a cry towards the absurd

The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.Camus
mail list ° site map ° @  

  existentialism ° art ° poetry ° exquisite corpse ° chat ° search engine
( the cry ) Philosophy Discussion Board

Re: Very touching

[Follow Ups] [Post Followup] [(the cry) philosophy discussion board]

Posted by Spratley on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 at 19:47:50 :

In Reply to: Very touching posted by Joe on Tuesday, December 17, 2002 at 23:21:14 :

: And when a woman is raped, I assume you take the position that she should analyze how she asked for it, what she did to encourage the attack, etc..
You've identified an example where the analogy doesn't work. . .they don't all work to explain what I mean precisely --that's the problem with analogies. You try to find one in which the circumstances match closely enough to be meaningful. If I were forced to describe how the rape scenario does fit, I'd have to asks questions like: Was the woman careless? Did she walk down the street oblivious to who might be around? Did she walk down deserted streets in a bad part of town at a bad time of night? Did she ignore warnings about a rapist being in the neighborhood? Did she fail to lock her door at night? Did the rapist ask her what time is was and did she snub him when he did?

And after its all over, she sure as shit better ask herself what she can do to avoid something like that again. . .find me a rape victim that doesn't ask herself those questions and I'll. . . .

But its important to note, the woman didn't deserve to get raped any more than America deserved to be attacked. The rapist is despicable just as the terrorists were. But America did some careless and preventable things that led to the attack.

The difference qwithin the analogy lies here: While the woman most likely didn't do anything she "shouldn't" have --its not wrong to walk down a street at night-- America may very well have done some things wrong --it is not right to impose your will on other people who did not ask you to.

: You know, the blacks in the south never asked themselves what they did to make the rednecks hate them, did they? Is this really the moral principle you want to make here? It sounds like kitch relativism that is supposed to impress people who don't think logically.
No, its not the moral principle I want to make. Its not the moral principle I am making. . . its you that is making it and trying to pin it on me. A more apt analogy would be that white people should ask themselves why some blacks hate them so much. The answer, of course would be the same as why some Muslims seem to hate all of us Americans so much --because some rednecks did bad things to them, therefore they identify all of us with them. The balck/redneck situation just doesn't serve as a good analogy for what happened --that's why I didn't use it. Ananalogy is a tool, not a truth in itself.

You may think that my idea is kitchy and therefore somehow worthless. But likewise I am amazed at how some people can look at what happened and refuse to admit nto their minds that what those people did was somehow a reaction to something America did. It seems mich more illogical to me that those terrorists would get the ideas completely out of the blue that America hs committed great injustices and ought to suffer some revenge for it. Action/Reaction and all that. Who does things without cause. Why, crazy people do. . . no wonder all these people who refuse to admit that America was somehow culpable in all this insist that the terrorists were nothing but irrational insane monsters! If they're not then we might have to admit that we do some pretty shitty things to the rest of the world!

: Another brilliant analogy and a morally repugnant position gussied up as empathy. You are as predictable as the tides, your understanding of militant Islam must approach zero if you believe what you just posted.
Its repugnant to think that the things America does on the world stage are anything less that reasonable, justified, non-exploitative and appreciated? I wonder why a peson would feel the need to think that the sociaty they are a part of is picture perfect and not at all open to justified criticism?

I'm not ashamed of being predictable. I don't see how predictability devalues anything I beleive in. Being predictable says more about your need to feel intellectually powerful than it does about my ideas. You understand my set of values, it allows you to extrapolate how I'll feel about something, and that makes you feel superior. What's more it makes you feel like the ideas I have are lesser somehow? What's better about non-predicatability? How does a second party's ability to anticipate an idea have any impact on the first party's idea?

: Although you probably don't care, I once dated a muslim, and let me tell you, there ain't a goddamn thing this country could have do except adopt sharia law to satisfy her family (she eventually severed contact with them). What is amazing about your error and the errors of many who agree with you is that these muslims are not ambiguous about their intentions. They have made it quite clear that they want to destroy us because we are infidels, flout islamic law, etc. Yet there are always gullible westerners who continue to candy-coat their positions as if its' just a mutual misunderstanding. I'll at least give Al Quaeda credit for being quite clear and honest about their zealous hatred of non-muslims. I'm not sure why some westerners need to be hit over the head with a brick to catch on.
The Muslims suffer the from the same Cultural principles that we do. Someone disagrees with us and we automatically think they're wrong. Same with the Muslims. PLease note, because I think I've siad this pretty clearly and still you do not let it sink in --I am not saying that the terrorists were justified in doing what they did. What they did was horrible. And they did it because they beleive that the thing they disagree with and that is impinging on them needs to be crushed and stamped out. BUt what they did was caused by reasons based in reality --America does shit on the world and impose itself on the world. Islam needs to check itself too --I did not say that it should not. That is my message. We should check oursleves, not go out and kill that which disagrees with us rather than killing that inside ourselges that leads to the conflicts.

I understand that Islam wants to eradicate us. I am saying that the solution that will work --that will not lead to more and mroe war without end-- is not to go killthem first. It is to change that which exists in our cultural programming which leads us to want to kill anything that disagrees with us.

Joe, I guess I say this for my own benefit becasuse you will not hear it --your feelings on these matters are not the end all be all. The fact that you think they are is evidence of the cultural programming I'm talking about. Thought you refuse to see it, I've actually got my hands on a pretty good chunk of truth. That you refuse to allow that speaks poorly of the chunk you are holding onto.

: Joe

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Optional Link
Optional Image Link

thecry!!! existentialism