Tom, yes, this is the kind of thing where I speak of rephrasing. Fresh
from a first reading of 3/4 of the thesis, my impression was that Ben N.
was attributing more originality to Hitler than seems established. Still
I think Ben N. is on to something. Mainstream German politicians were
offering practical programs, while Hitler was offering a Big Explanation
of Everything and avoiding proposing solutions to particular problems.
Best, Ben U.
On 7/9/2015 11:15 PM, Ozzie wrote:
Ben ~
Thanks for your helpful summary ("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 ...")
Both for sport and to attain positions of leadership, Greek orators at
the time of the Peloponnesian Wars invited the general public to form,
accept and act on abducted hypotheses. The logical tales spun by
Hitler were based upon resentment, which places him among the demagogues.
Regards -
Tom Wyrick
On Jul 9, 2015, at 8:37 PM, Benjamin Udell wrote:
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 .
