Bats aren’t bugs

Three-way hive-mind cage-match!
Three-way hive-mind cage-match!
Three-way hive-mind cage-match!

I haven’t read the Den Beste piece yet, but I’d think that the more religious-based American ethic more resembles P-idealism than it does the empirical model. The assumption that there is an order to the universe tends to flow from the idea of a Creator.

The Europeans seem to lean more towards the empirical model. As Europe becomes more post-Christian, it loses that sence of an orderly creation and has to reprove things from scratch.

In other news, up is the new down.

For an intelligent individual to look at the war in Iraq- the run-up, the planning, the execution, and the occupation…

and then to say that “People on the side of the administration, we’re the empiricists”…

that takes a kind of ocean-swallowing gall that I can only call “warbloggerish”. I’m a little stunned.

You mock and mock and quote your dead European Old-Europe Liberal Hegel Intellectual Ivory Tower Liberal Hegel Liberal stuff, but have you ever invented a word? Huh? Have you?

There’s definitely an anti-evolution strain in the right wing here in Italy. The education minister recently announced that evolution would not be taught in biology classes up through middle school, but was forced to back down.

All that said, Den Beste is really smoking something strong there.

Den Beste is rather like Gareth except American, older, less well-informed, and without the valuable military experience.

Imagine constructing a sociology of the United States if your only source was his blog. Or, better yet, his blog turns out to be the only surviving record of humanity. I can easily envision it being a sort of Orange Catholic (is that the thing from Herbert, or does that have something to do with Ireland somehow?) bible in some particularly exotic far-future.

Chun – you should explain who Gareth is for people who haven’t seen “the Office.” But the comparison is exactly right.

The thought of Den Beste saying “I don’t do sloppy seconds” is going to be giving me cold sweats for days to come.

More to the point, the notion that militant Islam and secular Baathism share a single hive-mind is somewhat anti-empiricist, imho.

I read the whole thing, including the worshipful links. God, what a mess. I am having fun imagining a collaboration of DenBeste and Thomas Friedman, with Victor Davis Hansen doing footnotes.

GWB as empiricist. Who da thunk it.

DenBeste is I suspect typical of many libertarians trying to reconcile themselves with today’s Republican party. That, and the sexy servant anime, has ruined a fine mind.

So what’s with the buxom, lycra-clad CGI martian on Beste’s 404 page?

I’d like to ding her sich.

Thanks for explaining whichGareth, Henry. The mind boggles.

Of course, being a history-type, I could only groan, writhing on the floor, with the serious lumping upon which den Beste bases his arguments. I’m no logician, but I seem to remember something from Philosophy 101 about the conclusion not being valid if the premises are false?

one of my favorites — the idea that Humanism is a result of the Reformation, rather than something that was fundamental to the Reformation. Oh, and that one and only monolithic Inquisition …
silly Rabbit.

Oh, crap. I made the mistake of reading one of DenBeste’s trackbacks. I’ve got 125 final exams to grade, don’t these people realize I need every one of my brain cells? I can’t afford to fry them in great sizzling waves by exposing them to Stupid Rays like that.

hipocrite gave me a coughing fit here at work. Thank Jeebus I’m in a casual environment.

Mark Byron,
“I haven’t read the Den Beste piece yet, but I’d think that the more religious-based American ethic more resembles P-idealism than it does the empirical model.”

I wonder if I am the only one here who appreciates the unintended irony of that statement? After all, to comment before reading is hardly empirical, ne? ^_~

I wish everyone of you were dead.

One thing can be said about Den Beste’s article that wouldn’t apply to this deconstruction of it is that his article can be understood by your average reader. I don’t really understand many of the “points” of this follow-up, and there is no effort to explain them to a layman such as myself.

Perhaps that makes me one of the unwashed and unworthy of understanding your point before I’ve read Hegel or learned whatever those german(?) phrases mean?

I don’t know, but for what it’s worth his artcle is an appeal to others, whereas this piece is a self-congratulatory pat on the back and a sage nod to a clique that apparently is already in agreement.

Important point for Panblogss Holbo: this is what awaits the world of literary blogs. P-idealism vs. empiricism.

Every time I come to this blog, I kick myself for wasting time reading this pompous crap. Any post that mentions Hegel four times *and* uses the phrase ding an sich is too pretentious to live.

> a sage nod to a clique that apparently is already in agreement

I would use something more pejorative than ‘sage’, but the comment is dead on. What a waste of space.

Nor is Sebastian a shorter DenBeste. SdB makes those arguments directly. And many visitors to this blog also make those kind of arguments

What is his purpose in putting these questions into an epistemological framework? What is the value of that project? That was really the question Mr Holbo asks, and the one you need to answer.

Agree with first handful of posts. American neo conservatism is p-idealism to the core.

Shorter Den Beste: a priori, I am an empiricist.

Eww…this is a gross thread.

This kind of tortured, bad faith reading / grandstanding would make a sophist proud. I recall back in grad school when I learned how to read that way, too.

It’s easy once you pick up the knack. You just engage in willful misprision with the text. You get bonus points if you can throw in a French or German phrase, double points if you can toss in Latin or a non-Romance language, and triple word score if you can type something in Greek typeface using a DVORAK keyboard.

Just a bunch of glass-bead game players here, very smart and funny ones, but ultimate just a bunch of folks in a circle jerk. Sloppy seconds to them means they lick their hands before wanking a second time. Best just to back out of here and not touch anything.

I deenchoosenate to cogiarbitrate upon that distinguishment.

I think Den Best is on to something. Years ago I read Hegel’s aesthetics and came with this impression that his philosophy was really about the number three:

Aesthetics
1. symbolic art
2. Classical art
3. Romantic art

Dialethics
1. Thesis
2. Anti-thesis
3. Synthesis

The Objective Spirit
1. das Recht
2. Moralitat
3.concrete morality (Sittlichkeit)

Religion
1. Natural Religion
2. God as transcendence
3. Absolute religion

I suppose someone better acquianted with Hegel could continue the list…

Andre, Portugal

Was it Gibbard who said that the goal of ethics was parochialism with the widest possible parish? In that spirit, I submit that wisdom is a circle jerk with the largest possible circle.

Woo! I hooked one! Chun’s my first Elitist fish of the day.

Distinguishment is a word that is no longer in common usage, having been replaced by ‘distinction’ but can nonetheless be distinguished from distinction by the necessity of there being an observer.

You may now proceed to educate yourself, Chun. Bon appetit!

Well I think Steven’s argument was based on one really insulting assumption: that those in the west who oppose American power have come to a conclusion that is so bizarre and at such odds with the evidence that it must stem from a philosophy that makes realistic reasoning from evidence impossible.

While I DO agree with part of Steven’s assessment, that European opposition to a war against Islamism is foolish, I think there are plenty of other reasons for politics and societies to be foolish other than philosophies that make reasoning impossible.

I think humanity deserves less respect than Steven gives it. It’s the exception for a person to be well informed, well reasoned and clear seeing – one doesn’t have to posit deep reasons for ignorance, stupidity, moral or intellectual laziness, nor for shallow irresponsible politics that prefers crowd-pleasing appeals to old biases.

another damned medievalist–

An argument is invalid if its premises are true but its conclusion false. The validity or invalidity of an argument says nothing about the truth or falsity of the claims made, only about the form of the argument.

It is possible to determine the truth or falsity of a conclusion of a valid argument if the truth or falsity of the premises are known and the argument as a whole is known to be valid.

Den Beste doesn’t make an overarching argument in his post. He only provides definitions.

I’m with you, Matt.

Ever wonder what an intellectual circle-jerk would look like?

Regards

anatoly–

Thanks.

“Islam is very much of the West. Huh?”

Should I bother?
Maybe it was too terse. The conflict, such as it is, between Christianity and Islam is very comparable to the conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism. In other words two equally respectable branches of the Judeo-Christian Graeco-Roman Western tradition. If I have to tell you who Averroes is I shouldn’t have bothered.
….
“the same atavistic nostalgia for a feudalistic theocracy” is what I said. Note that “same” modifies “atavistic nostalgia”. I did regret this somewhat, for it does oversimplify.

Rove’s favorite President: McKinley. Reference work of use: Marvin Olasky’s “Tragedy of American Compassion”
Would require a book of cites to really argue, so just the bold thesis that the President and his allies seek to return America to the general conditions of the late 19th century in terms of regulation, gov’t intervention,tax structure, social mores, etc.
The world of paternalistic capitalism, of Pullman and Rockefeller and Ford. Was this “theocratic feudalism?” Too close for my comfort.

I don’t mind intellectualism, it’s the elitist attitude that deliberately alienates the very people the intellectuals are, or at least should be, trying to reach that irks me.

Why is satire so unrecognizable to so many people? Maybe we really should go to John Quiggin’s irony alert system. It didn’t even occur to matt that Chun was joking. Some of these people probably get offended by The Onion.

Bob,

Maybe it was too terse. The conflict, such as it is, between Christianity and Islam is very comparable to the conflict between Catholicism and Protestantism.

Everything is comparable. Is it similar?

Did Islam arise as a movement inside Christianity, or vice versa?
Does either of them stress the importance of the original holy texts much more than the other? Is one of them wholly united, with the chain of command at least theoretically leading to one person, while the other is diverse and includes many different denominations?

In other words, is there any substance to the analogy you’re drawing, or is it a ham-fisted attempt to bring Islam into “the West” by likening its conflict with Christianity, such as it is, with whatever major conflict within Christianity that comes to a willing mind?

And hey, give Averroes a rest. The poor guy deserved it, and I suspect he wouldn’t like you making a red herring out of him, anyway.

I did regret this somewhat, for it does oversimplify.

I’ll say!

so just the bold thesis that the President and his allies seek to return America to the general conditions of the late 19th century in terms of regulation, gov’t intervention,tax structure, social mores, etc.

Well, now you’ve made it somewhat more believable, but not quite enough to push it out of the realm of patently absurd. Maybe after two or three further revisions we could get to something realistic?

I mean, come on, late 19th century’s social mores? With the repeal of the income tax to boot? Any chance for a quote from anyone in the administration regarding their intent to outlaw fornication or get rid of the income tax?

The world of paternalistic capitalism, of Pullman and Rockefeller and Ford. Was this “theocratic feudalism?” Too close for my comfort.

Even this ridiculous picture is nowhere close to what bin Laden etc. are openly advocating.

How do you figure? Where do you find anything in GWB and Republicans’ programs, stated intentions, speeches, etc. that’s even remotely close to the kind of society bin Laden and the Wahhabists are openly striving for??

Let’s see–madrassas and schools where students learn scripture, protected from teaching about evolution or other topics that might disrupt their religious convictions; faith-based initiatives; family values–female modesty, puritanism and sex-roles; the right to bear arms interpreted as the right of individuals to buy handguns and assault weapons at the local strip mall; anti-intellectualism, machismo and nostalgia for a former age of faith. Recall that shortly after 9/11 Falwell flew the idea that it was God’s punishing the US for harboring “feminists, abortionists and secular humanists.”

It makes one wonder why conservatives in the US are fighting radical Islamisists rather than joining them–the ideology is the same. It’s just a clash between competing tribal warlords.

It makes one wonder why conservatives in the US are fighting radical Islamisists rather than joining them—the ideology is the same. It’s just a clash between competing tribal warlords.

The reason for that is obvious.

Social conservatives are the ones who never gave up the idea that there are some morally inferior cultures out there.

So when faces with a culture that’s deeply hostile, xenophobic, bigoted and determined to cause us harm, social conservatives are the only people in our society who don’t have a taboo against recognizing an enemy. Nor do they have a taboo against recognizing that our culture has intellectual and cultural achievements that deserved to be protected against those who oppose those achievements. Nor do they have a taboo against going to war to protect the lives and futures of their children.

That their philosophy is, at the most shallow (and misleading) level, less incompatible with those Islamists than progressive philosophy is is irrelevent. Social conservatives are equiped to be early adopters of the war against our enemies.

” sistani is a shia thinker (specifically, an ithna ashari akbari shia), and the shia have been outside the mainstream of the mutazilite vs. asharite dispute (this is a “sunni” issue). in fact, it is in the shia tradition that you find living direct transmissions of mutazilite thought & philosophy.” Just a comment in a Abiola Lapite “Foreign Dispatches” thread. The possibility that Sistani and his followers may give Wahabbism some real competition is a real benefit of the Iraq invasion.

What can I say? A troll that would exclude Islam from Western Civilization is hard to argue with.
I stand refuted guys. Got me.

If there’s one thing I’d want learned and learned right good by whatever hypothetical children I might some day be responsible for, it’s “I’m stupid and you’ve all read the same books I haven’t so thbbptptt” is by no means a winning tactic in any dispute.

That said, it bears repeating: to call “empirical” the cabal that chased 20-year-old fevre dreams of empire into Iraq requires a degree of folly and delusion that is monstrous to contemplete. –Nor do I understand in what way Islamism (Islamofascism? The Swarthy Other?) is supposed to differ from both p-idealism and empiricism. Does Den Beste mean they are nihilists? Is that why we must also steel ourselves for war with the French?

This really isn’t worth saying, but being a sometime English professor and a fulltime pedant, I couldn’t let John (who’s right, after all) get away with a couple of cheap shots at SDB based on reading his words wrong.

1) SDB’s words:

we are actually engaged in a three-way war. It’s something I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the most important consequence of it is simply the recognition and acknowledgement that it is a three-way struggle.

JH’s response:

So, the most important consequence of ‘it’ – i.e. the war – is ‘recognition’ or ‘acknowledgement’ of the nature of that very war? Hegel himself might blush at such a lofty, self-reflexive conceit: a war primarily to know what the war itself is about. (If so, why not just not hold the thing and be satisfied with the answer: nothing.)

Me:

If you regard the antecedent for the second pronoun “it” (in the phrase “the most important consequence of it . . . is recognition & acknowledgment”) as “something I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about,” then it’s not such a completely idiotic remark. He’s spent a lot of time thinking about his trinity, and the most important consequence of that thinking is (universal) “recognition and acknowledgment” that his trinity exists.

2) SDB (as given):

Empiricism:

It started with the question, “What is the universe like?” and came up with the answer, “I dunno; let’s go look and see.” It posits that there actually is an objective universe, and doesn’t automatically assume . . . .

JH:
Notice the peculiar ‘It’. To what does ‘it’ refer? Ideas doing it for themselves? Very Hegelian.

Me:

SDB set himself up for this cheap shot by misquoting himself. If you go back to his earlier piece, from which he’s quoting, you find the language like this:

The third faction also draws from Greek roots, and as mentioned in the quote above it’s generally known as realism. It started with the question, “What is the universe like?” and came up with the answer, “I dunno; let’s go look and see.” It posits that there actually is an objective universe . . . .

Clearly the “third faction” “started with the question . . . and came up with the answer . . . [and] posits . . . .” I grant you he gets into trouble when he himself confuses the members of the faction “realists” with their epistemological approach “realism.” Then it starts to sound as if ideas “are doing it for themselves” (standin’ on their own two feet & ringin’ on their own bells).

Henry, would you pleast stop posting under twenty names?

It’s dishonest and it creates the impression that there are 100 dimwitted moonbats fluttering around this blog instead of one.

Yes we’ve already noted that you have no idea what SDB is talking about. That’s not anything to brag about, really.

Hm, I think that the object, which was supposed to be the essential element, is now the unessential element. Frankly, I am deeply disappointed in this thread, which I expected to amass lots of hilarious Hegel jokes as it went on (82 comments as of now!)…what a bunch of fuckers.

Lance Boyle:

Sarcasm of things you’re ignorant about is ugly.

After 9/11 I spent months finding out what was going on in the middle east. I took the time to find out (some of):
1. what Arabic newspapers are saying
2. what politicians in the middle east are saying
3. what’s being taught in school curricula in middle eastern countries
4. what is being preached in the mosques.
5. what dissidents and intellectuals in the middle east are writing.
– In all I was trying to get a feel for what was going on in these cultures.

Partially this was because what I found in my first forays was scary as hell, and I wanted to know just how bad it was.

Lance I can see that you’re not just skeptical of my opinion, you’re contemptuous of it. I can also see that you are completely ignorant. That’s not just irresponsible and immature, it’s also damn ugly.

“lance,” well I’m skeptical of your evasiveness.
You write with derision and pick a sarcastic name and then claim “I have no opinion about your opinion.”

You’re lying, and you’re clearly too insecure to actually argue.

Let me suggest one thing. The morality based on easy rules or images is wrong.
In the real world, you have a moral duty to find out what really exists and to make the supreme effort it takes to figure out what is likely to happen and what the results of each possible action is.

You can’t dismiss war a-priori. That means that we will always be plagued by doubt and guilt and that we will never find that moral decisions are easy.

If you think there are always easy, obvious answers, then you are too divorced from reality.

jholbo

There are two things wrong with your accessment of SDB.

One, he makes an attempt (only half successful) to base his high flying theories on actual historical trends and on his observations of people. His theories may be wrong (IMO some of them are) but they are not based on any sense of beauty, justice or on faith that God will reward the pure of heart and intention.

He is arguing against two philosophies based on just those assumptions.

Oh, and point two is…
I forget what point two is.

Joshua-
You like long words, and you like war, and especially you like war against Muslims. Why don’t you join the army.
PS: Don’t forget to bring back some photos.

Casual Observer, I just feel that the Islamofacists are set to turn the whole western world, starting with the US into another Israel. But they’re likely to use more sophisitcated weapons against the US than cheap vest bombs.
If we do nothing, then I feel that a likely outcome, within 75 years, is a constant string of WMD attacks against our country – with the full, though covert, support of Muslim dominated states.

Obviously this would ruin the lives of our children or grandchildren.

I came to the same conclusion as the so called “neo-cons” independently…

In the long run we have 3 choices:
1. bring liberal values to the middle east / denazify the place as soon as possible
2. wait until our existance is threatened and wipe them out
3. allow them to destroy our civilization – by which I mean, bring mass, mass death and everlasting war to us without ever using our own WMDs to end it.

I prefer #1 to #3 (probably your choice)

Oh, man, the Bush approach as a triumph of ’empiricism’ is the funniest thing ever! This Dan Beste guy must be a clever satirist.

When I started reading, I was actually expecting that in the most classic right-wing take he’d pin the “empiricism” on Europe and damn it as some sort of post-modern cynical ennui that is responsible for weakness in the face of terrorism blah blah blah. AS opposed to the “idealism” that gives America its ideological advantage over Islam etc etc etc.

But gosh, he is surprisingly original to reverse the terms like that! wow.

And the way he defines what he calls “idealism” – if you could somehow attune yourself to that higher order of existence, you’d automatically know it all – sounds like it’s taken right out of Carlos Castaneda or some later new age guru.

Very very amusing.

The only question is, who is the target of his clever satire? philosophers? Americans? Europeans? Islamists? or himself?

Hmm, I won’t be able to rest until I get that…

No, there is some substance to SDB’s arguement, though you didn’t notice it.

Heh, I know, I know… it’s got to be too deep and clever and most of all so so original, only similary fine minds can grasp it!

I’m with the thick ones who can’t even dream of attaining such lofty heights of crystal-clear reasoning. Ah, bollocks.

I do appreciate the entertainment value though. Surely that’s a good start already!What do I have to do next to become enlightened to this fabulous new empiricism?
Is there a crash course? Do I get a job in some think tank? Go on, sell it to me proper…

When you’ve opened up a whole new revolutionary way of thinking, you’ve got to win converts, not just say “you don’t get it”. Come on.

:p

Ah lance, I reread your post. Now I understand your point of view.

According to your non-logic it is America’s fault that Europe will have to fight.

Never mind that Islamofacists have been explicit in their enimity for many years, never mind that they intended to invade Europe anyway.

You will need to defend yourselves, and it’s America’s fault, because, because, well because you need a scapegoat, and blaming your REAL enemy could be dangerous.

Shhhh, don’t piss off the Muslim fanatics, they’re dangerous.

The wisest thing that Ann Coulter has ever said (perhaps the only wise thing):
“we must mollify angry fanatics who seek our destruction because otherwise they might get mad and seek our destruction.”

To Motoko Kusanagi

Like I said, I read Hegel long ago. And just in case you have not noticed there are more “three its” in the thread above.

Andre

Armondo, it’s insulting to refute the first few sentences of a posting obviously without reading the rest of the post.

I myself disagree with SDB about #3. If you had read my post you would have noticed that.

Feel free to post a correct arguement if you take the time to read an entire post.

I’ll have to continue this discussion after some sleep. After some chinese herbs to help me sleep and a couple beers I doubt my ability to explain to Casual Observer what I really meant.

It’s 3 am in San Francisco right now. I’m fiery partially because I just found out that a friend of mine very nearly succeded in killing himself… I’m not suffering any fools tonight.

To Andre,

It was never my intention to address the substance of your post, which, by the way, may be quite correct – Hegel did go for threes, like Cicero and Steven den Beste. I only wanted to point out the (very common) mistranslation of “Aufhebung” as synthesis.

Cheers,
Motoko

Scholar,
Im with Larry in criticism of your points #1 and #2, but I’ll take him one further.
Pacifism- you (inferernce) agree with DB that the Euros are pacifists based on their non-support of the US in a single war. You may believe that there can be no rational, empirical reasons for opposing the war in Iraq (although I would expect that, by now, the troubles that the US have encountered there would cause a re-evaluation of this belief)… but you would still have to acknowledge that many Europeans joined the US in Iraq, and even more (including those canonical Europeans, the French) joined us in Afghanistan.
They aren’t pacifists. They have relaitvely large militaries. They use them (eg Kosovo). Maybe their militaries aren’t as large or effective as ours, and they may have not performed effectively in Kosovo, but that has no bearing on whether they’re willing to use force. They are.
Calling the French pacifists is just a way of avoiding the empirical arguments about the wisdom of this particular engagement. Time is showing that their decision was wise, ergo the retroactive desire to re-categorize their lack of action as ‘ideologically impure’, rather than a product of a foresight that we also could have exercised to avoid the current mess, or at least handle its results much more effecively.

Likewise, the claim that the Euro’s faith in “inherently corrupt” international institutions-
Are you claiming that international institutions are ineviably corrupt? Or that the UN is? That wouldn’t be very empirical… or just that it happens to be corrupt at this moment?
Of course, politics in the US is also tainted by significant corruption. Special-interest money, for example, has become a system of de facto bribery. Nevertheless, we participate in this overtly corrupt system because
1-There isn’t any other game in town, and ‘making’ a new game would come at a very high cost
2-By exercising diligence, we can extract some useful outcomes from the corrupt system
Actually, that’s a pretty practical, empirical-type response, using a corrupt system while being aware of its shortcomings. An idealist might refuse to touch such a system, though…

DB reminds me of Ayn Rand. “There is an objective universe. And, since Im the one who said that, I also get to decide what that objective universe is. When people disagree with me from now on, they’re disagreeing with Objective Reality.” How satisfying! Probably about as satisfying as a Bible (or Koran) in the hands of another type of True Believer.

Wu

Oh, the powers of translation. Witness how this:

Your side will use its nuclear weapons, the people you attack will, who cares who goes first?
I don’t have any nuclear weapons.
Nobody I have the phone number of does, either.
But we’re going, too.

written by Lance Boyle became this:

According to your non-logic it is America’s fault that Europe will have to fight.

in the interesting version by Joshua Scholar…

mwb, that’s a splendid idea. Now if only it was as easy to ignore all those people who have a little more direct power and relevance over our lives than some frustrated megalomaniac nutter with a website, but who practice the same “I’m too clever, I’m too right, you just don’t get it” religion…

Thanks, Tate et al. for explanations on argument.

Bob M., please note that “Feudalistic” and “feudalistic theocracy” are pretty much nonsense phrases. Could you please be more specific? (without making any false analogies that include the words “medieval,” ‘Dark Ages’, etc.)

I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’re saying, but really don’t understand the usage and what it’s supposed to imply.

Gee willakers, most of you guys seem so smart with all this talk that you’ve reminded me of a phrase, I’m not sure where I read it (I only read comic books, you see), but it goes something like this:

“..full of sound and fury, signifying nothing…..”

SdB wins. Hands down.

nopundit

Thank you, tictoc. Though I was aware it could mean “cancelation”, I didn’t know “Aufhebung” could also stand for “preservation”. I should also admit that before reading this thread I was completely unaware of the etymological kinship of “empiricism” and “empire”.

appropriate respect for a schemata that incompetently borrows and manages to mangle aspects of the history of rationalism vs empiricism, applied ad hoc without a shred of evidence to fit his political perspective. right. his work might pass for b- in a philosophy, history, or political science course, mostly because the marker glossing over it would lazily conclude that his writing style is a good enough sign of clear and competent thinking.