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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005