File spoon-archives/heidegger.archive/heidegger_2003/heidegger.0304, message 181


Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 04:12:08 +0800
Subject: Re: doing a chomsky?
From: Malcolm Riddoch <riddoch-AT-central.murdoch.edu.au>


On Wednesday, April 9, 2003, at 02:14  PM, Anthony Crifasi wrote:

>  If you were HONESTLY anti-war in this matter, then that would be fine 
> and we could have an honest discussion about it. But in your case, as 
> also in Malcolm's, your whole anti-war stance is so obviously a mask 
> for your anti-CAPITALIST stance that the red flag you are sucking on 
> is not the one with the maple leaf on it.

Huh? Are you getting a bit over excited Anthony? I have trouble with 
your tautological reliance on definitional logic and don't think you 
have a particularly coherent way of arguing things, but that's just my 
opinion. It does however make it difficult to have any real 
philosophical discussion with you. You also have a rather rabid 
neo-conservative view of the current troubles which I find very 
shallow, unlike Michael Eldred's more thoughtful pro-war stance.

 From your supposed 'overcoming' of the geopolitical machination of will 
to power (for which there is still no longer any valid notion of good 
and evil or justice, only the calculation of power) to a confused 
slandering of one of your own patriotic citizens, you've further 
reduced yourself to the level of a Limbaughist 'reds under the bed' 
hysteria. Why do you bother with this sort of reactionary pap?

In what sense could you possibly think I'm 'anti-capitalist' and what 
does 'anti-capitalism' have to do with opposition to a unilateral 
preventive strike by the only nation on earth that can authorise itself 
to do so? My opposition to this war comes from the fact that it is a 
precedent for a new world order that overturns the old one set up after 
the collapse of Nazism over half a century ago. Maybe as Michael hopes, 
this bloodshed will all end in the democratisation of the middle east 
and the further development of a globalisation that benefits humanity 
as a whole, which would be fine by me. Ultimately my opposition is 
founded in a notion of a possible distinction between good and evil 
within the horizon of death, if you must know. I have this vague idea 
forming about a fundamental ontological ground for morality, related to 
temporality and dissolution. As far as I know this has nothing to do 
with notions of private property and the distribution of wealth... 
maybe you could enlighten me?

Anti-globalisation and anti-capitalist hysteria generally relies on the 
same simple formulaic reactionary propagandised thinking that you are 
an excellent conservative example of. If you could just calm down and 
think beyond your neo-con angst maybe you could honestly discuss these 
things. So why are you such a reactionary?

Regards,

Malcolm Riddoch



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005