 |
 |
Sorry, may I just clarify that the comments in my previous e-mail (below) were addressed to 'Eugenia Kemble', not to Mike. Must change the headers. I sent this e-mail in response to Mike as I respect hi 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? As I said below, 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, of course not. Japanese aggression was a threat to the US's economic and strategic interests in the South Pacific. Though some might say it would 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: Hancock Phil To: 'Eugenia Kemble, Shanker Inst. '; [log in to unmask] ' Sent: 9/14/01 5:21 PM 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