Ben Novak: 1) I have problems with your assertions/conclusions that, for example, ALL/or many feel an inability to understand Hitler, and assign his behaviour/actions to the zone of 'a mystery'. You wrote:
"historiographical perspective, i.e., the frustrations of historians at attempting to understand the rise of Hitler--and the uniqueness of their felt inability to understand him and what he did and how he did it. Attached is a 22-page compilation of quotations from historians and observers about the mystery Hitler presents." Yet, the sources I cited, which are well-known historians of fascism and the Third Reich, declare no such frustrations or failure-to-understand its emergence in Germany and Italy, and assign no mystery to Hitler's rise or actions. I feel that you are romanticizing Hitler by your insistence - which I dispute- that 'most historians' find him and his power incomprehensible. In addition, you seem to ignore the role of fascism, its nature, its emergence among the economic failures of the era, and its conflict with 'the other tactic' of communism that also developed in this era, to deal with the economic problems. 2) I also have problems with your assertion that 'Hitler may not have been the first to use adductive logic, he was the first to use it when there was a public familiarity with it, and a public receptivity for it. " Both these statements - of 'public familiarity and public receptivity' are unproven assumptions. Not everyone of the '30s was a Sherlock fan and there is no proof that the public - ie. the common man who listened to the public speeches of the politicians - was previously confined to inductive or deductive logic.. The abductive 'guess-a-hypothesis' as the reason for any problem is as old as mankind, and I claim that it is far more common in use than induction or deduction both of which require time, observation, thought and rational constraints. We can see abduction everywhere, whether it be Odysseus explaining that the gods were probably angry , or the guess-what-caused-this- plague, or why so-and-so is late or guessing that putting milk out for the fairies might solve the problem, or....coming up with a new herbal mixture to cure whatever. Do I think that abduction is the most common logic of today? Since it is the FIRST logical format, relying on unproven assumptions (which ought to be later proven but are not always done so)..then, it is the most common FIRST logic of mankind since day 1 - again, whether it be the !Kung San explaining a sudden illness as the anger of a recently dead person, ; or an AI researcher coming up with a tactic to get a computer to 'learn' or a lost person 'jumping to a conclusion' that this path is the right one. Induction and Deduction are 'post hoc' tactics to validate the hypothesis; neither of them innovate. But, all three are necessary. I wouldn't want to rely on abduction alone! But, each has their role. Certainly, among the authorities of a society - the hypotheses will be deductive, for these assumptions deal with what ought to be. Among the practical lower class, who must test the function of their own hypotheses (when to plant the wheat) - the hypotheses will be inductive, dealing with 'what is'. Abduction is innovation - and can't stand on its own or it becomes prejudice. 3) I tried to check your attachment - but it is very difficult to read on my computer. But cherry picking quotations as to SOME people's 'surprise' about Hitler's rise is not a strong argument to then conclude that the rise of Hitler and fascism in Germany is a surprise or 'mystery'. Such assertions are in themselves unproven statements (abductive!) and require empirical and logical validation. Furthermore, if fascism became dominant in Nazi Germany, then, why did it also become dominant in Italy? Was Mussolini also 'a mystery'? Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Ben Novak Cc: Benjamin Udell ; PEIRCE-L Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2015 12:52 PM Subject: Re: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic Dear Ben U: I see that the discussion is going in a very different direction than what I hoped for by introducing my book on this thread. However, I would like to engage with Ben Udell who has seriously attempted to engage with the book and lead the discussion back to matters of relevance to Peirce-L. Allow me to thank Ben U actually reading the dissertation; for his comments encouraging others to read the book; and for stressing its direct relevance to Peirce and the purpose of the Peirce-L discussion list. First, thanks for the complimentary comments: (Methological note: I put quotes from previous emails in red; quotes from other sources in blue) 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. 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. Ben N. is on to something. There's no requirement, only an invitation, for peirce-listers to read Ben N.'s book. I do like the idea that a thesis should be summarizable during an elevator ride but sometimes, for whatever one reason, such a summary isn't available. But the difficulty of reading at least some of the thesis is mainly computer-technical, the writing itself is very readable. Next, I thank Ben U for his comments relative to the relevance of the the work to Peirce scholars: I should add, just to be sure, that there is a significant amount of explicitly Peirce-related material in Ben N.'s book. To be clear, a good deal of the book consists in Ben N.'s explicit and detailed application of Peirce's theory of abductive inference (especially as outlined by Peirce in "The Logic of Drawing History from Ancient Documents, especially Testimonies") to facts of Hitler's life. That procedure makes the book particularly Peirce-related. Finally, since Ben U has been kind enough to read the book, I will gladly engage the critical questions he raises. His most important questions relate to whether any explanation at all is necessary, which he states this way: 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." Allow me to answer that from a historiographical perspective, i.e., the frustrations of historians at attempting to understand the rise of Hitler--and the uniqueness of their felt inability to understand him and what he did and how he did it. Attached is a 22-page compilation of quotations from historians and observers about the mystery Hitler presents. I urge you to peruse it. Hopefully it may convince you that, at least from the point of view of historians (if not laypeople,) the mystery of Hitler and especially his rise to power is huge and disturbing. I tried to discuss this in my first chapter, but could not reasonably include all the materials in this compilation. Now, it is only when one realizes the extent of the sense of mystery among historians that one can appreciate the task my dissertation study undertakes. For example, Robert G. L. Waite who writes: "My own approach about this matter can be simply stated. I welcome any methodological approach to Hitler that gives me a better understanding of him." If the identification of adductive logic is shown to help in any way to solve this problem, it would be a big event for Peirce scholars. Finally, I would like to respond especially to your expressed doubts as to whether Hitler is unique or in any way the first political leader to use adductive logic, which you raise this way: As to how unique Hitler was or wasn't in this, maybe I'll have more to say later. 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. You raise a good question that I did not address in my book, though I have given it considerable thought. The more complete answer is that while Hitler may not have been the first to use adductive logic, he was the first to use it when there was a public familiarity with it, and a public receptivity for it. It is difficult for us, particularly Peirceans, to recall how new the use of adductive logic is among the public. Peirce writes somewhere that each age is determined by its dominant form of logic. Abductive logic really entered the popular consciousness with the advent of Sherlock Holmes and Karl May. Prior to that, the dominant logic used by people was inductive, while prior to the advent of the Enlightenment it was deductive. I have come across several sources describing the difficulty of getting police forces in the US to look for clues to crimes as Sherlock Holmes did--as late as the 1930s!!! If I may be allowed a broad general statement as an hypothesis that I have not proved but think can be well established: that adductive logic has become the dominant form of logic today, and that that is a relatively recent occurrence, within the last century. Now, it was only the spreading of this form of logic, and the public's familiarity with the detective story/murder mystery form, that made it possible for a political leader to craft a political approach based on adductive logic as I have outlined it in the book. For me personally, it makes all the sense in the world that Hitler rose to power in the "Golden Age of the Detective Novel/Murder Mystery This is a broad statement, but I ask you to consider it in determining for yourself whether, and in what way, Hitler might be at least relatively unique in applying adductive logic, in the particular age in which he did it. Thanks, Ben Udell, for taking the time to read the dissertation, and also for your efforts--so far unsuccessful--to guide the discussion toward the Peirce related aspects of the book. Sincerely, Ben N. Ben Novak 5129 Taylor Drive, Ave Maria, FL 34142 Telephones: Magic Jack: (717) 826-5224 Best to call and leave messages. Landline: 239-455-4200 My brother's main phone line. Mobile (202) 509-2655 I use this only on trips--and in any event messages arrive days late. Skype: BenNovak2 "All art is mortal, not merely the individual artifacts, but the arts themselves. One day the last portrait of Rembrandt and the last bar of Mozart will have ceased to be — though possibly a colored canvas and a sheet of notes may remain — because the last eye and the last ear accessible to their message will have gone." Oswald Spengler On Sat, Jul 11, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Helmut Raulien <[email protected]> wrote: Ben, Edwina, List, I think, you both are right: Edwina, your analysis is correct, and Ben, what you have said about the mentality of just taking orders, too. Already Martin Luther had said: "Be underlings of authority"- in a theological context ok, but the statement as a sign is a general one. Also, the Germans had not had the experience of having successfully fought for liberty (such as the French and the Americans with their revolutions). This is a strong sign too: "we are different". All these representamens had worked together in a synergy. So these causes have not competed with each other. The competition lies in the question, at which cause of fascism to put the lever at first, to help people liberate themselves from a fascism-like sytem. On the other hand: Representamens do not synergically work together in one Sign, but each one in one Sign, and the Signs follow each other up. So it cannot be excluded, that there might be a first cause of fascism, and your discussion is important. I guess, that a thorough analysis of the semiotics of fascism is required. Best, Helmut "Benjamin Udell" <[email protected]> wrote: Having grown up in the 1960s on Manhattan's West Side, when WWII wasn't so long ago and a German accent was immediately associated to movies and TV series about Nazis, I admit that I may be unduly predisposed to regard certain strains of militarism, morality by government fiat, and 'just taking orders' as problematic aspects of the early-20th-Century German culture. Also I read _Roots of the Nazi Mentality_ when I was an impressionable kid. But I don't think that power affairs (military+politics) and economics are everything against culture (glamour!) and society (status!) as some sort of zero. You've a case to make there, Edwina, if you wish to convince people. The problematic character of early-20th-Century German attitudes - militarism, morality by government fiat, 'just taking orders' - have not gone unnoticed by anybody around Germany. The reunification of Germany in the 1990s involved US guarantees of maintaining military bases in Germany, guarantees sought by the French and other governments. Best, Ben On 7/10/2015 3:16 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote: No, Helmut, I don't think that the German people 'had more barbaric instincts than other people'. We are all similar in our capacity for emotional irrationality and violence. When a societal system of law and order breaks down for various reasons, i.e., is not providing security, is not functioning in a just and fair manner, is corrupt, , is subverted by a higher authority - then, the 'cooling off' phase of rational examination of the situation is rejected - and we get either a mob, or a 'controlled mob, i.e., a band of thugs'. Democracy is not, in itself, a barrier against barbarism. As Tolstoy said, 'Wrong does not cease to be wrong because the majority shares in it'. Democracy, to be just, requires a constitution and the rule of law, set up as created by men, and capable of change by men, but applicable to all. Edwina ----- Original Message ----- From: Helmut Raulien To: Ozzie Cc: Edwina Taborsky ; <[email protected]> ; Peirce List Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 2:51 PM Subject: Aw: Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive Logic I agree, that his "abduction-type message is" only "a big part of that success". Tenacity, authority and apriori also are. I wrote, that a false abduction to laypersons of logic can look like a proper conclusion. But not all Germans were too much laypersons to see the lies (eg. Heidegger). Nevertheless they followed him. Putting the emphasis on Hitlers intelligent ways of manipulation should not assign him a bigger part of the guilt, and lessen the guilt of the Germans. They had more barbaric instincts than the other peoples, and were no democrats. Other in than other nations, there has not been a democratic constitution initiated by the people. Best, Helmut Ozzie <[email protected]> ----------------------------- 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 . ----------------------------- 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 . ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------- 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 .
----------------------------- 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 .
