phyllo wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 1:50 pm
What kind of weirdo philosophy forum is this?
I have noticed that people, on this site, like to talk about each other and engage in personal attacks. That's not philosophy.
I am certainly not the topic.
First, we are not really dealing with *pure philosophy* when we deal with our ideas about and our relationship to
contemporary events. With that said it must be understood that we are in a time of deep and consequential crisis. What is now happening in Israel is just one of a set of issues of consequence that have roiled the social spheres for about a decade now. I do not want to imply that conflicts of this sort are new but only to say that there are periods when the intensity seems to increase.
It is simply an impossible demand to ask that people do not respond personally to political events and machinations. If you make that demand, the demand is made like a naive child. One model of social and political conflict we can refer to to illustrate this is the French Revolution. The so-called Birth of Democracy also involved struggles of a deeply
personal sort.
One tactic of our belovèd Immanuel Can -- a most slippery and dishonest character as most seem to recognize -- is to weasel out of the obligation to respond to contrary ideas presented to him by focusing on a slight or an insult. But what I propose that we all consider is the soundness or lack of soundness of an idea and certainly an idea-defect might correspond to
a personal defect, and that a corrupt idea-defect may well correspond to a corrupt moral and ethical defect. We also must recognize that the things we advocate for will inevitably have
consequences. Need I mention
the consequences of 30 years of war?
So for example -- here I will cite a topical issue -- when Christian Zionists employ the assertion that Jews and Israelis are "God's own chosen" and we are obligated to *support* them because of a metaphysical command to do so -- or suffer the consequences of a curse -- I think that we can all recognize that those invested in this idea are not merely arguing in some sort of pure philosophical court, but are putting their weight behind ultra-consequential policy choices with extraordinary ramifications.
To point out that the supporting ideas are not rational but
ur-irrational and to label them 'fanatical' and to refer to *religious fanaticism* and to the fanatic that espouses these idea involves a critical attack, as it were, on the very structure where that person locates themselves. That is, their perceptual system. This is in no sense a small matter. And it is not in any sense an impersonal matter. If what I say is true then it is a necessary and concomitant element of philosophical and intellectual discourse to consider the psycho-intellectual grounding not only of our dire opponents but of ourselves as well. And there is the important thing: self-analysis and self-critique are essentially projects of
ad hominem. That is to say -- and I assume that all have been through such processes in one way or another -- when we engage in moral debates, when we are forced through circumstances to deal on an inner plane with our own moral defects, the critique and the process is
totally personal.
In our political and social world today it is simply understood that a backward or retrograde or an anti-progressive notion is not merely an abstract idea that we entertain, but an idea of real consequence for which we have personal and intellectual responsibility.
There is no one who writes here who does not have some level of
personal investment in the hot topics of the day. And there is no one who writes here who does not operate under the assumption that
ideas have consequences and that we have a moral responsibility to formulate sound perspectives and ideas.
Now, it is in the light of this -- the issue of consequences -- that a debate is being rehearsed here about the politics of Israel. I cannot think of a topic that has had more consequence (in the region certainly) than that of the US support of the State of Israel. The
essence of the issue is there, right there. I have been, let's say, arguing against the set of assumptions about Israel that are directly part-and-parcel of the US support for the State of Israel. These are ideas deeply bound up in Christian (and Jewish) metaphysical assertions. It all extends from the notion of 'chosenness'. All of it.
Who holds these ideas and why? That is the question. And that is the ground and the backdrop to Immanuel Can's entire political argument. It is not a political argument essentially. It is a metaphysical argument. And it is my view that when the inner structure of the core argument is actually seen and laid out for examination that it will be -- that it must be -- rejected by sensible, moral and rational people. That is if we actually are people of this sort (and I am not closed to the possibility that we are not!)
So I would ask not that we drop the probing of moral failure or moral error and moral defect when it pertains to the stances and ideas of those who confront, but not
merely or exclusively to rely on an insult of their character. If *character* is an issue, fine, but why and how it is a character defect needs to be
explained.
Nice try.
