If nothing beyond this, we have seen that in respect to political and ideological issues that even establishing a base for general, truthful statements is a fraught endeavor.Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2024 4:26 am As an American, I would LOVE it if I could confidently say our ally Israel is justified in what it's doing. I honestly would. However, there is a lot of information out there that suggests that they aren't and as a philosopher, I ought to go with the truth, don't you think, IC? Therefore, I see a need to establish the truth first.
In this it is interesting to point out that in all of IC’s “argument” that what we could all agree upon as a truth platform vis-a-vis Israel and Zionism, is not attainable for him. Why? I submit it is, at the core, religious zealotry. But is that all? In that I am uncertain.
In my view, seeing the “true facts” about Zionism and Israel’s founding is really really simple — if one chooses. It is a question of choice. Now, I say this as one who, some years back, was adamantly pro-Israel (different from Zionist I should add).
But I saw the issue differently. Or framed it differently. The conquest and occupation of Palestine reveals the dynamic of power-politics and, concomitantly, the art of rhetorical justification required in our world to support those choices made by power. Naturally, the “players” and beneficiaries of the power-dynamic cannot “tell the truth”! And here arises the need, and the art, of the Machiavellian deception. Based, as it is, in a power-dynamic and aware, as it is, that “the truth” cannot be told.
Only someone outside of the dynamic is free enough to see and describe what is actually going on.
As •philosophers• we can access that distance if we choose, but how curious it is to observe how partisans (of particular stances) refuse to carry out the philosophical distancing needed, and thus show themselves as acute sophists.
