Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
At 06:00 PM Wednesday 12/5/2007, Charlie Bell wrote: On 06/12/2007, at 3:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: I'm also a committed Christian and there's nothing incompatible about the two. Except insofar as Christianity makes claims about how the world is. IIRC, you're a Lutheran, and the American Lutheran church is fairly progressive. But saying there's *nothing* incompatible about the two would seem to be a stretch - even if you subscribe to the viewpoint of non-overlapping magisteria there are bound to be cases where you simply have to make a value judgement between what your religion tells you and how the world appears to actually be, no? My church and lots of others around here are full of scientists and engineers -- this is Silicon Valley, after all. Some may find that their beliefs and their science collide, but I assure you that most don't. Because they genuinely don't collide at all, or because of compartmentalisation? The usual answer in practice to that question: If » I « do it, it's because they genuinely don't collide. If » you « do it, it's because of compartmentalization (aided perhaps by rationalization and/or self-delusion). ;) -- Ronn! :) People who want to share their religious views with you almost never want you to share yours with them. -- Dave Barry ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
At 03:31 PM Wednesday 12/5/2007, jon louis mann wrote: i haven't seen him in years but hear that he has mellowed and no longer drinks excessively. jon Last time I saw him in person was in 2005. The latter condition has indeed made a noticeable difference since the first time I met him. (I think that is a simple statement of fact which can be verified independently by other witnesses not gossip.) -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 03:31 PM Wednesday 12/5/2007, jon louis mann wrote: i haven't seen him in years but hear that he has mellowed and no longer drinks excessively. jon Last time I saw him in person was in 2005. The latter condition has indeed made a noticeable difference since the first time I met him. (I think that is a simple statement of fact which can be verified independently by other witnesses not gossip.) And this seems to be the case in general with people who drink in their youth and drink a lot less as they grow older. Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
On Dec 4, 2007 3:11 PM, jon louis mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: religion and science are incompatible, for the most part May I just say, nicely perhaps... baloney. I spend all day doing complicated large-scale mathematical analysis of community behaviors, writing software, trying to know all the statistics that might apply (I hate statistics, which is probably the only healthy way to use it) and keeping up with a rapidly growing field of analysis. I'm also a committed Christian and there's nothing incompatible about the two. My church and lots of others around here are full of scientists and engineers -- this is Silicon Valley, after all. Some may find that their beliefs and their science collide, but I assure you that most don't. The real incompatibility is between fear and science. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
On Dec 5, 2007 11:45 AM, jon louis mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: jerry pournelle, is also catholic, and used to be a much more progressive, but now is way over to the opposite end of the political spectrum. I haven't seen Jerry in a long time, but I never would have guessed that he was ever progressive. The more times I ran into him, the less I could stand reading anything he wrote... Aside from his grandiosity and misbehavior (don't ask, I won't gossip) I'd hear it all in his voice, which could ruin anything. i can understand why many wealthy individuals are drawn to the religious right, but i can not understand why so many lower class christians support bush when they are victims of his economic policies... George Lakoff has an explanation and although I'm not sure it is politically useful, it makes a lot of sense to me. Moral Politics is his book that explains it in depth. The short version is that the right, especially the fundamentalist right-wingers, appeal to a stern father concept that all of us have and use to one extent or another. The alternative is to invoke our concept of nurturing parents, Lakoff argues. But it's sort of like Freud; the model works but doesn't seem to be practical. i have a friend who is a cal tech graduate and is still orthodox. that i don't understand, but we are still friends. if you are raised in a faith, you either reject it completely, as i did, or find some way to rationalize your faith... perhaps there is a middle ground? In my faith, being lukewarm is cause for criticism... ;-) Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
dogmatism v. pragmatism
In my faith, being lukewarm is cause for criticism... ;-) Nick what is your faith, nick, if you don't mind my asking? i get that you are a christian, but what version? were you raised in the church, or did you have some kind of epiphany? i personally don't believe one's political bias is determined by whether their personal obligations are forced or chosen. perhaps influenced? i have been in both situations and also had a very stern father model. some people react against their upbringing and others embrace it, but imho, it is an individual choice. i have two sisters who are republicans, one brother who is apolitical and another who is as radically militant as myself. i hate the government in any case, even though i believe government should regulate industry and provide social services. i encountered pournelle for the first time during the reagan years when he was involved with sdi. he would talk about his politics in the mc carthy era and was very visible at conventions and the lasfs. i haven't seen him in years but hear that he has mellowed and no longer drinks excessively. jon - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
Lakoff makes more sense if you add the concept of freely chosen obligations versus enforced obligations - I forget the precise terminology. The latter means that you do what you do because you must - it's your duty as whatever your role is. Dharma, in the Hindu usage. The former is, you freely choose your obligations and choose to remain faithful to them. People who believe in the chosen obligations ask How can you ever trust someone forced into staying with you/taking care of Mom/whatever? Being enslaved, won't the resent it and do as little as possible or get petty revenge? People who believe in forced obligations can't imagine being able to ever trust any of the chosen-obligation people. After all, didn't they get into their marriage, role, or whatever, on a *whim*? And won't they walk out of it just as freely? The mapping onto Lakoff is fairly obvious. And let me add that the forced-obligation people tend to be hard-right and the chosen-obligation people to be moderate-to-hard left. The reason is that if the government takes over the obligations, doesn't that get people off the hook and allow them to skip out on doing their bounden duty? There was a long discussion of this on Ozarque's Journal (lj) some time ago. http://idiotgrrl.livejournal.com/ Now is the winter of our discontent From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 11:55:40 -0800 On Dec 5, 2007 11:45 AM, jon louis mann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: jerry pournelle, is also catholic, and used to be a much more progressive, but now is way over to the opposite end of the political spectrum. I haven't seen Jerry in a long time, but I never would have guessed that he was ever progressive. The more times I ran into him, the less I could stand reading anything he wrote... Aside from his grandiosity and misbehavior (don't ask, I won't gossip) I'd hear it all in his voice, which could ruin anything. i can understand why many wealthy individuals are drawn to the religious right, but i can not understand why so many lower class christians support bush when they are victims of his economic policies... George Lakoff has an explanation and although I'm not sure it is politically useful, it makes a lot of sense to me. Moral Politics is his book that explains it in depth. The short version is that the right, especially the fundamentalist right-wingers, appeal to a stern father concept that all of us have and use to one extent or another. The alternative is to invoke our concept of nurturing parents, Lakoff argues. But it's sort of like Freud; the model works but doesn't seem to be practical. i have a friend who is a cal tech graduate and is still orthodox. that i don't understand, but we are still friends. if you are raised in a faith, you either reject it completely, as i did, or find some way to rationalize your faith... perhaps there is a middle ground? In my faith, being lukewarm is cause for criticism... ;-) Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
dogmatism v. pragmatism
religion and science are incompatible, *for the most part*... jon May I just say, nicely perhaps... baloney. I spend all day doing complicated large-scale mathematical analysis of community behaviors, writing software, trying to know all the statistics that might apply (I hate statistics, which is probably the only healthy way to use it) and keeping up with a rapidly growing field of analysis. I'm also a committed Christian and there's nothing incompatible about the two. My church and lots of others around here are full of scientists and engineers -- this is Silicon Valley, after all. Some may find that their beliefs and their science collide, but I assure you that most don't. The real incompatibility is between fear and science. Nick i agree with you about fear and science, nick. perhaps i should clarify that i was referring to evangelical fundamentalist religious zealots who preach hellfire and damnation, deny evolution and translate the christian bible literally. that IS incompatible with science, and to put it unkindly, that sort of dogmatic religion is baloney, salami, sausage and other meat byproducts from intestinal organs. now, having said that, i do respect those christians who practice the teachings of christ, but i draw the line at elevating a mortal to diety status. he was a man, like you and i, just with a highly developed sense of morality, in the context of his times. he was a rebel, and i believe, a commie. i have no problem with his sermon on the mount, or the beatitudes, either. i admire the story of him as a youngster throwing the money changers out of the temple. it is institutional religion i abhor. i generally tolerate congregationalists over, say southern baptist schisms, although i marched with mlk for civil rights and those kind of political stands i approve. there are fundamental differences in how different religions believe humanity and the world interact. religion and politics are an extremely volatile mix. both approach the most profound questions of existence from different perspectives and with different agendas. unfortunately, because of the religious right, politics has mutated into a material and spiritual debate over issues such as aborttion, capital punishment, education, torture, justice, race, eguality, health care, immigration, gender, sexual idenity and much, much more. religion and state are supposed to be separate, at least in america. i once had this discussion with r.a. lafferty and he got up and walked away. he was devoutly catholic and i was mystified how someone so intelligent and literate could believe in doctines like papal infalliblibility. jerry pournelle, is also catholic, and used to be a much more progressive, but now is way over to the opposite end of the political spectrum. i can understand why many wealthy individuals are drawn to the religious right, but i can not understand why so many lower class christians support bush when they are victims of his economic policies... i have a friend who is a cal tech graduate and is still orthodox. that i don't understand, but we are still friends. if you are raised in a faith, you either reject it completely, as i did, or find some way to rationalize your faith... perhaps there is a middle ground? jon - Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
On Dec 5, 2007 4:00 PM, Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Except insofar as Christianity makes claims about how the world is. IIRC, you're a Lutheran, and the American Lutheran church is fairly progressive. But saying there's *nothing* incompatible about the two would seem to be a stretch - even if you subscribe to the viewpoint of non-overlapping magisteria there are bound to be cases where you simply have to make a value judgement between what your religion tells you and how the world appears to actually be, no? Not that I can recall. Certainly not on a regular basis. There has been at least one time when I made a commitment to a church-related activity and our CEO called and wanted to talk business, urgently, and I told him that on that particular day -- a Saturday -- my priority was the church. Ironically, what I was supposed to be doing was practicing a talk on priorities -- how we balance faith, family, work, etc. One reason I'm very happy to work where I am is that this was okay, even encouraged by our CEO. Others might be less supportive and I'd have to decide whether or not to keep working there... but I don't see that as an incompatibility. What I find far more incompatible, or at least challenging, is to hang on to faith while witnessing the worst things life has to offer -- war, suicides, trauma of all sorts. It often seems like it would be much easier to yield to fear and distraction (which are related) than to continue to believe. My church and lots of others around here are full of scientists and engineers -- this is Silicon Valley, after all. Some may find that their beliefs and their science collide, but I assure you that most don't. Because they genuinely don't collide at all, or because of compartmentalisation? Depends on the church, I'm sure. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
On 06/12/2007, at 3:05 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: I'm also a committed Christian and there's nothing incompatible about the two. Except insofar as Christianity makes claims about how the world is. IIRC, you're a Lutheran, and the American Lutheran church is fairly progressive. But saying there's *nothing* incompatible about the two would seem to be a stretch - even if you subscribe to the viewpoint of non-overlapping magisteria there are bound to be cases where you simply have to make a value judgement between what your religion tells you and how the world appears to actually be, no? My church and lots of others around here are full of scientists and engineers -- this is Silicon Valley, after all. Some may find that their beliefs and their science collide, but I assure you that most don't. Because they genuinely don't collide at all, or because of compartmentalisation? The real incompatibility is between fear and science. That's true. So really, it's where religions or ideologies are fear- based that they have trouble with dealing with things as they are. Well, that explains the Bush Administration... Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: dogmatism v. pragmatism
On 06/12/2007, at 11:17 AM, Nick Arnett wrote: There has been at least one time when I made a commitment to a church-related activity and our CEO called and wanted to talk business, urgently, and I told him that on that particular day -- a Saturday -- my priority was the church. Ironically, what I was supposed to be doing was practicing a talk on priorities -- how we balance faith, family, work, etc. :-) One reason I'm very happy to work where I am is that this was okay, even encouraged by our CEO. Others might be less supportive and I'd have to decide whether or not to keep working there... but I don't see that as an incompatibility. No, that's not what I meant, of course. But that's an interesting and different issue that I think we all have to deal with, and I'm sure we'll discuss it again. What I find far more incompatible, or at least challenging, is to hang on to faith while witnessing the worst things life has to offer -- war, suicides, trauma of all sorts. It often seems like it would be much easier to yield to fear and distraction (which are related) than to continue to believe. Or, indeed, decide as I did that leaving religion and embracing the concept that all those things are like they are because it's just how it is, and it's actually the brave choice to stand up, say actually, it makes a lot more sense of there isn't a god... and stop being afraid of life and death. That worked for me, and casting away that fear and doubt allowed me to start making decisions about my own life properly. But I appreciate it neither makes sense to, nor helps, many others. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
dogmatism v. pragmatism
nick, i remember when i went to my first science fiction convention and i realized how diverse fandom was. i assumed we were all free thinkers and learned there were cultists and gays and even christians among us. some of the fans didn't even read and were into media and role playing, etc. what a shock!¬) i should not be surprised that there are CEOs in silicon valley who recognizes the need to balance faith, family, and work. the fact that you find it challenging to hang on to your faith while witnessing the worst life has to offer makes you more human, but i wonder why you feel losing your faith is the easy way out? i am not trying to convert you, but i agree with charlie that is would be more courageous to seriously consider the possibility that you have been following the wrong path and find meaning without faith. there is no reason to give up your morality and purpose just because you decide not to follow a structured set of beliefs. i was an altar boy, but was never caught up in the dogma. i couldn't help having doubts about what the priests and nuns were teaching me. it left me free to make my own decisions based on all the information available, rather than trying to adhere to the out of date catholic indocrination. i am actually free of any need to find a way to make any religious beliefs conform to scientific theories that would have had me burnt at the stake during the inquisation. that is no longer a danger and we need to get on with advancing stem cell research, and other scientific advances that religion is attempting to prevent. jon jon - Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
dogmatism v. pragmatism
snippits... Religions are belief systems... If you question the basic tenets of the faith, you are not adhering to that faith... Unquestioning obedience is nothing more than a belief of the more cult-like religions... There aren't many that aren't cult-like in at least some of their aspects... It certainly is not true of the major ones except in a very limited sense that by no means extends to scientific pursuits... there are anti-science forces at work in some religions, no human institution is exempt from such corruption... http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Movies/12/03/golden.compass.religion.ap/index.html?section=cnn_latest the battles between fantasy and religion would be hilarious if the pious theophiles were not deadly serious. religion and science are incompatible, for the most part, but we do need more ethics in science and more rationalism in religion. the continuing debate over evolution, especially in the 21st century, is ludricous, as is the suggestion that evolution is part of 'god's plan... the debate about global warming is also ludricrous. it doesn't matter if climate change occurs in cycles, it is still a fact that it is accelerated by human impact on the enviornment and is a threat to our civilization. - Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] I just typed marx jewish question and got http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1844-JQ/ let me quote from it. quote Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man -- and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world -- both the world of men and nature -- of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man's work and man's existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he worships it. The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature; in the Jewish religion, nature exists, it is true, but it exists only in imagination. It is in this sense that [ in a 1524 pamphlet ] Thomas Munzer declares it intolerable that all creatures have been turned into property, the fishes in the water, the birds in the air, the plants on the earth; the creatures, too, must become free. Contempt for theory, art, history, and for man as an end in himself, which is contained in an abstract form in the Jewish religion, is the real, conscious standpoint, the virtue of the man of money. The species-relation itself, the relation between man and woman, etc., becomes an object of trade! The woman is bought and sold. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of of the merchant, of the man of money in general. unquote Replace the word jew with corporation, and he might eveb make sense: Money is the jealous god of Corporatism, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man -- and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world -- both the world of men and nature -- of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man's work and man's existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he worships it. The god of the corporations has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the corporation. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature; in the corporate religion, nature exists, it is true, but it exists only in imagination. It is in this sense that [ in a 1524 pamphlet ] Thomas Munzer declares it intolerable that all creatures have been turned into property, the fishes in the water, the birds in the air, the plants on the earth; the creatures, too, must become free. Contempt for theory, art, history, and for man as an end in himself, which is contained in an abstract form in the corporate religion, is the real, conscious standpoint, the virtue of the man of money. The species-relation itself, the relation between man and woman, etc., becomes an object of trade! The woman is bought and sold. The chimerical nationality of the corporation is the nationality of of the merchant, of the man of money in general. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
- Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 10:20 PM Subject: Re: Dogmatism On 4 Nov 2003, at 3:29 am, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wasn't Marx a Jew ethnically? His family converted. It's certainly possible to be a self-hating Jew. But Marx was quite obviously ebulliently full of himself. That can really be a very complex phenomenon. Gang members seem very full of themselves, but are often plagued with self doubt and self hate at the core. As I mentioned in my thread about my Zambian daughter, racist ideas and stereotypes about blacks seem to have been accepted as true by a number of blacks. Were his statements about the Jewish religion and not the Jewish people? One of the things that makes Judaism special is that you can't really distinguish the two. Conflating separable ideas leads to worthlessly muddled thinking. Right, just like Maxwell muddled things beyond all hope when he combined the separate ideas of electricity and magnetism. :-) The reality is and has been that Jewish identity is complex. (As an aside, I really don't see that utility of pristine theories that do not take the messy realities into account). As far as I see, Jewishness is three fold: Its inherited, if your parents are Jewish you are Jewish. (In particular, if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish.) Its cultural. One can accept or reject one's Jewish identity. Rejection has typically involved turning one's back on extended family and on one's ancestors. Its a religion. One accepts the Torah as uniquely revealed scripture and follows the God of Abraham. As far as the first question is concerned, there had been times when Jews were offered the opportunity to become full members of European society by renouncing their heritage and becoming Christian. I know that Teri's father's family opted to become Christians in the 19th century. Cultural Jews are very common today. Many Jews are atheists but still Jews. They accept their identity, but don't believe in God. Unlike Teri's family, the still consider themselves Jewish. Religious Jews believe in God and actively practice their faith. Joe Liberman would be a good example of this type of Jew. Its hard to fathom On the Jewish Question as a discussion of a theological problem. Rather, Marx seems to accept as fact that the inherent problem in Europe is Jewish in character. I'd argue that his point is that rejecting this Jewishness in order to accept Christianity, as his father did, is not enough. Christianity is too Jewish, one must reject both Judaism and Christianity. In doing so, Marx states a multitude of ethnic slurs as facts. The fact that he is biologically descended from Jew doesn't undo this. I think it is fair to say that he wasn't arguing that its a matter of biology, and that a Jew who renounced his inherently evil heritage could be a perfectly good Communist. However, one cannot deny that the acceptance of anti-Semitic stereotypes as fact is pervasive in the work. The best explanation that I can give of 19th century European anti-Semitism is that it was so pervasive, that it was accepted as fact even by those who purport to differ with it. So, it is hard to argue that the anti-Semitism of Stalin and Lenin was an unnatural addition to Marxism, because it was accepted in the earliest writings that underlie Marxism. Rather, one could argue that anti-Semitism so permeated Europe, that it was even accepted as fact by people who's ancestors were Jewish. Dan M. When he talks about the Jewish God being money he was trafficking in the vilest of anti-Semitic stereotypes. He was a Jew attacking the role of Jews in a Christian society wherein money-lending was still regarded as a sin and Jews were tolerated as they could perform the valuable service of giving loans with interest. The stereotypes he used were the ones of the society he lived in - and he was criticizing them. Could you please show me where in the text that he said those stereotypes were wrong? The plain sense of the text is that he was accepting them as valid. Nowhere did he say that they were erroneous stereotypes. Rather, he stated the stereotypes as one would state facts. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
From: Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Dogmatism Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:11:38 -0600 - Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 10:20 PM Subject: Re: Dogmatism On 4 Nov 2003, at 3:29 am, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wasn't Marx a Jew ethnically? His family converted. It's certainly possible to be a self-hating Jew. But Marx was quite obviously ebulliently full of himself. That can really be a very complex phenomenon. Gang members seem very full of themselves, but are often plagued with self doubt and self hate at the core. As I mentioned in my thread about my Zambian daughter, racist ideas and stereotypes about blacks seem to have been accepted as true by a number of blacks. Were his statements about the Jewish religion and not the Jewish people? One of the things that makes Judaism special is that you can't really distinguish the two. Conflating separable ideas leads to worthlessly muddled thinking. Right, just like Maxwell muddled things beyond all hope when he combined the separate ideas of electricity and magnetism. :-) The reality is and has been that Jewish identity is complex. (As an aside, I really don't see that utility of pristine theories that do not take the messy realities into account). As far as I see, Jewishness is three fold: Its inherited, if your parents are Jewish you are Jewish. (In particular, if your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish.) Its cultural. One can accept or reject one's Jewish identity. Rejection has typically involved turning one's back on extended family and on one's ancestors. Interfaith marriage has complicated things even further. Its a religion. One accepts the Torah as uniquely revealed scripture and follows the God of Abraham. As far as the first question is concerned, there had been times when Jews were offered the opportunity to become full members of European society by renouncing their heritage and becoming Christian. I know that Teri's father's family opted to become Christians in the 19th century. And this was historically almost always posed not as a 'choice', but an _ultimatum_: convert or die. The Inquisition is but one example. Cultural Jews are very common today. Many Jews are atheists but still Jews. They accept their identity, but don't believe in God. Unlike Teri's family, the still consider themselves Jewish. We've discussed this onlist before. I have doubts that 'Cultural Jews' currently outnumber religious Jews. In general, Jewish organizations and temples have been increasing their numbers quite steadily over the last decade. Religious Jews believe in God and actively practice their faith. Joe Liberman would be a good example of this type of Jew. You may consider this nitpicking, but for accuracy's sake I think it's best to break this down into specifics. Joe Lieberman is an Orthodox Jew. He belongs to the smallest, most traditional Jewish sect. His example would be considered extreme by the vast majority of Reform and Conservative religious Jews in this country. Observant, religious Jews who practice their faith are not necessarily Orthodox. There are three main sects (commonly referred to as movements) of Jewish faith: Orthodox Conservative Reform Orthodox is considered a traditional movement and Reform is a liberal movement. Conservative is midway between the two. The sects follow different laws and guidelines and individual levels of religious observance vary greatly within each. For example, there are Conservative Jews who observe kosher laws and those who don't. There are also sects within the sects: for instance, there are Traditional Orthodox, Modern Orthodox and Reconstructionist Reform Jews. Try http://www.nottm.edu.org.uk/ks3/jewfaq/movement.htm for more information. Jon GSV Brin-L Encyclopedia Le Blog: http://zarq.livejournal.com _ Crave some Miles Davis or Grateful Dead? Your old favorites are always playing on MSN Radio Plus. Trial month free! http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
- Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 12:40 AM Subject: Re: Dogmatism --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 1:37 PM Subject: Re: Dogmatism And then there was some other rambelings by someone who clearly has not studied Marx, and instead has listened to some bs from some dogmatic group. Out of curiosity, who taught the Marxism class that you took, Jan? I do not remember his name. The class was on world history and political systems. We spent 3 weeks on Marxism/communism, 3 on fascism, the other 10 on other various systems inclusing several forms of capitalist democracy. Why do you ask? Because, as far as I can tell, you took a swipe at Gautam's education in the field. He received a degree in government from Harvard, with a specialization in international affairs. His thesis advisor was Stanley Hoffman, who is one of the two or three most accomplished liberal thinkers in international relations. He Marxism professor was Harvey Mansfield, who is considered the foremost conservative political philosopher. Gautam also worked at the John F. Kennedy school of government at Harvard, specializing in Russian affairs. I know that Dr. Hoffman thought very well of Gautam's work, even though he's liberal and Gautam's conservative. Its hard to fathom anyone having such a favorable impression of someone who is ignorant and dogmatic in opposition to one's own beliefs. Gaining such a favorable review from one of the most respected writers who disagrees with you typically indicates real talent. Given that, I was very curious to see what gave you the bases for dismissing very well respected Harvard professors out of hand. With all due respect, I do not believe that having taken a survey course from someone who's name you cannot remember is sufficient basis for such dismissal.** That doesn't mean that you need to lie down and play dead if Gautam writes something you disagree with. I don't have a Harvard education in political science, and I'm more than willing to take him on, as the archives of brin-l over the last 5+ years should show. However, in our disagreements, I know that Gautam is a very reasonable person who just happens to be wrong on a particular issue. :-) As an aside, what I'd really like to see is Gautam and Ritu go at it over international affairs. Both are very articulate debaters who tend to appreciate the subtleties of a problem. They have fascinating similarities/differences in background as an Indian and as a second generation American of Indian decent. Further, neither tends to devolve into a polemic arguments when debating ideas. Dan M. ** If it wasn't Gautam you were dissing, I've misunderstood your post. But, I looked at who replied to Tom before you did and his post was the only one I saw. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
As Spock would say when confronted in such a way, ...Indeed. He did, however, sound to me like one of many Everyone who isn't a staunch conservative is out to get the Jews kind of thinker. If he can come off that way to someone such as myself then he definitely needs to back up his claims that Marx was an anti-Semite. Hay, I'm a conservative myself, I favor Capitalism and Democracy, and I am definitely not an anti-Semite. There was a time before I could drive that I considered the benefits of a more highly structured system such as Marxism. I read just about everything I could find on the subject. I decided that the benefits were unattainable. But I do not recall at any time reading anything about Marx as an anti-Semite, or anything that would have suggested such from his writings. You would think that if Marx was an anti-Semite, we would have learned that in my survey course. We did after all learn that many Germans of the time were. Dan, you have many times requested references, and in this case I think that some reference is warranted. We are talking about what someone said after all. What Gautam has said is to me akin to being told that Hitler was a Communist, or that Stalin was a Christian. You can't just blurt stuff like that out with out some proof. You would think that if it were the case, then it would be just as common knowledge as that Stalin was an Atheist and Hitler hated Communism. Besides, if you are going to say something so incredible, and provocative, and you have the credentials to be believed, then you have the responsibility to at least list said credentials. Otherwise it's just another form of trolling. Intellectual trolling, is no better than the idiotic variety. If you have such a position then you gain a lot of responsibility, wouldn't you say? Responsibility like that of a black belt not to get into a fight, since such a fight might be lethal for the opponent. --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 12:40 AM Subject: Re: Dogmatism --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 1:37 PM Subject: Re: Dogmatism And then there was some other rambelings by someone who clearly has not studied Marx, and instead has listened to some bs from some dogmatic group. Out of curiosity, who taught the Marxism class that you took, Jan? I do not remember his name. The class was on world history and political systems. We spent 3 weeks on Marxism/communism, 3 on fascism, the other 10 on other various systems inclusing several forms of capitalist democracy. Why do you ask? Because, as far as I can tell, you took a swipe at Gautam's education in the field. He received a degree in government from Harvard, with a specialization in international affairs. His thesis advisor was Stanley Hoffman, who is one of the two or three most accomplished liberal thinkers in international relations. He Marxism professor was Harvey Mansfield, who is considered the foremost conservative political philosopher. Gautam also worked at the John F. Kennedy school of government at Harvard, specializing in Russian affairs. I know that Dr. Hoffman thought very well of Gautam's work, even though he's liberal and Gautam's conservative. Its hard to fathom anyone having such a favorable impression of someone who is ignorant and dogmatic in opposition to one's own beliefs. Gaining such a favorable review from one of the most respected writers who disagrees with you typically indicates real talent. Given that, I was very curious to see what gave you the bases for dismissing very well respected Harvard professors out of hand. With all due respect, I do not believe that having taken a survey course from someone who's name you cannot remember is sufficient basis for such dismissal.** That doesn't mean that you need to lie down and play dead if Gautam writes something you disagree with. I don't have a Harvard education in political science, and I'm more than willing to take him on, as the archives of brin-l over the last 5+ years should show. However, in our disagreements, I know that Gautam is a very reasonable person who just happens to be wrong on a particular issue. :-) As an aside, what I'd really like to see is Gautam and Ritu go at it over international affairs. Both are very articulate debaters who tend to appreciate the subtleties of a problem. They have fascinating similarities/differences in background as an Indian and as a second generation American of Indian decent. Further, neither tends to devolve into a polemic arguments when debating ideas. Dan M. ** If it wasn't Gautam you were dissing, I've
Re: Dogmatism
--- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As Spock would say when confronted in such a way, ...Indeed. He did, however, sound to me like one of many Everyone who isn't a staunch conservative is out to get the Jews kind of thinker. If he can come off that way to someone such as myself then he definitely needs to back up his claims that Marx was an anti-Semite. Have you _read_ On the Jewish Question? William and I have discussed it briefly, and I've talked about it considerably more with someone else on the list. William described it as a defense against Bruno Bauer. As Prof. Mansfield pointed out when lecturing on the book, Marx's problem with Bauer was that Bauer _did not go far enough_. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip So the Scopes trial was a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water? I can see that people objecting to the nonsense of Social Darwinism could get it conflated with biological Darwinism, but I didn't know it actually happened. I thought Scopes was purely about the teaching of evolution in school. Weeel, there mighta been a teensy bit o' good ole Southern grandstandin', don't ya know... ;) http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/monkeytrial/peopleevents/e_drugstore.html It began over cokes and phosphates in a drugstore in Dayton, Tennessee. A little scheme to boost the local economy exploded into the trial of the century. The defendant wasn't even guilty -- but nobody cared. After all, two of America's greatest orators were coming to town. And the whole world was watching. The story of how the Scopes trial began -- as a publicity stunt in a small town drugstore -- has fascinated people for over 75 years...It was at Robinson's drugstore in Dayton, Tennessee where, in 1925, a group of town boosters hatched one of the most famous schemes in history, taking up an ACLU challenge to try Tennessee's anti-evolution law. The group believed a big trial would put their town on the map, and they conceived their plan sitting around one of Robinson's tables. According to historian Edward Larson, Those were the days of Prohibition so the strongest thing they could drink was Coca-Cola!... ...Reporter H. L. Mencken had his own inimitable opinion of the town and its famous drugstore. It would be hard to imagine a more moral town than Dayton. ...There is no gambling. There is no place to dance. The relatively wicked, when they would indulge themselves, go to Robinson's drug store and debate theology... Talk About Yer Snowballin' Maru :) __ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
- Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 1:37 PM Subject: Re: Dogmatism As Spock would say when confronted in such a way, ...Indeed. He did, however, sound to me like one of many Everyone who isn't a staunch conservative is out to get the Jews kind of thinker. Well, he certainly wasn't foolish enough to call Tom anti-Semetic. :-) If he can come off that way to someone such as myself then he definitely needs to back up his claims that Marx was an anti-Semite. He did. He gave the work of Marx that he based his opinion on. Its easy to find and read on the web; its quite short. I just typed marx jewish question and got http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1844-JQ/ let me quote from it. quote Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man -- and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world -- both the world of men and nature -- of its specific value. Money is the estranged essence of man's work and man's existence, and this alien essence dominates him, and he worships it. The god of the Jews has become secularized and has become the god of the world. The bill of exchange is the real god of the Jew. His god is only an illusory bill of exchange. The view of nature attained under the domination of private property and money is a real contempt for, and practical debasement of, nature; in the Jewish religion, nature exists, it is true, but it exists only in imagination. It is in this sense that [ in a 1524 pamphlet ] Thomas Munzer declares it intolerable that all creatures have been turned into property, the fishes in the water, the birds in the air, the plants on the earth; the creatures, too, must become free. Contempt for theory, art, history, and for man as an end in himself, which is contained in an abstract form in the Jewish religion, is the real, conscious standpoint, the virtue of the man of money. The species-relation itself, the relation between man and woman, etc., becomes an object of trade! The woman is bought and sold. The chimerical nationality of the Jew is the nationality of of the merchant, of the man of money in general. unquote You would think that if Marx was an anti-Semite, we would have learned that in my survey course. We did after all learn that many Germans of the time were. Dan, you have many times requested references, and in this case I think that some reference is warranted. We are talking about what someone said after all. What Gautam has said is to me akin to being told that Hitler was a Communist, or that Stalin was a Christian. He gave the reference. quote Marx _certainly_ would have approved of Lenin's and Stalin's anti-semitism. On the Jewish Question is so viciously anti-semitic that the historical affinity of some Jewish intellectuals for Marxism has always confused the hell out of me. unquote You can't just blurt stuff like that out with out some proof. You would think that if it were the case, then it would be just as common knowledge as that Stalin was an Atheist and Hitler hated Communism. I certainly knew it for a long time. I guess that simply reflects the differences in the schools we went to. I studied origional works of philosophy from my freshman year on. I tend to have a bias towards that tyoe of study. Lots of things that are true should be but are not common knowledge. The reasons for this could be the subject of a long thread. :-) Besides, if you are going to say something so incredible, and provocative, and you have the credentials to be believed, then you have the responsibility to at least list said credentials. But, it wasn't incredible and provocative. How could any serious student of Marxism not think of On the Jewish Question when trying to understand Marx's philosophy with regards to the Jews? Otherwise it's just another form of trolling. Intellectual trolling, is no better than the idiotic variety. If you have such a position then you gain a lot of responsibility, wouldn't you say? Responsibility like that of a black belt not to get into a fight, since such a fight might be lethal for the opponent. You didn't know Gautam went to Harvard? I guess those of us who are old timers just took it for granted. This exact subject has been debated at length here too, probably before you were on list. The thing that I objected to was assuming you knew more than you did about Gautam. I really don't understand why you didn't ask for a quote from On the Jewish Question I significantly differ with the idea that one must trot out one's credentials every time one knows a lot more than someone else about a subject. Sometimes I do; sometimes I don't. I do admit that, if someone starts to claim that I'm ignorant about a subject that I have studied
I'll bite Re: Dogmatism
On Mon, 3 Nov 2003, Dan Minette wrote: Lots of things that are true should be but are not common knowledge. The reasons for this could be the subject of a long thread. :-) I would be interested in reading such a thread. Care to begin it? :) Julia ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip ...He gave the work of Marx that he based his opinion on. Its easy to find and read on the web; its quite short. I just typed marx jewish question and got http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1844-JQ/ let me quote from it. snip Part II _was_ short (and besides being anti-Jewish seems anti-Christian as well, just somewhat less so); Part I was _not_ short, and I'm very glad you didn't say 'light reading' either as it was heavy slogging (OK, not as bad as some other philosophical texts I've read)... ;) ). Good thing I'm wearing knee-high boots, though. Both of these treatises were full of unjustified assumptions, grand generalizations, and what I can only call 'statements of rabid fervor.' When you make up your own definitions of words and phrases, I guess it's easy to come to 'logical conclusions.' :P In my not-so-humble opinion, of course. From Part I: ...Only when the real, individual man re-absorbs in himself the abstract citizen, and as an individual human being has become a species-being in his everyday life, in his particular work, and in his particular situation, only when man has recognized and organized his own powers as -social powers, and, consequently, no longer separates social power from himself in the shape of political power, only then will human emancipation have been accomplished. An individual is never an abstract being, and while we reduce populations to predictable statistics, the individual is not solely constrained within them. From this paper, I'd put Marx in the I love Mankind, but find people despicable category of elitism. (Admittedly not having read any more of his work than this and the little I remember from a couple of college courses.) Debbi Four Feet Good, Two Feet Better Maru __ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
In a message dated 11/2/2003 1:30:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marx _certainly_ would have approved of Lenin's and Stalin's anti-semitism. On the Jewish Question is so viciously anti-semitic that the historical affinity of some Jewish intellectuals for Marxism has always confused the hell out of me. Well, one can like a philosophy without liking the philosopher or at least all of his views. Of course Marx was the grandson of one the important Rabbi's in his section of Germany. His father rejected his religion like many other jews of that period. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
On 3 Nov 2003, at 7:59 pm, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As Spock would say when confronted in such a way, ...Indeed. He did, however, sound to me like one of many Everyone who isn't a staunch conservative is out to get the Jews kind of thinker. If he can come off that way to someone such as myself then he definitely needs to back up his claims that Marx was an anti-Semite. Have you _read_ On the Jewish Question? William and I have discussed it briefly, and I've talked about it considerably more with someone else on the list. Marx was the atheist son of Jews who converted to Christianity to get ahead in society. He was anti-Judaism and anti-Christianity. The most intelligible reading of On the Jewish Question is that by Jew he means someone following the Jewish religion rather than someone of Jewish descent. Anti-Semitism normally means both. Unless you think his tirade was directed against himself. William described it as a defense against Bruno Bauer. As Prof. Mansfield pointed out when lecturing on the book, Marx's problem with Bauer was that Bauer _did not go far enough_. Not far enough in the sense that Marx thought that rather than Jews adopting Christianity, both Jews and Christians should give up religion... -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As Spock would say when confronted in such a way, ...Indeed. He did, however, sound to me like one of many Everyone who isn't a staunch conservative is out to get the Jews kind of thinker. If he can come off that way to someone such as myself then he definitely needs to back up his claims that Marx was an anti-Semite. Have you _read_ On the Jewish Question? William and I have discussed it briefly, and I've talked about it considerably more with someone else on the list. William described it as a defense against Bruno Bauer. As Prof. Mansfield pointed out when lecturing on the book, Marx's problem with Bauer was that Bauer _did not go far enough_. Wasn't Marx a Jew ethnicaly? Were his statments about the Jewish religion and not the Jewish people? Doesn't Marx speak poorly about nearly all religions? I admit I have not read all of On the Jewish Question but from skimming it and reading the first bit it does not seem to speak of Jews as an ethnic group but as a religious group. It does not seem to suggest any opression of that religious group. Granted I have not read all of it. Do you consider someone who disaproves of a religion to be a racesist? Are the two not distict and seperate? Can one not for instance disaprove of Islam while at the same time have nothing at all against arabs? Or disaprove of Christianity while not having a promlem with Aglos, or Disaprove of Budhism while having nothing at all against Asians? Does any Jew hate East Indians becouse of the apparent idol worship in Hinduism? Would a Protistant in Northern Iserland hate me simply becouse my last name is Coffey? I must read the whole thing, but from what I can tell, it seems that you are mixing concepts. While Marx clearly had issues with all religions, he does not seem to have issue with any ethnic group, and therefore classifying him as an anti-semite seems dogmatic in the context of the converstation we were having. Granted Marx had did have a bunch of whack ideas, but hate for any particular racial group doesn't seem to be one of them. Since you are so versed in the document, why don't you point out where he specifies anything to the contrary. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
On 4 Nov 2003, at 1:23 am, Jan Coffey wrote: --- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As Spock would say when confronted in such a way, ...Indeed. He did, however, sound to me like one of many Everyone who isn't a staunch conservative is out to get the Jews kind of thinker. If he can come off that way to someone such as myself then he definitely needs to back up his claims that Marx was an anti-Semite. Have you _read_ On the Jewish Question? William and I have discussed it briefly, and I've talked about it considerably more with someone else on the list. William described it as a defense against Bruno Bauer. As Prof. Mansfield pointed out when lecturing on the book, Marx's problem with Bauer was that Bauer _did not go far enough_. Wasn't Marx a Jew ethnicaly? Were his statments about the Jewish religion and not the Jewish people? Doesn't Marx speak poorly about nearly all religions? I admit I have not read all of On the Jewish Question but from skimming it and reading the first bit it does not seem to speak of Jews as an ethnic group but as a religious group. It does not seem to suggest any opression of that religious group. Granted I have not read all of it. Do you consider someone who disaproves of a religion to be a racesist? Are the two not distict and seperate? Can one not for instance disaprove of Islam while at the same time have nothing at all against arabs? Or disaprove of Christianity while not having a promlem with Aglos, or Disaprove of Budhism while having nothing at all against Asians? Does any Jew hate East Indians becouse of the apparent idol worship in Hinduism? Would a Protistant in Northern Iserland hate me simply becouse my last name is Coffey? I must read the whole thing, but from what I can tell, it seems that you are mixing concepts. While Marx clearly had issues with all religions, he does not seem to have issue with any ethnic group, and therefore classifying him as an anti-semite seems dogmatic in the context of the converstation we were having. Granted Marx had did have a bunch of whack ideas, but hate for any particular racial group doesn't seem to be one of them. Since you are so versed in the document, why don't you point out where he specifies anything to the contrary. Discrimination based on one's parentage (race), sex, sexual orientation and age are all obviously unfair because one doesn't get to choose those. Discrimination based on one's political, religious and other affiliations is arguably reasonable if those affiliations are directly related to the situation - a vegetarian group might not want to hire a venison-eating hunter as PR person. Discrimination based on one's intelligence, athleticism or beauty... well :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
--- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wasn't Marx a Jew ethnicaly? His family converted. It's certainly possible to be a self-hating Jew. Were his statments about the Jewish religion and not the Jewish people? One of the things that makes Judaism special is that you can't really distinguish the two. When he talks about the Jewish God being money he was trafficing in the vilest of anti-semitic stereotypes. Doesn't Marx speak poorly about nearly all religions? He didn't write _On the Christian Problem_. Do you consider someone who disaproves of a religion to be a racesist? Are the two not distict and seperate? They can be, but in the case of Judaism, they tend not to be. Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion - pretending otherwise is sophistry, to be frank. I must read the whole thing, but from what I can tell, it seems that you are mixing concepts. While Marx clearly had issues with all religions, he does not seem to have issue with any ethnic group, and therefore classifying him as an anti-semite seems dogmatic in the context of the converstation we were having. Again, he didn't write _On the Christian Question_. If you want to argue that he didn't have a specific animus against Judaism, you're going to have to find similar statements against other religions in his work _of the same intensity and focus_. And you can't, because they don't exist. Granted Marx had did have a bunch of whack ideas, but hate for any particular racial group doesn't seem to be one of them. Since you are so versed in the document, why don't you point out where he specifies anything to the contrary. _ Jan William Coffey Luckily for me, Dan M. did that for me. Look, Jan, you don't have to believe Marx was an anti-semite if you don't want to. You can argue with the textual evidence all you want. I think you might want to be a little more restrained in suggesting that someone doesn't know anything about a subject, though. I didn't call you on it - I was pretty confident that everyone on the list knows that I know my way around political philosophy without me waving my resume around. But it didn't exactly strengthen your argument here. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
On 4 Nov 2003, at 3:29 am, Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wasn't Marx a Jew ethnicaly? His family converted. It's certainly possible to be a self-hating Jew. But Marx was quite obviously ebulliently full of himself. Were his statments about the Jewish religion and not the Jewish people? One of the things that makes Judaism special is that you can't really distinguish the two. Conflating separable ideas leads to worthlessly muddled thinking. When he talks about the Jewish God being money he was trafficing in the vilest of anti-semitic stereotypes. He was a Jew attacking the role of Jews in a Christian society wherein money-lending was still regarded as a sin and Jews were tolerated as they could perform the valuable service of giving loans with interest. The stereotypes he used were the ones of the society he lived in - and he was criticizing them. Doesn't Marx speak poorly about nearly all religions? He didn't write _On the Christian Problem_. On the Jewish Problem pretty even-handedly dishes out to Christianity too :) Do you consider someone who disaproves of a religion to be a racesist? Are the two not distict and seperate? They can be, but in the case of Judaism, they tend not to be. Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion - pretending otherwise is sophistry, to be frank. Pretending that short-circuits debate is sophistry, to be frank :) I must read the whole thing, but from what I can tell, it seems that you are mixing concepts. While Marx clearly had issues with all religions, he does not seem to have issue with any ethnic group, and therefore classifying him as an anti-semite seems dogmatic in the context of the converstation we were having. Again, he didn't write _On the Christian Question_. If you want to argue that he didn't have a specific animus against Judaism, you're going to have to find similar statements against other religions in his work _of the same intensity and focus_. And you can't, because they don't exist. That would be the this footnote doesn't have a footnote argument :) Luckily for me, Dan M. did that for me. Look, Jan, you don't have to believe Marx was an anti-semite if you don't want to. You can argue with the textual evidence all you want. I think you might want to be a little more restrained in suggesting that someone doesn't know anything about a subject, though. I didn't call you on it - I was pretty confident that everyone on the list knows that I know my way around political philosophy without me waving my resume around. But it didn't exactly strengthen your argument here. So that would be the appeal to the resume argument then? -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ I have always wished that my computer would be as easy to use as my telephone. My wish has come true. I no longer know how to use my telephone. - Bjarne Stroustrup ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
William T. Goodall wrote: Discrimination based on one's intelligence, athleticism or beauty... ... is just shallow? :-) Or did you mean discrimination based on definition 2 below? Dictionary.com defines discrimination as: 1) The act of discriminating. 2) The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment. 3) Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners. If you hire someone because they are smart, and you need someone smart in the position you are hiring for, is it discrimination? By definition 2, maybe. By definition 3, I would argue it is not. You are simply hiring someone based on their individual merit and how well they would fit the job. That would not be definition 3 discrimination. The same would hold for hiring someone beautiful to be a model or hiring someone athletic to play for your sports team. Reggie Bautista _ Crave some Miles Davis or Grateful Dead? Your old favorites are always playing on MSN Radio Plus. Trial month free! http://join.msn.com/?page=offers/premiumradio ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
--- Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Wasn't Marx a Jew ethnicaly? His family converted. It's certainly possible to be a self-hating Jew. Oh come on! That's a stretch and you know it. I think you will agree that it is more likely that he made the distinction you do not. Were his statments about the Jewish religion and not the Jewish people? One of the things that makes Judaism special is that you can't really distinguish the two. I knwo a lot of friends who are very proud to be jewish, but are athiests, so exactly how many such individuals do we need to document before it falsafise your assertian that there is not a destinction? When he talks about the Jewish God being money he was trafficing in the vilest of anti-semitic stereotypes. I personaly do not believe that stereotype, even when discussing religion. However, he is specificaly discussing religion and therefore ideas not ethnicity. Is it vile to have differing views from another's ideas? We may agree that Communism is a bad idea and that the way that communist act in the world is not benificial to a greater society, but that doesn't mean that we think that any Rusians are bad people. There is a distinction. Doesn't Marx speak poorly about nearly all religions? He didn't write _On the Christian Problem_. That is a good point, but he did write plenty that clearly showed his views about christianity as well. It also wouldn't have been politicaly feasable for him to have written that document at that time. Once again, I am not agreeing with his viewpoint, and I am not taking up for him in the slightest. I disagree with nearly everything he had to say. I don't personaly like religion of any sort for me personaly, but I that doesn't mean that I agree with his assesmnet of the Jewish faith. Please do keep this in mind. There is a distinction even here. Do you consider someone who disaproves of a religion to be a racesist? Are the two not distict and seperate? They can be, but in the case of Judaism, they tend not to be. I disagree. The most outspoken critics of the Jewish faith are generaly Jews. (At least in my circles). I will say that the idea that anyone who is anti Judaism is anti jew, is a dangerous consept. There is no group which should be beyond critisim. No matter what has happened in the past. Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion - pretending otherwise is sophistry, to be frank. Yes I agree. So when one speaks today about the two one must be very specific about which one they are refering to. I am not so sure that at that time, one _who himself was ~ethnicaly~ jewish_ would have bothered making the distinction. It is clear in such a case that he would have been refering to the religion. Sophistry is such an issue here in both directions, claiming that someone who disaproves of a religion is a raceist is just as bad. I must read the whole thing, but from what I can tell, it seems that you are mixing concepts. While Marx clearly had issues with all religions, he does not seem to have issue with any ethnic group, and therefore classifying him as an anti-semite seems dogmatic in the context of the converstation we were having. Again, he didn't write _On the Christian Question_. If you want to argue that he didn't have a specific animus against Judaism, you're going to have to find similar statements against other religions in his work _of the same intensity and focus_. And you can't, because they don't exist. That is not what I learned in school. And I think that is what everyone learned as well. Since you are the scolar, why don't you enlighten us as to why this well known fact is not the case. To be quite honest, I don't have the time, or the pacience, to study the writings of someone so infuriating. I don't know why I would have learned that Marx was an athiest if he wasn't. Quite frankly I do not care. But anyway you have stated enough here to make my point that people do not make distinctions about information, they come to the expression with pre-concieved notions about what sets of consepts automaticaly belong with what other sets of consepts. Quite simply Dogmatism: a viewpoint or system of ideas based on insufficiently examined premises. Granted Marx had did have a bunch of whack ideas, but hate for any particular racial group doesn't seem to be one of them. Since you are so versed in the document, why don't you point out where he specifies anything to the contrary. _ Jan William Coffey Luckily for me, Dan M. did that for me. No he didn't. Look, Jan, you don't have to believe Marx was an anti-semite if you don't want to. You can argue with the textual evidence all you want. I think you might want to be a little more restrained in suggesting that someone doesn't know anything about a subject, though
Re: Dogmatism
On 2 Nov 2003, at 4:00 am, Dan Minette wrote: - Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 2:28 PM Subject: Re: religious/political question Unfortunately, as Dan Minette pointed out last year this definition 'can equally be applied to mountain climbing, biking, etc.' - because it is not a definition of religion at all, it is a definition of the figurative usage of the word religion as applied to things that are not religion at all in a normal sense. And, IIRC, you jumped all over me when I was making that argument. You even alleged that my momma sewed socks that smell. :-) I wouldn't call you any more or less religious than a Marxist. And neither of us would call Marxism a religion. I would call Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism the official state (pseudo) religion of the former USSR though... and it was evil, EVIL I say! People with theist, non-theist, and atheistic viewpoints can be dogmatic about their metaphysical beliefs. One of the manifestations of dogmatism that I have noticed over the years is the attitude that error has no rights. Another is the denial of data that contradicts a priori belief. A third is the metaphorical extrapolation that is then taken as literal truth. Like metaphysics ? :) Religions can be quite undogmatic when needs must. The LDS positions on polygamy and the cut of the sacred undergarments for example... An interesting aside to this is a conversation I had with an atheist friend of mine during a long drive at the end of a business trip. He pointed out that the conflict between evolution and fundamentalism didn't really start until the 20s. At that time, Social Darwinism was raising its ugly head; and folks took notice. The real fight was between fundamentalists and folks who held a nonsensical extrapolation from a reasonable (albeit rather general at the time) scientific theory. So the Scopes trial was a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water? I can see that people objecting to the nonsense of Social Darwinism could get it conflated with biological Darwinism, but I didn't know it actually happened. I thought Scopes was purely about the teaching of evolution in school. -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful termination of their C programs. -- Robert Firth ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
And neither of us would call Marxism a religion. I would call Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism the official state (pseudo) religion of the former USSR though... and it was evil, EVIL I say! Please leave Marx out of it. He died in 1883 (34 years before the Russian Revolution), he never expected (nor would he have approved) Communism to come first to an agrarian, largely pre-industrial country like Russia, and he would have been appalled, infuriated, outraged, disgusted, shocked and in every other possible way rejected everything Lenin and Stalin and their successors did in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere. Tom Beck www.prydonians.org www.mercerjewishsingles.org I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I never dreamed I'd see the last. - Dr Jerry Pournelle ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Please leave Marx out of it. He died in 1883 (34 years before the Russian Revolution), he never expected (nor would he have approved) Communism to come first to an agrarian, largely pre-industrial country like Russia, and he would have been appalled, infuriated, outraged, disgusted, shocked and in every other possible way rejected everything Lenin and Stalin and their successors did in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere. Tom Beck I doubt it. Although Marx certainly wouldn't have wanted communism to come to Russia first, everything that _happened_ in Russia is a logical outgrowth of his beliefs. Marx certainly would have had great sympathy for the methods Lenin and Stalin used - they follow from his philosophy fairly clearly. The dictatorship part of dictatorship of the proletariat was not a misnomer. Marx _certainly_ would have approved of Lenin's and Stalin's anti-semitism. On the Jewish Question is so viciously anti-semitic that the historical affinity of some Jewish intellectuals for Marxism has always confused the hell out of me. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
On 2 Nov 2003, at 6:30 pm, Gautam Mukunda wrote: Marx _certainly_ would have approved of Lenin's and Stalin's anti-semitism. On the Jewish Question is so viciously anti-semitic It was actually written as a defense of the Jews against Bruno Bauer's argument that Jews should not be granted full civic rights unless they converted to Christianity. that the historical affinity of some Jewish intellectuals for Marxism has always confused the hell out of me. Marx was a Jewish intellectual :) -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ How long a minute is depends on which side of the bathroom door you're on. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: An interesting aside to this is a conversation I had with an atheist friend of mine during a long drive at the end of a business trip. He pointed out that the conflict between evolution and fundamentalism didn't really start until the 20s. At that time, Social Darwinism was raising its ugly head; and folks took notice. The real fight was between fundamentalists and folks who held a nonsensical extrapolation from a reasonable (albeit rather general at the time) scientific theory. . Tom Beck wrot: And neither of us would call Marxism a religion. I would call Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism the official state (pseudo) religion of the former USSR though... and it was evil, EVIL I say! Please leave Marx out of it. He died in 1883 (34 years before the Russian Revolution), he never expected (nor would he have approved) Communism to come first to an agrarian, largely pre-industrial country like Russia, and he would have been appalled, infuriated, outraged, disgusted, shocked and in every other possible way rejected everything Lenin and Stalin and their successors did in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and elsewhere. And then there was some other rambelings by someone who clearly has not studied Marx, and instead has listened to some bs from some dogmatic group. This happens all the time. While in a conversation about the movie Starship Troopers, an associate stated that it was unfortunate that the uniforms looked so much like Nazi uniforms. I then stated that it wasn't unfortunate at all, that Nazi's definatly had good tailors and fashion designers, and that their uniforms looked really cool. I spent what must have been 3 weeks trying to get the group to see the difference between that statment and believing that the Nazis were the good guys. I still think they think I am a fasciest. It remids me of getting excpelled in high school for choosing Edelwiss as my chior solo. A group of jewish parents couldn't sperate the idea of a great song from a greate movie with some political meaning. People make generalizations, they make associations and combinations, and then they assume that this combination and association is allways true. People need to wake up from this, not doing so is allowing your mind to be controled by someone with some agenda. = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
- Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 1:37 PM Subject: Re: Dogmatism And then there was some other rambelings by someone who clearly has not studied Marx, and instead has listened to some bs from some dogmatic group. Out of curiosity, who taught the Marxism class that you took, Jan? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
--- William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It was actually written as a defense of the Jews against Bruno Bauer's argument that Jews should not be granted full civic rights unless they converted to Christianity. That's not my interpretation at all, I'm afraid. It was written as a _response_ to Bruno Bauer's argument, but I don't quite see how you can call it a defense. It's fundamental thrust was that the problem with the Jews was that they were too Jewish, after all, and that Jews were essence of everything bad about capitalist society. = Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freedom is not free http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __ Do you Yahoo!? Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears http://launch.yahoo.com/promos/britneyspears/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Dogmatism
--- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Jan Coffey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2003 1:37 PM Subject: Re: Dogmatism And then there was some other rambelings by someone who clearly has not studied Marx, and instead has listened to some bs from some dogmatic group. Out of curiosity, who taught the Marxism class that you took, Jan? I do not remember his name. The class was on world history and political systems. We spent 3 weeks on marxism/communism, 3 on fascism, the other 10 on other various systems inclusing several forms of capitalist democracy. Why do you ask? = _ Jan William Coffey _ __ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Dogmatism
- Original Message - From: William T Goodall [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Killer Bs Discussion [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2003 2:28 PM Subject: Re: religious/political question Unfortunately, as Dan Minette pointed out last year this definition 'can equally be applied to mountain climbing, biking, etc.' - because it is not a definition of religion at all, it is a definition of the figurative usage of the word religion as applied to things that are not religion at all in a normal sense. And, IIRC, you jumped all over me when I was making that argument. You even alleged that my momma sewed socks that smell. :-) I wouldn't call you any more or less religious than a Marxist. People with theist, non-theist, and atheistic viewpoints can be dogmatic about their metaphysical beliefs. One of the manifestations of dogmatism that I have noticed over the years is the attitude that error has no rights. Another is the denial of data that contradicts a priori belief. A third is the metaphorical extrapolation that is then taken as literal truth. An interesting aside to this is a conversation I had with an atheist friend of mine during a long drive at the end of a business trip. He pointed out that the conflict between evolution and fundamentalism didn't really start until the 20s. At that time, Social Darwinism was raising its ugly head; and folks took notice. The real fight was between fundamentalists and folks who held a nonsensical extrapolation from a reasonable (albeit rather general at the time) scientific theory. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
