From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Iraq, evil, was doing a chomsky?
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 20:13:33 +0000


John Foster wrote:

> > So if fundamental ontology does not exclude either
> > "side," this does not mean that both an axiom and its contradictory are
> > true, because being-false is also a way of being-in-the-world, and is
> > therefore grounded in fundamental ontology too.
>
>Well that may be so, but 'analytically' the relationship of ontology - or 
>as
>you call it - being "opposed" is not presented here as even existing. For
>instance, according to your presentation being right or wrong has no
>relationship to ontology; but then you say that fundamental ontology "does
>not exclude either 'side'... because being-false is also a way of
>being-in-the-world and *THEREFORE GROUNDED IN ONTOLOGY TOO*." (your words)
>
>Unfortunately there is a serious contradiction in your presentation here.

Unfortunately no there is not. I never said that "being right or wrong has 
no relationship to ontology." I said that being right or wrong is an ontic 
facticity, not an ontological existential. OF COURSE every ontic facticity 
has a "relationship" to ontology, since the ontological is exhibited in 
every ontic facticity. But that does not mean that an ontological 
existential is an ontic facticity! To be phenomenologically exhibited is not 
to equate one with the other. That would be like saying that Dasein's 
existential structure is exhibited in any ontic factical existence of 
Dasein, therefore Dasein's essence is an ontic facticity!

>The more classical and pragmatic view regarding ethics and notions of
>good and evil are readily apparent 'in-the-world'. For instance the
>neoplatonic and christian view of evil suggests that evil represents a
>'deficiency' of the good. The only thing ethically which exists in the
>universe there fore is the good, the true, and the beautiful. These are 
>what
>are termed 'axiological' values, and they are 'incommensurate with each
>other' and cannot be 'reduced to one or the other'; that is they are much
>like Platonic archetypes, pure forms.
>
>Therefore what is termed good and evil 'reflect' relative judgements as to
>situations-in-the-world.

To say that good and evil reflect relative judgments about 
situations-in-the-world is not the same as saying that they are ONTOLOGICAL. 
Of course we make judgments concerning good and bad about things in the 
world, but that does not make it ONTOLOGICAL, because the ontological is the 
very ground of thing-hood in the first place.

>So the Iraq War is seen by you as good, and we see
>the war as relatively evil since there are innocent humans killed (babies,
>moms and dads, etc), buildings destroyed. We see the evil too as the US
>which has only one trick up it's sleeve, which is military force, and it's
>insatiable lust for oil and profits. We see the UN weapons inspection as
>effective, and part of an overall humanitarian work force which
>'incrementally' would have disarmed Iraq eventually, and permitted 'free
>elections' in the state (much like in Yugoslavia when Milosovic was tosted
>out of power).

Um, yes, when Milosevic was TOSSED OUT OF POWER. By force, unilaterally, and 
without UN authorization. Remember?

>Your arguing that there is pure 'evil' in the world; well let us take that
>premise to be true. The the world would, by general consensus reach one
>conclusion. In the case of Iraq, the US and it's fighting allies would be
>quilty of crimes against humanity beginning in the early 1970's when it
>propped up the Bath Party to get rid of the socialists who were running the
>country at the time. The US required, supported and worked alongside it's
>client, Saddam Hussein up until just prior to the Gulf War, and there for
>the absolutely evil 'entity' in this war was the US.

John, I have answered that simplistic argument many times, but you do not 
care. But I don't care that you don't care, so I'm going to answer it again, 
at the risk of being judged insane by Bob. Perhaps there was something EVEN 
WORSE at that time which made helping Hussein more reasonable than the 
alternative. If you will remember your history, there was a little thing 
called Iran in the picture. There was also a little thing called the USSR in 
the picture. Would I prefer a perfect world in which we could counter 
enemies without going to bed with people like Hussein (or the USSR in WWII, 
for that matter)? Yes. Would I like peace in the world, an end to poverty, 
rainbows and flowers everywhere, and a billion dollars? Yes. Do we live in 
such an ideal world? No.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.  
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus



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