Hang on. Why not, respond to the questions I asked of you.
I have received e-mails from you that have questioned how 'I'd like the
"right" of expression as practiced in Afghanistan?', you have informed me
that I should 'Leave the why questions to psychoanalysts and insane
psychopaths' and that the solution is the 'pure and simple eradication' of
'these people'. When I have offered my sympathy or distress at what has
happened, you have told me that is not enough.
Yet you never respond directly to the points I offer in what has become my
defence. I have now even been accused by you of the somewhat oxymoronic sin
of 'creating pacifist rationalizations for terrorism'.
What next, do I become a draft dodging hippie?
Please read Mike's previous e-mail. While I do not agree with him on a
number of points, I respect his contribution as I hope do most members of
this list. You may learn something from it, even if you appear to be
unwilling to engage with others of differing views.
Philip Hancock
Lecture in Sociology and Philosophy
School of Social Sciences
Glasgow Caledonian University
-----Original Message-----
From: Eugenia Kemble, Shanker Inst.
To: 'Hancock Phil'
Sent: 9/14/01 6:01 PM
Subject: RE: debate platform and justice
As per your last line: It would also have been nice if we had not
rendered
the FBI and the CIA impotent before the events of Tuesday. I hear a lot
from those on this list about what should not be done. What should our
policy be?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hancock Phil [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 12:22 PM
> To: 'Eugenia Kemble, Shanker Inst. ';
> [log in to unmask] '
> Subject: RE: debate platform and justice
>
> Sorry, I thought you had left this list as it lacked objectivity. Oh
> well,
> at least this one was sent to the whole list and not just to me
> personally.
>
> I sent this e-mail in response to Mike, as I respect his experiences,
> views
> and integrity.
> As for you, please explain how is it one moment I am supporting
terrorism
> and then I am a pacifist?
>
> Also, are you arguing that my reading of Hegel, or my concerns about
the
> use
> of ideas and history are erroneous? Also, I think it unlikely he had
much
> to
> say on the Second World War.
>
> As I said to Mike, if wanting to go to war is what people want, I can
> understand that. I am no pacifist. If someone killed my wife and
two-month
> year old baby, and I had the means I would look to kill them, no doubt
> about
> it. My hope is, however, that my friends would at least try to make
> understand what I was doing before I had the opportunity.
>
> As for Pearl Harbour it could not be ignored, it was a decelration of
war
> and Japanese aggression was a threat to the US's economic and
strategic
> interests in the South Pacific. Though some might argue that it would
also
> have been nice if the US government has got involved in the fight
against
> fascism before Hitler declared war on them.
>
> Philip Hancock
> Lecture in Sociology and Philosophy
> School of Social Sciences
> Glasgow Caledonian University
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eugenia Kemble, Shanker Inst.
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: 9/14/01 5:03 PM
> Subject: Re: debate platform and justice
>
> I suppose we should have ignored Pearl Harbor too, huh? Had we, Hegel
> would
> have thought us a bunch of jerks then, and would, I suspect, similarly
> regard your pacifist rationalizations for terrorism now.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hancock Phil [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Friday, September 14, 2001 11:07 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: debate platform and justice
> >
> > Hello Mike
> >
> > While I understand you anger and frustration, I worry that in order
to
> > justify or intellectualise your feelings you feel the need to invoke
> 19th
> > century philosophy on the way. The legacy for Nietzsche's work of
the
> > irrationalism of the 1930's has already left a permanent scare on
our
> > intellectual culture.
> >
> > For Hegel, the real is only rational in a real sate of rationality
to
> > paraphrase the oft used, but seldom understood line. This is clearly
> not
> > the
> > case at this point in world history. Nor can his system be used to
> defend
> > the proposition that A=A and B=B. The west (not just the USA) is
both
> a
> > force of criminality as well as justice, these terrorists are both
> > innocent
> > and guilty. The world is not monochromatic whatever the media is
> trying to
> > tell us. Nor are people monadic; we are not simply self-directing.
> > Consider
> > the implications of your reasoning. If the western alliance
> accidentally
> > kills another ten thousand innocent civilians, will it take
> > responsibility,
> > or say it was provoked and it can't be held responsible?
> >
> > If you want revenge against the bastards that killed thousands of
your
> > countrymen (as well as others from all over the world), and you see
> that
> > as
> > the grounds for a just war with all its potential consequences, I
can
> > understand and, while disagreeing, accept that. However, please
don't
> > tarnish even more the western philosophical tradition to justify it
> > (unless
> > of course you want to invoke the man as a nationalist and
anti-Semite,
> but
> > I
> > wouldn't have thought so).
> >
> > Best wishes
> >
> > Philip
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Michael CHUMER
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Sent: 9/14/01 1:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: debate platform and justice
> >
> > I think the time has come where people of any persuasion or belief
> > should
> > be strong enough to admit that they and only themselves are
> responsible
> > for their actions. Yet many on this list use this convoluted logic
> that
> > suggests the perpetrators of these acts and those who direct and
> > control
> > them are in someway justified. "It is not their fault" you say, "but
> the
> > evil Americans and their invasive policies".
> >
> > In Stace's explication of Hegel's logic the following can be found
> about
> > justice. And in this case justice will be done. I quote as follows:
> >
> > "The criminal is a rational being whose essence is universality; the
> > animal is not. It is therefore the inherent right of the criminal to
> be
> > treated as a rational and universal being. Hence the crime cannot be
> > regarded as a mere objectionable act , as dog's delinquencies may,
but
> > must be viewed as an affirmation of a law which the criminal wills
to
> be
> > universal. Violence, therefore must be punished by violence. For the
> > criminal has by his own act asserted the law of violence. It is his
> act
> > as
> > a rational being that his act should be taken as importing a
> universal,
> > as
> > erecting violence into law. It is the criminal therefore who
punishes
> > himself. It is his own will. He has asserted violence as his law and
> the
> > application of this law to himself is justice" Stace, 1955, The
> > Philosophy
> > of Hegel, p.390
> >
> > There are those on the list who will substitute the term "USA" for
the
> > term "criminal " I substitute the term "terrorist" for the term
> > "criminal". Recent polls indicate that 94% of those Americans
polled
> > support a declaration of war. I am sorry but I feel that we are
> sitting
> > on
> > the tip of the "iceberg of violent retribution" which represents the
> > view
> > of justice in the mind's of Americans as quoted above. Debate if you
> > will,
> > exercise in American bashing if you must, but realize that life as
we
> > know
> > it will change dramatically in the next few months because of these
> > horrific acts.
> >
> > Mike Chumer
|