Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ] |
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [>
About Chomsky... -- Joe Taylor, 22:04:58 03/19/04 Fri (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)
...I hate him based on the following things he said:
- 9/11 is comparable to anti-Nazi resistance
- The Japanese invasion temporarily liberated East and Southeast Asia
- The USA should've sued Bin Laden in the International Court of Justice in response to 9/11
- The Khmer Rouge had an overall positive effect on Cambodia
- Americans are stupid due to a corporate conspiracy to dumb the population down.
See, usually the term anti-American is used to mean opposition to the United States, not to the American people. I know this based on two major pieces of evidence:
- The term pro-American is always used in relation to the USA and never to the Americans;
- The patriots and other pro-Americans use the term "anti-American" more than anyone else, and have defined it as opposition to the USA, not to the Americans.
Now, you know my opinion of patriotism. One of the many problems I have with American culture is its patriotism. But that's outside the scope of that article; hence, I bashed nationalism directed against the United States but not American patriotism. If I write an article about why the Iraq war was an atrocity, would you attack me because the dropping of the atomic bombs killed more than three times as many civilians as the invasion and occupation have so far killed?
"The rape of freedom has robbed the word not only of its meaning but also of its centrality to political theory; after all, any attempt to define it would be the same as inventing a word, say, 'Quarpie,' and giving it a definition."
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [>
Well, as American I'd favor the conspiracy theory, this would remove my own responsibility for being dumb.... *L* -- Robert, 05:22:10 03/20/04 Sat (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)
the stuff you quoted is idiotic, I don't deny it, but some such parts don't make me hate someone. Beside of it Chomsky has a lot of good stuff too.
Your second point is part of the problem. Anti-american is increasingly transformed by them into addressing any opposition towards anything originating from the US, preferably their world domination agenda. The same happens with anti-semitism, that is made to address any opposition against israeli activities.
When I opposed the US invading Iraq this didn't make me anti-american. I'm meanwhile aware of a lot of stuff going on in the US I strictly oppose, but this doesn't make me anti-american either - because there's enough stuff I like and agree with.
BTW, I don't attack you. I just disagree with the way you use a term - this doesn't even necessary mean to disagree with what you mean by using this term. Abuse of words may corrupt seriously, but it doesn't destroy completely and can be reversed.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [>
Bingo. -- Joe Taylor, 09:19:28 03/20/04 Sat (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)
If he were British or French or Indian or Japanese, he'd correctly blame the Americans themselves.
Your second point is part of the problem. Anti-american is increasingly transformed by them into addressing any opposition towards anything originating from the US, preferably their world domination agenda.
No. I take care to only use this term, or at least in its weakest form (circumstantial anti-Americanism) on people who oppose most US actions. Sometimes most US actions deserve to be opposed, and hence anti-Americanism is justified; now is such a time. Sometimes most US actions deserve to be supported, as in during the New Deal or even right after WW2, and hence anti-Americanism is not justified.
What I'm trying to do is divorce terms from connotations. Anti-Semitism, for instance, is purely a connotation, because it connotes the holocaust and radical Muslims but can't be used to describe any rational person; more descriptive terms that some pro-Israelis try in vain to connect to anti-Semitism are "anti-Israeli," "anti-Zionist," or even "pro-Arab"/"pro-Palestinian" given the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Abuse of words may corrupt seriously, but it doesn't destroy completely and can be reversed.
You're wrong. In some cases, words can be so thoroughly raped by so many people that they lose all meaning - freedom is one such word. Different groups of people use it to mean completely different things, and everyone in a debate (even in a scholarly one) tries to claim it. Hence, developing a theory on the theme of freedom is no different from making up a word, say "Clainthir," and developing a theory on it.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [>
"Sometimes most US actions deserve to be opposed" and sometimes "to be supported" - if you believe this makes sense....... -- Robert, 09:34:18 03/21/04 Sun (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)
it's never 'most', it's ALWAYS special actions backed by some ideology and it ALWAYS depends on whether these actions are right. Same in reverse, whenever a special action is wrong it has to be opposed.
This means anti-americanism NEVER ia a proper option. It's simply idiotic to oppose something because of the singular reason that it originates from America.
Same with anti-semitic - only an imbecil can hold such a position. It's different with ideologies like Zionism or special stuff done be the israeli government etc. where justified opposition is possible.
Hey, how powerful do you think are some morons? The term 'freedom' is as old as human history. All it's development is contained within, and the current abuse is only the very surface. If people use it in an unproper way, that's their problem. Only thing of importance is to be aware of it and to avoid it. A term only loses it's meaning if you make him lose it. And it's a loss only for you.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Two things: -- Joe Taylor, 10:28:48 03/21/04 Sun (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)
1. Anti- or pro-Americanism can also emerge from bottom up - i.e. be the result of beliefs about individual actions based on facts. So, for instance, if I look and see that 80% of what the USA has done in the last 5 years deserves to be opposed, then anti-Americanism makes sense. You don't have to ignore or marginalize the remaining 20% any more than you need to cast aside a belief that there should be labor regulations and a social safety net to be a capitalist.
2. While freedom is a very old concept, its positive connotation is about 250-300 years old, and it was only ingrained into national psyches in the late 18th century, with the American and French revolutions.
Its rape began even then, when liberals who were more libertarian in the Lockian tradition and liberals who were more authoritarian in Rousseau's tradition both claimed the concept of freedom for themselves. The mass-scale rape was obviously existent in the mid-19th century, when Marx tried to define freedom and liberty to basically mean the opposite of what they had meant till then, and when American conservatives said that abolishing slavery infringed on freedom. In industrializing countries in the west, freedom meant the freedom of the employer to exploit the workers; in the USA, where the reverence for the word freedom has always been the highest in the world, even now there are libertarians who claim that freedom is the gold standard and laissez faire.
As I say in The Rape of Freedom: "Hitler always promised he would make Germany free; Mao talked of freedom in an anti-Western and anti-Confucian context."
Regardless of how you define freedom, upward of 90% of informed people will disagree with you. Hence, the word is meaningless, except when used with an explanation, as in, "the freedom of speech," "the freedom from religion," and "the freedom to murder."
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I wasn't aware that you support generalizied activities.... -- Robert, 11:57:18 03/21/04 Sun (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)
I personally prefer always to act based on reality, for example I wouldn't refute something an opponent says just based on the observation that 80% of what he says are crap. You're free to act different though. *L*
Quantity and majority don't always fit in. Same thing with terms/concepts. Whatever atrocities done in the 'name' of freedom don't affect freedom itself.
And when people differ about such a concept, that's not astonishing, it's a developing concept, like 'evolution' or whatever. Additionally development always contains failures.
And if 'freedom' in itself would be meaningless - what sense would an expression like 'freedom of speech' make? It's just easier to approach a limited part than the whole of 'freedom', therefore there is less disagreement.
When 90% disagree about 'freedom' this only shows there is a problem. Nothing else. Basic philosophical concepts are always controversial. This doesn't mean they're useless, it only means they're difficult.
I didn't read the article you've linked, I've downloaded it and will read it at home. It's more comfortable this way with longer stuff.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Again, you're making that mistake -- Joe Taylor, 22:34:33 03/21/04 Sun (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)
I don't think that being wrong 80% of the time means being wrong all the time. If someone lies 80% of the time, I call him a liar. If a scientist screws up 80% of the time, I call him a screwup. In both cases, I still evaluate things individually and critically.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
In your essey you merely deal with freedom as political concept. That's a basic aspect and should be made more clear..... -- Robert, 12:23:25 03/24/04 Wed (NoHost/131.188.93.25)
You only address it incidentally while asking for it's original meaning and saying: "Many attribute the original use of freedom in a political context to John Locke" and in the end by: “It is going to become non-political.”
Your rape-theory is a nice one, however it only partly fits - preferably in political context. Pertaining 'rape', I'd say in first instance something should be done about the 'rapist'. If a person is attractive and gets raped, the priority generally isn't about removing this person, it's about dealing with rapists and rapist candidates to disable them acting this way. After all, raping isn't the proper way to deal with stuff and shouldn't be tolerated.
The reason this happened to freedom and less to liberty is because freedom is more popular and has a wider range of meaning, and while part of the stuff can indeed be addressed as rape mostly it's rather result of focussing on partial meanings of freedom, misunderstandings etc. Your asking for the 'original' meaning doesn't make much sense. Even if there is one, it's of no major significance, as a first opinion about an issue generally isn't the best one. That is, it only makes sense if freedom is nothing but a concept. This may indicate a basic gap between us, because for me it's a reality, and there the more appropriate question is: 'What is freedom?'
In medieval times people generally accepted being unfree as traditional situation and additionally as installed by some supreme Lord-God they believed in. That's why church never had a problem with slavery. What people opposed were usually certain ways to be treated they weren't fond of. To be property of someone not necessary is experienced as a bad thing, since most people don't intend to damage their property, in contrary they rather care for it. Dogs are property, nevertheless most of them have a decent life and enjoy it. A slave of Bill Gates probably would be better off than one of the numerous homeless in the US. Actually most people fear freedom and the responsibility that's part of it, and they eagerly exchange it for security, law and order, or whatever.
Imagine a person granted by his owner everything he wants - the only thing he lacks is to be his own master, but as long as the stuff is granted, this generally doesn't matter much. That's quite a bit the situation of modern society, and more than quite a bit the situation of most believers. According to their understanding they are owned by their respective God and in varying degrees subdue to his commands. It's sort of oriental despotism, with a nice, caring despot of course - well, mostly nice - but nevertheless a despot. The same applys in varying degree to all who are subdue to someone or something, some addiction or whatever. When your current commander in chief switched from booze to God, he just replaced one master with another one, the basic situation remained the same as before - except that this way he got the votes of the major section of his fellow slaves. Actually it's a good joke that most inhabitants of 'the land of the free' basically are unfree and fiercely stick to it.
Well, now we have the concept of being subdue to some sort of master, beside of the one that focusses on removing limitations or granting whatever stuff. Freedom of thought can be granted to someone, but this doesn't necessary mean such a person will ever have any free thought. On the other hand it's possible to practice free thought despite of whatever manipulation and oppression someone is exposed to - though people disagree up to which degree free thought is possible. Same elsewhere, to be granted - free vote or whatever - doesn't mean to exercise it. And here it indeed makes sense to use different terms - not because of freedom being raped beyond hope, but because it may be useful to address different stuff in different ways and to 'liberate' freedom from mere conditions that may - or may not - be helpful to develop it.
Freedom is a matter of personal development. Though affected by social conditions, and though social conditions more or less reflect the level of freedom obtained by the people living there, essentially it's beyond conditions. It depends on the personal decision and ability to deny any domination by whoever and whatever and to act solely based on ones own understanding (the issue of understanding is essential there). Social conditions have to be optimized to further this development. The reason freedom became a major issue in modern times, necessarily accompanied by lots of abuse - verbally and by action, is because the average level of individualization in western world reached a certain point. Reaching this level requires decision whether to stand the challenge of freedom and responsibility, or to surrender to some sort of authority. The worst failure happened in Germany.
It's different elsewhere, and this affects the conditions appropriate there. It's a bit like individual development, for example in the beginning authority plays a major and healthy role - and the cultures throughout this world aren't same-time, beside of various more sort of 'individual' differences, though globalization increasingly adjusts it. For example Aborigines represented a pretty early stage - and a lot of damage was done by just importing european stuff regardless of what the situation would have required. This will continue to cause major trouble. In my opinion the way the Communists handled the stuff in China basically was beneficial there, despite of all crap that accompanied it.
The problem with freedom is mainly the lack of a proper concept. This can't be fixed by making up another term (term = concept + word), though this may help. Main thing is to develop a proper concept for the issue. And the problem there is, that freedom is a to-become-thing, not a to-be-thing - at least not at the current human level, a possibility. Without realizing it it doesn't exist. Understanding such stuff is still in the beginning.
I always liked 'realize' in english, it contains 'understanding' as well as 'making real', that's a really good concept - regardless of which part you use, it's accompanied by the other one. In german 'realisieren' as 'making real' it is separated from 'verstehen' as 'understand'. Another effect is, that this way 'realize' in the meaning of understanding gains aktivity whereas 'verstehen' is rather receptive mode. On the other hand receptive mode supports experiencing ideas as realities, another important thing. Both combined give a good approach.
BTW What I said was provocative. I don't think you're acting this way. *L*
It was just meant to illustrate that 80% shit wouldn't justify anti-americanism, that is to oppose it generally. They would however justify to examine everything originating from there VERY carefully, because of the 80% chance of being shit.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Alright... -- Joe Taylor, 00:41:48 03/27/04 Sat (wc03.wlfdle.rnc.net.cable.rogers.com/66.185.84.70)
Your rape-theory is a nice one, however it only partly fits - preferably in political context. Pertaining 'rape', I'd say in first instance something should be done about the 'rapist'. If a person is attractive and gets raped, the priority generally isn't about removing this person, it's about dealing with rapists and rapist candidates to disable them acting this way. After all, raping isn't the proper way to deal with stuff and shouldn't be tolerated.
Your asking for the 'original' meaning doesn't make much sense. Even if there is one, it's of no major significance, as a first opinion about an issue generally isn't the best one. That is, it only makes sense if freedom is nothing but a concept. This may indicate a basic gap between us, because for me it's a reality, and there the more appropriate question is: 'What is freedom?'
In medieval times people generally accepted being unfree as traditional situation and additionally as installed by some supreme Lord-God they believed in. That's why church never had a problem with slavery. What people opposed were usually certain ways to be treated they weren't fond of. To be property of someone not necessary is experienced as a bad thing, since most people don't intend to damage their property, in contrary they rather care for it. Dogs are property, nevertheless most of them have a decent life and enjoy it. A slave of Bill Gates probably would be better off than one of the numerous homeless in the US. Actually most people fear freedom and the responsibility that's part of it, and they eagerly exchange it for security, law and order, or whatever.
Imagine a person granted by his owner everything he wants - the only thing he lacks is to be his own master, but as long as the stuff is granted, this generally doesn't matter much. That's quite a bit the situation of modern society, and more than quite a bit the situation of most believers. According to their understanding they are owned by their respective God and in varying degrees subdue to his commands. It's sort of oriental despotism, with a nice, caring despot of course - well, mostly nice - but nevertheless a despot. The same applys in varying degree to all who are subdue to someone or something, some addiction or whatever. When your current commander in chief switched from booze to God, he just replaced one master with another one, the basic situation remained the same as before - except that this way he got the votes of the major section of his fellow slaves. Actually it's a good joke that most inhabitants of 'the land of the free' basically are unfree and fiercely stick to it.
Freedom is a matter of personal development. Though affected by social conditions, and though social conditions more or less reflect the level of freedom obtained by the people living there, essentially it's beyond conditions. It depends on the personal decision and ability to deny any domination by whoever and whatever and to act solely based on ones own understanding (the issue of understanding is essential there). Social conditions have to be optimized to further this development. The reason freedom became a major issue in modern times, necessarily accompanied by lots of abuse - verbally and by action, is because the average level of individualization in western world reached a certain point. Reaching this level requires decision whether to stand the challenge of freedom and responsibility, or to surrender to some sort of authority. The worst failure happened in Germany.
It's different elsewhere, and this affects the conditions appropriate there. It's a bit like individual development, for example in the beginning authority plays a major and healthy role - and the cultures throughout this world aren't same-time, beside of various more sort of 'individual' differences, though globalization increasingly adjusts it. For example Aborigines represented a pretty early stage - and a lot of damage was done by just importing european stuff regardless of what the situation would have required. This will continue to cause major trouble.
In my opinion the way the Communists handled the stuff in China basically was beneficial there, despite of all crap that accompanied it.
The problem with freedom is mainly the lack of a proper concept. This can't be fixed by making up another term (term = concept + word), though this may help.
It was just meant to illustrate that 80% shit wouldn't justify anti-americanism, that is to oppose it generally. They would however justify to examine everything originating from there VERY carefully, because of the 80% chance of being shit.
[ Edit | View ]
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
It's like I suspected, our point of view is a basically different one... -- Robert, 11:26:32 03/28/04 Sun (host093025.phil.uni-erlangen.de/131.188.93.25)
I've encountered such situations before and it's almost impossible to deal with it. When there's a basic gap this affects about everything, even consent widely is result of misunderstanding there. Compared with it it would be a piece of cake to reach consent with Shaun about the US issue - and I'm not too optimistic about such a thing.
For example when you say "freedom has no meaning anyway" this may make sense within your system, but it doesn't make any for me. It's derived from your idea of freedom being ripped of it's original meaning and such stuff only works within your special concept of word, term, concept and subject. The basic issue to deal with would be the concept of 'concept' because everything is derived from there, but I don't see the possibility of accessing it here. I just recommend you to check the operation system anytime soon, the more the stuff stockpiles, the more messy such an action becomes.
So the best way to deal with the stuff now is to tolerate each others view and not to bother about it any more. At least that's what I intend to do.
Likewise you're free to address whatever and whomever you like as anti-american, with one single exception - me, because I'm my domain.
|
Forum timezone: GMT-8 VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB: Before posting please read our privacy policy. VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems. Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved. |