From: "Paul Murphy" <Villanova-AT-btopenworld.com>
Subject: Re: standard diatribes 
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 20:17:19 +0200


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.


I think the fault, or slight fault in your logic is this term 'progress' and how it is defined.  This opens a gulf, I think.  If, in Italy, butchers skin a pig and hang it up in their window, is this repulsive, and why do people just accept it?  They did it here 30 years ago, but no longer do it.  We still eat pork, don't we?  If in 1500 thieves in England had their hands cut off, but today they get a 5 year gaol sentence, doesn't mean that thievery has ended, does it?  If in 1250 Saladin stole the Principality of Antioch or somesuch fiefdom, and instead of being gaoled, was made King of Jerusalem, is much the same as the US annexing the last vestiges of the Spanish Empire in 1900.  sometime after 1250, it must be said.  What I mean is that civilised values sometimes suit us, sometimes don't, and what we regard as civilised is entirely euro-western-centric.  Given that, most Russians would admit that the West was more progressive than these so-called Communist regimes.  I still think that what they call 'progressive' is open to question.  Paedophilia is one example of this.  In the Middle Ages it was customary to marry very young, sometimes as young as 11 (because of the early mortality rate), today such a relationship would be criminal, and, if involving an older man, as it often did, a paedophile one.  Yet this custom was tailored to the world they lived in.  We have to see many 'civilised' conventions as conventions, and not referring to eternal verities. But there are many other truths and perhaps we should explore some of these,
PM 
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Scribe1865-AT-aol.com
  To: nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
  Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 8:04 PM
  Subject: Re: standard diatribes


  In a message dated 7-20-2002 1:09:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, villanova-AT-btopenworld.com writes:



    is it then possible to criticise the US?


  It's almost mandatory to criticize the US. My hobby horse in this palaver is that the critiques have balance. I've been arguing against one-sided criticism, and so have appeared an apologist to some.

  The US demonstrates social progress. Painfully slow progress, but progress, because people can criticize. Think of the social progress enabled here in the past century. Islamist nations, however, will remain the same for the next 10,000 years.

HTML VERSION:

----- Original Message -----

From: Scribe1865-AT-aol.com

To: nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 8:04 PM

Subject: Re: standard diatribes

In a message dated 7-20-2002 1:09:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, villanova-AT-btopenworld.com writes:

is it then possible to criticise the US?

It's almost mandatory to criticize the US. My hobby horse in this palaver is that the critiques have balance. I've been arguing against one-sided criticism, and so have appeared an apologist to some.

The US demonstrates social progress. Painfully slow progress, but progress, because people can criticize. Think of the social progress enabled here in the past century. Islamist nations, however, will remain the same for the next 10,000 years.