that only three are dominant. There
are about 30 minor political parties in the US. Only two-three are
dominant.
Second, my concern is your method of explaining this history. You seem
to be using what is known as the 'Great Man Theory' of historical
analysis, which examines history by focusing on the charisma or
whatever of some singular causal individual. I consider this a weak
analytic frame; I prefer the 'long duree' framework of the 'Annales'
school (eg, Braudel), which considers infrastructural causality such
as the population size, economic mode, technological capacity, trade
relations etc...rather than individuals.
As for fascism, it is an ideology of the mind, i.e., it is not rooted
in pragmatic reality but in a notion of utopian purity of the past,
such that 'if only we returned to that pure mode', then, all would be
well. It is now rampant in the Al Qaeda (from the 19th c!) and ISIS of
the MENA. There are, I maintain, population and economic reasons for
the refusal of these populations and governments to deal with the
pragmatic problems of the area and the resultant retreat into fascism.
Same with Germany of the 1930s. And, once an infrastructure is set up,
e,g, National Socialism's Third Reich, it is extremely difficult to
move out of the rhetoric and back down to hard reality. That requires
an external intervention. Certainly, internally, some tried to stop
Hitler -
As for Hitler being logical - what??? I think some examples would be
helpful. His behaviour around Stalingrad was hardly logical.
Is the popularity of various cult figures, of wealthy preachers, of
due to their being logical? Or for some other reason(s)?
What is abductive about Hitler's 'reasoning'?
Again, my view - and I say it is my view - is that the onus for
explanation of a topic is not to have readers buy your book or read it
online, but for you to explain key points to us - and then, explain
why you align it with Peircean theory.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Ben Novak <mailto:[email protected]>
*To:* Stephen Jarosek <mailto:[email protected]>
*Cc:* Stephen C. Rose <mailto:[email protected]> ; Peirce List
<mailto:[email protected]>
*Sent:* Thursday, July 09, 2015 5:12 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
