To promote independent thought about ultimates. Philosophy, commentary on the passing scene, and whatever else turns my crank. Since 4 May 2004. By William F. Vallicella, Ph.D., Gold Canyon, Arizona, USA. Motto: "Study everything, join nothing." (Paul Brunton) Latin Motto: Omnia mea mecum porto. Turkish motto: Yol bilen kervana katilmaz. (He who knows the road does not join the caravan.) All material copyrighted.
In a desert of money-grubbing, this site is an oasis of the noncommercial. Here you will find no advertising and no tip jar. Instead, you will find, for free, the free thoughts of a free man.
Please read Comments Policy before applying to comment.
Athenaeum Library of Philosophy
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
Philosophy of Religion Articles
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
1735 Aphorismen von 35 Autoren
About Me, My Blog, and its Purposes
Against Positivism and Scientism
Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms
Aphorisms and Observations by Others
Being Independent: How and Why
Belief, Knowledge, Truth, Certainty
Critique of Analytic Philosophy
Critique of Continental Philosophy
Hard Publications: Ontology of Relations
Hard Publications: Philosophy of Religion
Meditation, Mysticism, Matters Monkish
Ontological Proofs and Disproofs
Psychology and Personality Typology
Social and Political Philosophy
Stoicism, Skepticism, and Epicureanism
billvallicellaAZcsFULLSTOPcom
Civil e-mail containing comments, constructive criticisms, and the like is gladly received, although I cannot promise to answer everything. I will, however, make an honest attempt. Offensive e-mail is deleted unread. Choose your subject headings carefully as I sometimes decide to delete from them. I do not open attached files from unknown parties. If you send a message not addressed to me in particular, I will be tempted to let someone in general answer it. Pith is king and neatness counts. E-mail is subject to posting in whole or in part at my discretion unless the sender requests otherwise.
Comments Policy
You must be pre-approved to leave comments on this site. If I know you and you have already established your bona fides, then you are in like Flynn, whether or not you hide behind a pseudonym. But if I don't know you, or you have proven yourself to be offensive in the past, then you are out like Stout — unless you reveal your real identity and provide me with some way of verifying it. In other words, no one I don't know will be approved who comments anonymously or pseudonymously. Full statement here.
The Best of the Web
History of Philosophy Blogs
Outstanding Philosophy Blogs
Other Sites Featuring My Work
Maverick Philosopher (Precursor Blog)
Get Out!
Superstition Search and Rescue
Acolytes of Caissa and Philosophia
Dennis Monokroussos' Chess Site
Ed Yetman's Desert Paradise Chess Club
Other Chess Sites
Red Hot Pawn (Correspondence Chess)
Classics, Bibliomania, Curmudgeonry, Linguistic Punctiliousness
Darwin and Design
Psychology
Politics, Economics, Law, Culture
David Horowitz' Front Page Magazine
DiscovertheNetwork.Org: A Guide to the Political Left
Reflections on Equity Research
Keeping an Eye on the Left
Humor
Sites of Philosophy Ph.D.s
Other Philosophy Sites
Bishop Berkeley, Bacon, & Bird
Religious and Anti-Religious Perspectives
BigHominid's X-Rated Korea Blog
Perhaps I should start a series on lunatic loons of the Left. San Francisco supervisor Sandoval belongs on the list. He is the guy who recently claimed that the U.S. does not need a military. Read about him here.
(show)
Decades ago leftist pacifism was merely tactical. All wars were to be opposed unless they were wars of socialist revolution. This translated to: all wars were to be opposed except the proxy wars instigated by the Soviet Union. After the fall of the Soviet Union, there were no more proxy wars, but the pacifist indoctrination of the 60's had done its work among the baby boomers. In accordance with classic Soviet doctrine, the US remains, for the left, the primary threat to world peace, primarily because it is the sole entity standing in the way of world socialism.
Thanks for the comment.
Although peace is preferable to war, the readiness to go to war is precisely what preserves the only peace worth having. The pacifist falsely assumes that everyone is like he is, one who values peace above all else. He fails to see that there are people bent on domination and destruction (the current regime in Iran for example). He also fails to appreciate that evil-doers become emboldened when their crimes are not opposed.
I understand why people oppose the Iraq war. But could the USA simply have let Saddam get stronger and stronger? And now with Ahmadinejad, can we simply allow him to develop nuclear weapons?
As it turned out, we found that 4 teams of CIA paramilitaries leading special forces A teams of 12 men each, allied with the Northern Alliance, were able to topple the Taliban in a very short time. This could have been done earlier.
As for Iran, their chief military strategist has said that they have a plan for conquering the west that involves first defeating the "Anglo-Saxon powers", after which the rest will put up no fight. I assume by Anglo-Saxon powers he means Britain, the US, Canada, and Australia. What is it about the Anglo-Saxon nations that makes us the bulwarks of freedom? It is also interesting that they see Europe as essentially powerless. Indeed pacifism seems even more prevalent there.
Phew, glad we (Britain) weren't lumped in with the Europeans! French and Italians and Spanish &c. Do the Germans count as Anglo Saxons? Or does their war record rule them out?
I kind of liked the 60's stuff. Bob Dylan &Joan Baez, Country Joe &the Fish at Woodstock, &c. 1,2,3 what are we &c. Great days.
I don't know if the gentleman I mentioned would consider the Germans to be Anglo-Saxons, but I think he should probably include them as potentially formidable enemies. Their war record includes such things as rolling up entire Soviet armies one after the other, and inventing the ballistic missile, the smart bomb, stealth technology, etc.
I liked the 60's music too, and was "anti-war" in my own way. I just didn't buy into the Marxist theoretical overlay that was so popular at the time, and still seems to be in the Democratic Party.
I can't disagree with anything you said.
Bob,
Can't disagree with you either. The fun starts when we try to pin down exactly what 'pacifism' means. How about this: it is the doctrine that it is always and everywhere morally impermissible to employ deadly force against human beings. If that is what is meant, then I reject pacifism. I also reject 'bellicosism': it is always and everywhere morally permissible to employ deadly force against human beings. But if I were forced to choose between the two, I would choose pacifism.
Your last comment just came in. It occurred to me a while back that if ex-Nazis like Werner von Braun were not sanitized and brought stateside to work for us, the US space and military programs wouldn't have gotten as far as they did. And we might not have whupped the Ruskis.
Ockham,
Yes the '60s were something else. Before there was Woodstock there was the Monterey Pop Festival in the summer of '67, the 'summer of love.' I drove up from Los Angeles with high school friends. I can still see Hendrix spraying his Fender Stratocaster with lighter fluid and setting it ablaze ....
re pacificism: I view pacifism as a moral ideal, but not obligatory. Maybe for a Christian it is obligatory, on pain of loss of integrity -- but that is hardly the stance of most self-identifying Christians.
Bill, I agree that the German/Nazi scientists helped a lot in giving us a technological edge, even though some of them like von Braun definitely could be accused of being war criminals. The underground tunnel complex at Nordhausen where V-2's were massed produced used Jewish slave laborers who were barely kept alive on a starvation diet. Fortunately the Allies captured Nordhausen before many of the thousands of V-2's manufactured there could be deployed.
To beat the Nazis, the Allies had to work with Uncle Joe, but then to beat the Commies, the US needed the help of ex-Nazis like von Braun (though in all fairness my calling him a Nazi requires careful qualification, though he was a party member -- had to be to make his career.)
This is the way the real world works, and it is something lefties don't understand. Adopting a View from Nowhere -- their u-topianism -- they do not appreciate the nasty necessity of sometimes working with a lesser devil to defeat a greater devil, a lesser devil who in turn must be defeated with the help of a still lesser devil. E.g., arming the Taliban to resist the Soviet expansion into Afghanistan.
Same with this Port issue. Can we afford to alienate the folks in Dubai? If you listen to the talk jocks, Prager and O'Reilly have the right take on this. But it is a vexatious question!
Can anyone locate the quote from Richard Rorty (I think). To the effect that the Right won the battle about economics, but the Left won the battle about culture?
>What is it about the Anglo-Saxon nations that makes us >the bulwarks of freedom?
Henry I can't take this seriously. There is no one nation or culture that has a monopoly on this. What about Northern Ireland? That is a long and difficult and misunderstood story, and I lost two friends (British Army) in that struggle. Yet even quite recently I was in New York and I find myself next to two gentlemen raising money for the Cause, and talking about "those f--ing murderous Brits". I kept my accent to myself, drank up, and moved on.
The flood of donations from the U.S. to what (in our view) were terrorist organisations did not really start drying up until after 9/11.
It just isn't that simple.
There is a further point that the Northern Ireland thing was grossly simplified by those who portrayed the British as oppressors (which includes many Americans). But people will grossly oversimplify things. The same applies to Iraq. Whether you were right or wrong to invade Iraq, you will be seen as oppressors. End of story.
While the western nations feel guilt over the wars of their imperial past, the Islamic nations feel shame that they have not beaten the world into submission by now.
But even with the guilt about Britain's imperialism, including presently Northern Ireland, I still assume that the British do not consider themselves the moral equivalents of all the sordid dictatorships that are the usual thing in history, and that they would resist, say, the encroachment of Sharia law. I assume this because of Britain's long if imperfect tradition of free institutions. The sense of moral equivalence, if carried too far, can lead to the very pacifism that I am lamenting.
I don't know enough about the port issue to comment, but I do know that substantial progress is quietly being made in enhancing the security at ports.
You warned us about oversimplifying, but aren't you doing it yourself? Whether or not we are seen as oppressors depends on the outcome. If 15 years from now, there is a prosperous well-functioning democracy in Iraq, then the U.S. invasion will be seen as liberation. I'm none too sanguine, however.
> equivalents of all the sordid dictatorships
No we don't. But then people never do. I never forget the proud aristocratic German woman on a documentary about the SS, who described it as something pure and noble. And I think she was really sincere.
>If 15 years from now, there is a prosperous well->functioning democracy in Iraq, then the U.S. invasion >will be seen as liberation.
Agreed. But, like you, I'm far from sanguine. Experience in such places as Northern Ireland (where I think we originally went in for a good reason) teaches otherwise. The reasons for most things are complicated. If another, more simple apparent reason presents itself, then people will choose that.
They had that ridiculous Mel Gibson film on the other night (The Patriot). That presents (like the equally silly Braveheart) a very simple, but appealing version of the past.
2. Disallowing comments from a particular person, or deleting an offensive, off-topic, or otherwise substandard comment, has nothing to do with censorship. People who think otherwise confuse censorship with lack of sponsorship. I am under an obligation not to interfere with anyone's exercise of legitimate free speech rights. But I am not under any obligation to aid and abet anyone's exercise of free speech rights, legitimate or illegitimate.
3. The Comments area is not an open forum for anyone to say anything about any topic. As the name implies, it is primarily for commenting on the author(s)' posts. But to comment on them, one must have read them. And if I have spent three hours on a post, a reader will not understand it in thirty seconds. Secondarily, the Comments area is to facilitate civil discussion between and among commenters as long as the discussion remains on-topic.
4. Some undesirables: The skimmers, those who cannot read but only read-in. The sophists who, abusing argument, argue for the sake of argument. The ideologues, those who are out for power, not truth. The uncivil. The illogical. The politically correct. Worst of all, perhaps, are those who exemplify the anti-Socratic property: those who think they know what they don't know. If Socrates was famous for his learned ignorance, these types are marked by their ignorant unlearnededness.