From: "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi-AT-hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: interPolltation
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 20:16:43 +0000


John Foster wrote:

> > I cited the poll to RESPOND to John when he (like you)
> > accused the US of murderous and barbarous cruelty, because it is strange
> > that the very people who bore the brunt of that supposed massive
>immorality
> > should say that it was all worth it, and that they would want the
> > perpetrators of that cruelty to stay even for a year, much less longer.
> > That's different from positively justifying the war with a poll. It 
>merely
> > gets rid of an objection.
>
>So now you are not 'justifying' the war with a poll.

Please cite where I ever did that, since that is implied in your "So NOW..."

>What then are suggesting was justification for the war?

How many times have I given you the three or four intersecting reasons, 
John?

>Are you suggesting that there was something immoral about the US murdering
>thousands of Iraqi's?

Please cite where I ever granted your accusation of "murder".

>One poll has determined 75% of the people in Bhagdad now believe that it is
>more dangerous in Iraq then before the US and UK invasion.

And how many times have I answered that argument concerning present 
"danger," John?

> > The objections I have to Strauss are mainly limited to his 
>interpretation
>of
> > certain philosophers - primarily Aristotle and Hobbes - not with what he
> > himself believes. I have found that he consistently interprets those two
> > philosophers as believing that ethics and politics are not based on
> > scientific principles which are eternal, immutable, and ahistorical. I
> > believe that Aristotle and Hobbes indeed held that the fundamental basis
>of
> > ethics and politics were scientific principles which were immutable and
> > ahistorical, though the application of these ahistorical scientific
> > principles to concrete ethical situations does not result in ethical 
>rules
> > which are universal to every possible particular circumstances. For
>example,
> > Strauss says the following about Hobbes:
> >
> > "His [Hobbes'] political philosophy becomes historical because for him
>order
> > is not immutable, eternal in existence from the beginning, but is 
>produced
> > only at the end of a process; because for him order is not independent 
>of
> > human volition, but is borne up by human volition alone. For this reason
> > political philosophy now becomes an a priori science; not because the
> > principles of political philosophy are eternal, but because 'principia,
> > quibus justum et aequum, et contra, iniustum et iniquum, quid sint,
> > cognoscitur; id est, justitiae causas, nimirum leges et pacta, ipsi
> > fecimus'." (The Political Philosophy of Hobbes)
> >
> > Hobbes, however, says quite bluntly:
> >
> > "The laws of nature are immutable and eternal; for injustice, 
>ingratitude,
> > arrogance, pride, iniquity, acception of persons, and the rest, can 
>never
>be
> > made lawful. For it can never be that war shall preserve life and peace
> > destroy it." (Leviathan)
>
>That is interesting! Now are you suggesting that you agree with Hobbes 
>here?

Please cite where I suggest that above.

>You have demanded that we agree with you about the results of a poll which
>indicate that 62% of Iraqi's believe that the US inflicted death and
>destruction ($50 billion in damages) was 'worth it'? Hobbes SPECIFICALLY
>states: "it can never be that war shall preserve life and peace destroy 
>it."
>[Leviathan]
>
>The war in Iraq then was worth all the death and destruction?

The Iraqi people seem to think so.

>PS the only thing that I find in the polls suggestive of anything is that
>most Iraqi's appear to agree that it is a good thing Hussein is not around
>anymore (6 out of 10), even though it is much more dangerous in Bhagdad 
>(75%
>agree).

Yes, and they say that the present danger was worth not having Hussein 
around anymore.

> > > War is now mitsein in technological horrorstimmung. Erlebnis and
> > >Machenschaft.
> >
> > Thank you. John, are you listening?
>
>NO. Rene was being sarcastic. Mitsein is now war, but not before.

Interesting, since before you were saying the US went against the the 
current Mitsein of the UN, which you described as peace. Nice flip flop.

>Mitsein is not peace, but without mitsein, there would be a lack of peace.

But if as you say above, mitsein is now war, then without mitsein there 
would be no war. But you say here that without mitsein there would be lack 
of peace. Therefore, no war means lack of peace? Could I suggest a logic 
textbook?

>The correct absolute definition of mitsein, or being with, is this:
>
>being refers to existing beings here and now
>therefore any being which is 'with another being' neither 'in' or 'out' but
>rather with, alongside in every sense possible, whether enhancing or
>spar(e)ing.

Where is this from?

>War, evil, and error are a 'deficiency' or privation such that mitsein as
>noted is at stake!

How?

>The simple explanation for mitsein as an
>existential-existentielle is that it makes a world possible at all.

That's true of every existential, not just mitsein.

>Mitsein is the ontological primordia of all possible worlds, hence "In the
>beginning there was neither darkness nor light."
>
>As you can see from this simple declaration there is no difference, no
>mitsein, no conflict. All is One in One, but not within or alongside nor
>nearby, nor standing in for. Then the Lord of the Universe created Light,
>saying Let there Be Some Light
>
>and flick
>
>we now have mitsein.

Wow. Can I quote that in my next journal article?

>Anthony, the ideal of family has been defined recently as a "equalitarian
>liberal community" [Marital Property].
>
>This definition accords strongly with the basic definition of communism.

Karl Marx would beg to differ.

>In
>contrast research in the USA suggests that family well-being there is not 
>one of
>'equalitarian liberal community'.
>
>"The USA offers no model of family well-being for us to follow. Family
>breakdownindicators of divorce, extra marital births, child poverty, mental
>illness, school underachievement, crime and disorder and welfare dependency 
>are
>distressingly high. And the US infrastructure of family support is low. 
>There is
>no equivalent of child benefit, few people have access to significant paid
>maternity leave, the quality of formal child care is largely unregulated 
>and
>millions of children have no access to free quality health care."
>
>["A budget for all families?", Editorial in Family Policy, Bulletin of the
>Family Policy Studies

Would you prefer the European model, except of course that the population 
there is shrinking into oblivion?

> > For the second time John, where did I say that the US can do what it 
>wants
> > simply? I gave specific reasons why this particular situation was
>different:
> > France was refusing to even acknowledge that resolution 1441 had been
> > breached at all (which you have granted did occur), so the UN was 
>ignoring
> > its OWN laws. Then I asked you (for probably the fourth time now), if 
>the
> > police refused to enforce a law against your neighbor who has a history 
>of
> > violence, do you ever have the right to unilateral action? To which I 
>have
> > received no response four times now.
>
>So you are agreeing with us then? The US is big policeman and he went in
>'this particular situation' because the UN was ignoring its OWN laws."

No, the UN is the policeman refusing to enforce its own laws.

>However the fact that Iraq did not meet the 30 day deadline still does not
>authorize the US to take military action, and as we all know the following
>resolution to use military intervention was vetoed by various permanent
>members of the UN Security Council. As well  there was no 'material
>breach' since there were no WMD found in Iraq according to all the credible
>sources

For the SEVENTH TIME (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!): "INCLUDING ANY 
WHICH IT CLAIMS ARE FOR PURPOSES NOT RELATED TO WEAPON PRODUCTION OR 
MATERIAL".

Will there be an eighth time? Tune in tomorrow.

>We don't need any more alibis' nor analogies to justify or excuse the acts
>of mass murder of innocent Iraqis'. That Iraq was not fighting with it's
>neighbours as you are suggesting is completely relevant, and does not
>require a response.

Please cite where I suggested that.

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
Never get a busy signal because you are always connected  with high-speed 
Internet access. Click here to comparison-shop providers.  
https://broadband.msn.com



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