Philosophy Now Forum

Hot, hyper-liberal rhetoric always operates by predictable patterns. They repeat endlessly.

It is vain and empty however.

Next!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 7:17 pm Next!

Agreed. Give us something worthwhile to discuss AJ. You're trope about "metaphysics" has gotten absurd.

Both the US and the UK should be occupied by some hostile nation for a few decades, that would set them straight heh.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 7:11 pm The topic of who, and what, is evil is one that can only be broached in a spirit of fairness and balance.

Unless of course one is deeply involved and committed to underhanded rhetorics.

You entire argument (quote/unquote) is now established in this form: Either you declare that •Hitler is Evil• …

… or I will assert this indicates you are associated with that Ontological Malevolence, are a supporter of Hitler, and are as evil.

Grownups don’t play in these semiotic pits.

Likewise, I can say that your dishonesty matches that of Immanuel Can, and that this makes you a weak and sad little shit stain of a man.

A false comparison. Convenient, but false.

You will proceed down an established line at this point.

Philosophically minded grown ups know that such terms as "good and evil" are opinons. Opinions are subjective as they are point of view.
Even someone as obvious as Hitler attracted adoration and was thought of as good for something.
I'm pretty sure, given a different time and place of birth there are more than a few characters on this Forum who would have adored Hitler

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 7:21 pm Both the US and the UK should be occupied by some hostile nation for a few decades, that would set them straight heh.

Who would you suggest?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 7:11 pm The topic of who, and what, is evil is one that can only be broached in a spirit of fairness and balance.

There's edge cases, and then there's paradigms.

Maybe it's difficult to say that my cat is a large cat, you may draw a different line to me on that matter. It is not difficult to say that a lion is a large cat, they are a paradigm example of exactly that thing. They are what the term was coined to mean. Even if tigers are bigger.

Let's try another one. Perhaps you find it difficult to say with appropriate fairness and balance that John Williams is or was a good musical composer, some people like his work on Star Wars a lot, others not so much. But it seems likely that you would assent that Mozart was a great composer, because that's a paradigm example. If we have use for the notion of a great composer at all, then Mozart gets that nod, but arguably John Williams does not, that latter one may be a matter of opinion.

So what would we consider a pardigm of an evil man, if not Hitler? On that basis, you should have no difficulty identifying Hitler as evil. Not unless either you are the one discarding notions of good and evil even though the moral skeptic is me, so that would be strange. Or ... I don't know ... perhaps you share some sympathy with Hitler in some sort of way?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 7:21 pm Both the US and the UK should be occupied by some hostile nation for a few decades, that would set them straight heh.

I just wish my leaders would stop having us do that to other countries. That would be a better option to me.

In that period, as in all periods, bad and evil actions and decisions were evident in people (leaders, drivers), and in movements. Hitler, in the present usage, is meant as a symbol of ontological evil. Notice this, internalize it, process it, and you will arrive at a more mature perspective about your usage.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 7:45 pm In that period, as in all periods, bad and evil actions and decisions were evident in people (leaders, drivers), and in movements. Hitler, in the present usage, is meant as a symbol of ontological evil. Notice this, internalize it, process it, and you will arrive at a more mature perspective about your usage.

Well he basically brought the world into a situation that created ENORMOUS death and suffering. He invaded Poland, France, Russia, Norway, EVERYONE around him almost with the exception of those who collaborated with him. He did not care about the suffering he brought on others. Germany itself, his own "blood and soil" eventually paid dearly for Hitlers prejudices. If there is such thing as "evil" are those not traits or otherwise indicative of an evil person?

AND On top of that, I suspect Hitler might have been "weak" and a "faggot". (Maybe putting it that way can extract some dislike of him from you?)

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 7:45 pm Hitler, in the present usage, is meant as a symbol of ontological evil.

Nobody believes in ontological evil. Hitler was this very bad man who did exceptionally evil stuff. And you are this weird man who needs to avoid saying that but also wants nobody to notice.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 8:03 pm

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 7:45 pm Hitler, in the present usage, is meant as a symbol of ontological evil.

Nobody believes in ontological evil. Hitler was this very bad man who did exceptionally evil stuff. And you are this weird man who needs to avoid saying that but also wants nobody to notice.

But he was loved.
He loved his dog; refused to eat meat.
He built the autobahns. Ahnd many people hate Jews. They think he did the right thing.

Now how many people think Obama, Bush and Clinton are "evil"?? I can tell you that many people who live in islam and have suffered from US agression think this trio are evil. Are they right?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 8:02 pm AND On top of that, I suspect Hitler might have been "weak" and a "faggot". (Maybe putting it that way can extract some dislike of him from you?)

Hitler only had one ball.

Hitler has only got one ball,
Göring has two but very small,
Himmler is rather sim'lar,
But poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.

Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 8:22 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2024 8:02 pm AND On top of that, I suspect Hitler might have been "weak" and a "faggot". (Maybe putting it that way can extract some dislike of him from you?)

Hitler only had one ball.

Hitler has only got one ball,
Göring has two but very small,
Himmler is rather sim'lar,
But poor old Goebbels has no balls at all.

Anyway, my point is that AJ seems to have more problems with human foibles than with human fascists.

However, perhaps I am being unfair. Perhaps I'm only upset because I'm not a model citizen as AJ would have me.