Iraq's Silver Lining

[peacemongeriv]

Abnoc. For those who aren't familiar, Truman gave a famous quote soon after Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them think anything of their pledged word." While we most certainly did not hold to that, I do not see your point concerning the flaw in the plan, save the difficulty of flip-flopping in an Orwellian fashion. (That is, if we could help the Soviets and the Germans kill one another while we build up our armed forces, I don't see a flaw as yet).

Your point may be moral, concerning the many Russians, Poles, and other Eastern Europeans whose blood one might argue is implicitly on our hands. I will readily, if mournfully, accept that blood if it means a weaker Soviet Union (SU) and a weaker Nazi Germany (NG). As sad as innocent deaths are, they pale in the face of civilization qua the advancement of mankind. A fortiori, a weaker SU or NG allows more rapid and more complete victory by the United States. Had we followed Truman's advice, perhaps a half-century of Communism might have been avoided for the Eastern Europe.

I'd agree with you in part, concerning the strategy's potential to make "the middle" more radical. However, if it's a matter of radicalizing the Middle East while splitting it, I don't think we're missing out here. I suppose the question, which I do not purport to definitively answer, is whether or not fostering an Islam that is friendly to freedom and the intellect is more efficient than helping them kill one another off, even while radicalizing them.

In sum, I understand your point, and think it is well-constructed theoretically, but I remain uncertain about empirical data suggesting you might be right. Do we think we can have more success fostering a civilized Islam rather than assisting two different Muslim groups in slaughtering one other? I cannot imagine that tact would have worked better with Saddam and the Ayatollah than allowing them to slaughter the fanatics of one another's crops.

I intend to get to other points made above, especially those concerning Islamic accomplishments, which I intend to vigorously throw into question.

 

[targetshootr]

A single cataclysmic event can wipe out humanity. After the beginning of our conquest of space, our single sun is our biggest threat. Moving beyond this solar system is the next step. Indeed, we continue this pattern, of being less and less vulnerable.

Before the sun does us in we'll go through many more ice ages and more than a couple of exterminations and it's safe to say we'll be one of the unlucky ones that go extinct too. So I don't see that we'll escape to another solar system given the immense distance between us and the next closest one and the limited amount of time we have to survive wars and all the other fun things that sap our finances. Now, if we ever learn to bend space/time, maybe it's doable. Heck, someone may have done it long ago but screwed it up which gave us our big bang 14 or so billion years ago.

 

[Abndoc]

The flip flop is the flaw. If we had done this to the Russians, they would not have been extending their hands at the Elbe River, they would have been extending their bayonets and the muzzles of their T-34s. The memory of the Russians, and the Muslims as well, is long.

Factions that are opposed to each other have been known to unite against a common enemy. When that enemy is disposed of, they can then get back to killing each other in their struggle for dominance. The Russian debacle in Afghanistan is the most recent example that comes to mind.

Sometimes you need to pick a side and stick with it.

As for fostering a civilized Islam, I wish I knew what the proper answer is. Morally, I would rather extend the hand of friendship, end this war and all if us sing around the campfire together. If this is not possible, then we should, as Bill Sherman said, wage a "hard war", smash and utterly defeat our enemies. Total, unmerciful war with the goal of the enemies surrender at the end.

You still have to have pity on the innocents caught in the middle. War breeds hatred and rage and the Middle East seems to have a steady supply of fanatics, no matter how many are killed. They have to be coming from somewhere.

In the final defense of Berlin, the most fanatical defenders were the Hitler Youth, raised in the righteousness of their cause and belief in their Fuhrer. I see parallels to this with the Muslims.

 

[MacGille]

Interfering in any way with the middle East is a losing proposition for us. Our recent interference with the internal affairs of other nations have been disasterous.(see Viet Nam) Our interference with Iraq will eventually turn around and bite us in the Butt.

We have interfered with many other countries, and have made the U.S. into a model of hatred throughout the world. Does the phrase "Ugly American" ring a bell? We are hated by people around the world. Even Britain doesn't really love us. Canada has very little to do with us, and Mexico uses us as a dumping ground for all of the peons they don't want to support. As well as supporting their economy with drug smuggling.

I am not saying we should court the favor of the world, but we should be responsible enough to let them make their own decisions and keep our troops home. There is no more need for occupying troops in Europe or anywhere else, and we have needs here that are not being adressed. Strengthen the U.S. and let the rest of world worry about themselves.

 

[peacemongeriv]

I plan on responding to confuseus and epyon's comments concerning any academic and scientific progress one can associate with Islam when I have time. Suffice to say I disagree, for the most part.

I also dissent from targetshootr's comments above. I agree that the sun going out will not be a problem if we're still around by the time it goes out. Nonetheless, entropy will, someday.

Once we have fusion power, why should we need a sun? Only direct extermination events need concern us. But before one draws pessimistic conclusions, think. It was only 54 years ago that we discovered the double helical nature of DNA. It was only 64 years ago that we strongly suggested it was the primary genetic unit. It was only 102 years ago that we explained the photoelectric effect, let alone relativity and brownian motion.

We may be about to find the Higgs particle yet (crossing my fingers for end of this year/beginning of next). It was a mere 38 years ago that Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins landed on the moon for the first time. The advancement of our knowledge is exponential. If you've been taught biology, chemistry, physics, or mathematics in the last 40 years, I think you must find yourselves endowed with massivesense of wonder.

Why? The growth of our knowledge in the last 50, 100, and 200 years is just awe-inspiring. You realize that the Poincare Conjecture, Fermat's Last Theorem, and the Four Color Theorem were all proved in the last 15 years?

It's just awe-inspiring. To talk about 25 trillion miles as far now does not mean it will be far within your lifetime (or mine). There's so magnificently much to learn even within the mature field of physics that to conclude that 4.5 light years is too far seems premptive. To travel around the world in 80 days might have been too, at one point.

I believe in the human race. I believe in our exponential growth in knowledge, and I believe that it will continue to grow. I just can't fathom the progress we've made. I can attempt to restrain my incredulity and excitement if you want more clarification, as I imagine it clouds my point. To speak of extinction, unless it happens in the next 50 years, is, I posit, not warranted.

 

[applesanity]

First off, tiny serif fonts = bad for computer screens.

Please, join the bandwagon and stick to normal-sized, sans-serif. The mods picked the font and size that I - and most others - are using, for a good reason. Your arguments lose their OOMPH if people gotta strain to read.

Prior to the the development of Protestantism, Islamic civilization was the most advanced in terms of religious tolerance, mathematical techniques, and science.

Oh, you beat me to it; dagnabbit.

Second, Nietzsche beat the original post to it. Sort of. I think you've drawn incorrect conclusions.

It has to do with who's in power and who's not. Those in power are the ones defining morality; right and wrong. Western culture says secularism, democracy, and capitalistic free markets, at varying degrees, are what's right.

Those without power cannot justify their lives living under this kind of morality because it creates the sense of inferiority. In the sense that, "wow, our society is not democratic, not secular, and not free enterprise, and we suck."

Rather than swallow reality, it's easier to flip morals. According to those without power, "Those ____ Americans - they're all imperialist infidels and greedy heartless capitalists." Now in order to rationalize all of this, you have to embrace the opposite as your own good morality. A religious, fundamentalist society, as it were.

As a demonstration, every thing about the Greeks and Romans were about greatness - just look at the movie, 300, or read The Illiad. Ambition and pride were considered good, while humility was considered inferior and weak. Notice how Judeo-Christian morality (they were powerless during the time of the Roman Empire) is pretty much the exact opposite of this? "The meek shall inherit the earth," "pride cometh before a fall," "for the kingdom of heaven is....," etc.

In short, it's a serious case of inferiority complex. More importantly, however, is that we're giving them one. The truth is, the more we make that part of the world feel more threatened by us, the more likely they'll continue embracing all un-Western extremes, in order to cope and rationalize. If you trace the origins of extremist fundamentalist Islam, you'll find the origins stemming from colonization. Surprise?

There has never been a nation called Palestine. The Palestinians have never had a country of their own. Palestinian nationalism didn't occur until the Israelis gave them a reason. When we were fighting the Germans, we didn't eat sauerkraut. We ate "liberty cabbage." During your teenage rebellion phase, did you feel that your parents, and everything they stood for, was somehow wrong?

I say, treat that part of the world with a bit of decency, and we might just get some back in return. Play neutral to Israel and Palestine, find a magical solution to ending the Iraq mess, and so on. When Western society is no longer perceived as a threat and enemy, then everything about our way of life wont seem so evil to them. Then embracing Al-Qeada and Wahabbism won't make much sense anymore.

This idea is not appeasement. This idea is saying that if we go around making resentful enemies, then we'll have to deal with resentful enemies. We should be viewed as allies, or at the very least, competitive rivals, but not as oppressors.

Please, no neville chamberlain retorts. When Hitler started his panzer dance, he was in a position of power. Before they got power, the Weinmars were in a position of post-WWI powerlessness. And it was so easy for them to embrace extremism, yeah? Or you can look at how we dealt with Germany and Japan after WWII. Instead of letting them dwell and brood in utter defeat, we helped to rebuild their societies.

I didn't think it was racist. Provincial might be the more applicable word.

If some country declares war on the U.S., I say, firebomb that country into the ground and use our granola hippies as human shields. But the better solution would be to make sure that we don't go around provoking other countries.

 

[targetshootr]

Once we have fusion power, why should we need a sun?

That's the thing, in 5 or 6 billion years it will expand to the size of Earths orbit before it dies and if we're still around, which I doubt, the whole planet will be charbroiled. But if we can avoid ruining this place for another 1000 years we might remodel one of the other fixer-uppers in our solar system by then.

 

[peacemongeriv]

If, perhaps, my peers purport that I profess the nigh-prehistoric perspective of a platitudinous paladin past his prime, a less persnickety pile of paragraphs is prudent.

I first address my disagreement with your proposed moral inversion. I must say I would have my argument misunderstood ten times if I could talk about Nietzsche's Platonic moral inversion that was completed by the Nazarene Christ.

Your application of that moral revolt does add something to my argument, however. Take first book, section 7, paragraph 2:

"As is well known, priests are the most evil of enemies—but why? Because they are the most powerless. From their powerlessness, their hate grows into something immense and terrifying, to the most spiritual and most poisonous manifestations. Those who have been the greatest haters in world history and the most spiritually rich haters have always been the priests—in comparison with the spirit of priestly revenge all the remaining spirits are, in general, hardly worth considering."

I have posited Islam as an enemy merely because religion is still organized in that region. These spider-priests still have power to stop the clock of a civilization they cannot compete in. There are many such people in the West who would stop technological advancement, but their institutional pillars have been corroded long ago. It is only in Islam that they are powerful enough.

I have posited that the good is whatever makes man thrive. It is not because I stand in the midst of capitalism, democracy, and science that I have embraced it. I have embraced it because it is the path to power, the path to the good. It is not a coincidence that capitalism brings on higher growth rates, that democracy has been the most trustworthy safeguard to freedom, and that the scientific method has been the only reliable gateway into new knowledge. You may choose life, or you may choose death.

The moral revolt you were talking about was, and is, vastly more sinister than you let on. It is the powerful, the master, the knowledgably, that are able to love life, because they have conquered it, have appreciated it. It is the priestly morality that embraces death under the cover of embracing weakness that Nietzsche has understood, but it seems you have not placed your emphasis upon. I agree that they have revolted morally, but I believe that the Islamic inversion of morality praises those things that make a society weak.

This, precisely, is why I call them enemies of civilization. Their moral revolt against those more civilized than they (indeed, having progressed far enough to conquer them) has been a revolt, not against those individuals that conquered them, but against civilization as a whole.

This revolt will continue so long as there are those stronger than they. Uneducated religious populaces are not wont to change their entire malignant morality after their enemies show weakness. Make no mistake—the West qua an idea is the enemy of all those who would hate the greatness of man.

I do so love the Genealogy of Morality (or Morals, if you prefer). First guy to just hit it on the head. I'd be dug at as provincial 100 times if I could think about the lightning and the flash, the lamb and the eagle.

Prior to the the development of Protestantism, Islamic civilization was the most advanced in terms of religious tolerance, mathematical techniques, and science.

A brief word on Islamic achievements. It took a concept of zero that existed in various forms from 2.5 millennia .8 millennia and merely spread it, rather than invent it. It won the secret of paper from two Chinese prisoners. Among their best achievements was to give Aristotle's works back to the West in the 13th century, after he had been lost after the fall of Rome. They were able to re-discover infinitesimals, developed in parallel in the West both before and after, as well as in China. Nonetheless, whatever the false advancements that are attributed to them, the major overlying point remains that the success of Islam, much like the Roman Empire before them, lay not within, for the most part, within their own achievements, but in importing the many achievements of others. That, far from being an agrarian society, they were a merchant society with strong maritime power, is reason for this. That Islam aggressively expanded after Mohammed's time is further reason. After absorbing civilizations, they were able to take long-term accomplishments as Islamic. Like Rome, this was not entirely a self-sufficient intellectual atmosphere, but one predicated on parasitism of conquered cultures and trade.

Nonetheless, whatever our disagreements on the degree to which Islamic Civilization was original in its scientific progress, I think it is clear that it was not Islam that was to credit for it. Islamic society perhaps made it possible for men to go forth and discover great things, but to claim that their religion was to credit directly is a fruitless task. The small fruit that it might bear would be under the false cover of arguing that it was the semi-rational, semi-revalational Mu'tazili branch that was due to credit, and that Ash'ari's supplanting it as a dominant theology spelled doom for Islamic science.

Even if we reject both the question of originality, and the question of source (viz., whether or not it was Islam qua religion that was the source of scientific advancement), we find the entire argument utterly irrelevant.

Specifically, Islam has changed. To claim the Islam of today is the same as the Islam of 1200 years ago is isomorphic to claiming that Christianity today is the same as Christianity of 1200 years ago. For centuries, the church was, in my view, the mortal enemy of civilization, back when body odor was the "odor of sanctity" and lice were "the pearls of god". It has changed. Islam has had no such similar change after becoming an enemy of civilization. Its past deeds, be they what they may, do not make up for what it is now.

Islam made its choice many centuries ago, perhaps spurned on by the Sack of Baghdad by the Mongols. They made the choice to morally revolt, and in doing so, condemned themselves. To suggest that we need to coddle their self esteem is to suggest that the Eagle needs to coddle the self esteem of a frustrated sheep. Better to encourage the sheep to war amongst themselves, the fastest way to rid ourselves of sheep. The eagles among them will migrate, as they have for many years now, in a brain drain of brilliant proportions. Coddling the Ayatollah is poor decision making as compared to setting him against Saddam. If they need Attaturks, let them create their own—our concern need merely be to cull the herd of militant sheep by using other militant sheep. One hand washes the other, and their ressentiment need not concern their betters.

 

[applesanity]

On the assumption that history tends to repeat itself, given that human nature will never change, I don't think that manipulating the sheep into fighting amongst themselves will work.

The moral revolt in Christianity started with an inversion of Roman morals. But the triumph (word choice?) of Christian morality came through a different understanding of morality altogether.

The concept and notion of mercy, guilt, evil, and sin did not exist prior. It used to be benevolence, shame, inferiority, and debt, repectively. Pity was empathy, cruelty was disgust, and repentence was atonement. The Romans considered their enemies as lessers, not evil. They had contempt for them, not hate.

The switch happened when the hatred and ressentiment of the powerless turned into pity and forgiveness, with Christ as salvation being the ultimate expression of such. The Jews and Christians didn't destroy themselves even though or if they fought each other like militant sheep; they won because they created a path towards claiming moral superiority. Instead of the Romans saying, "wow, they don't like us because we're better than them," it became "wow, they feel sorry for us."

Christian morality in Western society has changed, yes. Because it is now in the position of power. Islamic society, essentially, is where the Christians were 2000 years ago. The Christians let go of earthly wealth for the kingdom of heaven; suicide bombers wait for their 72 virgins. And both have their respective martyrs. If infighting didn't destroy the Christians then, how will infighting destroy extremist Islam now?

If the status quo continues, the same switch in morality is inevitable - and we got lots of hippie, anti-american sympathizers within our own borders to show for that. I certainly don't want a second Dark Age, do you? Rather than hoping that the moral inversion destroys itself from within, I say, prevent it from happening at all. Stop treating and thinking of them as lessers, but as competitive rivals. Competition is not coddling - it's mutual respect. On a modern take, George Kennen's treatment of the USSR (let's eradicate it!) didn't work, but Reagan's (let's compete against them by spending!) did.

I'll eat kabobs and they can have Chicken McNuggets.

 

[targetshootr]

If the status quo continues, the same switch in morality is inevitable - and we got lots of hippie, anti-american sympathizers within our own borders to show for that.

We will evenually become, what, Islamists? Maybe the confusing part is equating critics of certain policies as anti-american and sympathetic to the enemy, the same verbal gymnastics that get us into places like Iraq.

 

[Tomsriv]

I agree that we need moderate Islam. During the dark ages Christianity was oppressive and in many ways evil or used for evil. After the enlightenment we had more moderate Christianity and it has generally been a good religion ever since. If Islam can reach a point of enlightenment then it will no longer be an evil and wicked religion. I pray that they reach that point.

The points about mankind moving forward. It would help if members of the culture of first world countries with the best education systems, the most affluent people and the most access to things like art, culture and scientific understanding spent more time having children instead of living for themselves and importing the ignorant from all over the world to do their dirty work. Thats a whole 'noter can of worms though.

 

[applesanity]

We will evenually become, what, Islamists? Maybe the confusing part is equating critics of certain policies as anti-american and sympathetic to the enemy, the same verbal gymnastics that get us into places like Iraq.

No, but we'll revert back to a society where all things Western will be perceived as evil - as fringe groups already believe. Globalization, worldliness, science over religion in public life and academics, individualism.

Luddites.

Anti-American not as in being critical, but anti-American/ Western as genuine resentment and hatred. There's a bunch of protestors at the G8 summit right now.

Don't think that I'm hating on religion, although I think the original post isn't too fond of it. I'm religious myself. I just believe that faith is more about your own personal relationship with your Maker, not a dictation of public life.

Back on topic, I don't think moderate Islam will come about -or return- so long as that that region feels threaten by us "zionist, imperialist, infidel oppressors." The more cornered you get, the more desperate and extreme you'll become. I don't think radicalists hate Westernism simply for what it is, or for any decent rationale, but rather, because it is the embodiment of their perceived enemy.

 

[peacemongeriv]

On the assumption that history tends to repeat itself...

An eternal recurrence, perhaps?

If infighting didn't destroy the Christians then, how will infighting destroy extremist Islam now?

Two suggestions: one, didn't it? The power of the church has been in decline for a long time, and growing ever less. Christianity isn't the same as it was a millenia ago. Not the same in power.
Second, it might if we help them along in the job. Previously you could not destroy an entire society as is happening in Iraq. New weapons have provided a paradigm shift in terms of destructive power of war.

I like your quite original take on the Moral Revolt, that there can be more than one. (At the time, I don't think Nietzsche thought it possible, given that weakness had already been crowned as king--the only revolt that could occur would be that of the child once again redefining morality uniquely (acontextually). ("Of three metamorphoses of the spirit I tell you: how the spirit becomes a camel; and the camel, a lion; and the lion, finally, a child.").

I will note, however, that you begin to see the Moral Revolt as early as Socrates (Platonic Socrates), and the wide gulf between his morality and the morality of his peers in the Illiad or any such work (rather than starting with a rejection of Roman morality). This revolt is continued by the creation of a "slave religion", Judaism. Christianity "perfects" Judaism by completing the moral revolt, evidence of which we see in Socrates and whose origins came in Judaism as a response to oppression.

Ultimately i don't see where their moral revolt can end up. How can luddites win a war? Perhaps one might have said the same thing about pacifist christians. Nonetheless, do not those men & women at the G8 conference question the veracity of your point? Why should westerners be protesting? They have been afforded respect. (Indeed, I'd be interested in how many of them have a college degree--I think it would be high, as it would for anti-Americans in America.) If we cannot solve the problem of them in the States, where they come from, this disaffected middle/upper class of young people, your solution is incomplete.

I believe George Kennan was not only right, but his solution was implemented successfully, and "eradication" is not a good summary of it. George Kennan's X-Article outlined the policy of Containment. We did contain the Soviet Union after 1946/1947, for the most part. (Hence our aid to Afghanistan after the Soviet Invasion). Kennan didn't suggest we out-and-out eradicate them, but that we simply contain them and let the inherent inefficiencies of Communism allow it to destroy itself. This is what happened. Reagan's spending merely pushed it over after Kennan's containment worked to such wonderful success.

In a similar manner, I don't see how respect of people who have declared themselves our mortal enemies can help them respect themselves enough to not wage war on us. I think as it is interpreted, Islam is inherently anti-progress. (For one simple example, they have that "no loaning for profit" prohibition, a prohibition against moneylenders, which is foolishness in a world economy. (N.B. It is the same way Jewish people got their reputation, as they handled the same job in Christan countries when their laws forbade christians as moneylenders). Another example might be that in large part they have cut off half their population from being productive workers.

I think that fostering wars between them is the "new" containment. Keep them focused within, as the militant interpretation of their religion slowly collapses under the weight of a destroyed society unable to support it. It is the Christian, turn-the-other-cheek style to call their mortal enemies friends and invite them in the home.

As another note, I'm not a fan of anything that holds man back. If one wants to be religious, no problems. As soon as someone chooses to impact other people I come down quite hard. I see in religion a futile quest for answers that began as poor explanations for the world around us. I see philosophy and science as slowly eating the middle ground of religion, in terms of epistemological undertakings.

 

[applesanity]

If infighting didn't destroy the Christians then, how will infighting destroy extremist Islam now?

Two suggestions: one, didn't it? The power of the church has been in decline for a long time, and growing ever less.

"Then" as in the time when they weren't in a position of power. Once society was Christian-dominated, and there was no more hatred and resentment or pity, Christianity got into a position where it could reform itself. Christian/Western society did not get the chance to better itself, not until there were no more oppressors - with a different set of morality - to focus all their energy on. Extremist radical Islamic groups might not have any reason to fix themselves, so long as there is that looming Western entity to fixate all their energy and hate on.

I will note, however, that you begin to see the Moral Revolt as early as Socrates

I don't think so. If you want to go ahead one or two generations from that, you'll see that there was still a philosophy of the "form" or Nichomachean ethic of "the good." Two different takes, but gist was still about achieving greatness. More importantly, the concept of good in both those cases was still viewed as a very earthly, human thing, rather than divine. All forms of passion - gluttony, lust, greed, or pride - where things to mastered, not rejected as sin.

How can luddites win a war?

Like I said - not by fighting, but by changing morality so that our way is evil, and their way is good.

but that we simply contain them and let the inherent inefficiencies of Communism allow it to destroy itself. This is what happened.

I was only using the analogy to show that though competition, you have rivals, but through oppression, you have enemies. I think you took the analogy one step too far. Islam is a religion and culture, not a political and economic system like soviet-style Communism. There are no physical borders to secure, no organized structure to address. Even Bush made of point of this in one of his more famous speeches about the war on terror. We weren't fond of the soviet government, but we were okay with the people. We still made Solzhenitsyn a celebrity. I think you're hating on a culture, not a political entity.

I don't see how respect of people who have declared themselves our mortal enemies can help them respect themselves enough to not wage war on us.

As Yoda might say, "To the dark side of the Force, desperation leads." To continue your (and Nietzsche's, and Freud's) analogy of the resentful child, you'll never get your kids out of their rebellion phase until you start to treat them with respect, like adults.

they have that "no loaning for profit" prohibition

A misinterpretation. They have that "no charging interest for lending money/ no loansharking" policy. There were/are still moneylenders, and investors still got perks - from the business itself, but not simply for the sake of moving money.

Keep them focused within, as the militant interpretation of their religion slowly collapses under the weight of a destroyed society unable to support it.

They won't. Not when there's a common, external enemy on which to share their hate. So, when one form of extremist fundamentalism beats another, you're still left one group of extremists.

As another note, I'm not a fan of anything that holds man back.

Neither am I - I'm paraphrasing Nietzsche, am I not? But I think it cuts both ways. To an extent, aren't we holding them back? Nietzsche said that greatness was about rising beyond inferiorities, not about asserting yourself over others. To an extent, greatness can be lonely. Like the lonely "philosopher king." Thus spoke Apple Sanity.

 

[Abndoc]

Christianity isn't the same as it was a millenia ago. Not the same in power.

The loss of power is in the political arena, an area religion should have little business, anyway. It seem that every time religion and politics intertwine, religion is twisted and perverted to suit political goals.

The mullahs and the "spider-priests" are using Islam as a tool and a weapon to gain power, same as the church in Rome did. This is more of a reflection on human nature than Divine nature.

I do, however, appreciate your ability to express your humanist views without being insulting to those of us that are religious. I also appreciate that this post has forced me to expand my summer reading list.

I hope that you don't mind if I do more listening than talking. I am forced to continually do some research just to keep up. I'm rather enjoying it.

 

[applesanity]

The mullahs and the "spider-priests" are using Islam as a tool and a weapon to gain power, same as the church in Rome did. This is more of a reflection on human nature than Divine nature.

Not quite. We've been dissecting Genealogy of Morals to see if the powerful are now the Christians, and the the powerless are those extremist Muslims. (The first part of the book talks about when the Romans were in power and the Jews weren't. The second part is even more interesting - it explores the origins of guilt. (In Civilizations and its Discontents by Freud, the exploration goes a bit further.)

The Church in Rome was already in a position of power when Christianity began to reform itself. And the spider-priests aren't really gaining power, because in the grand scheme of things, they're still powerless compared to Western society. It's more like an expression of resentment, hatredl, and resentment. We've been using the word, "ressentiment" because, interestingly, the word does not exist in German. Surprise?

The disagreement here is whether reform can happen within a position of powerlessness. Peacemonger thinks it will be forced to, while I think reform happens willingly and not out of desperation.

In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned... So that they may be urged the more to praise God... The saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens... to the damned.

- St. Thomas Aquinas, answering the question, “Whether the Blessed in Heaven Will See the Sufferings of the Damned,” Summa Theologica

The righteous will rejoice when he sees the vengeance; He will wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

- Psalm 58:10, NASB

Revenge is sweeter than life itself/ At vindicta bonum vita iucundius ipsa nempe hock indocti

- Juvenalis, Saturae

 

[peacemongeriv]

For myself, I always preferred the "Geneology of Morality" (as a distinction from "Morals") translation by Swensen & Clark, (though it's hard to miss his point oftimes, his dynamic flair is at-times abused in many translations).

I'll disagree, concerning Socrates. Examine the character traits that might be found in the Homer's Iliad, & Odyssey, The Bacchae by Euripidies, or Aesop's Fables. Then examine the Platonic Socrates displayed in The Apology. Far from knowing all, he knows nothing. He looks down on sophistry, among the central attributes of the main hero of the Iliad (viz., being able to convince anyone of anything, true or otherwise). He rejects the material possessions.

Take the spiritual view of Socrates (Apology):

...a man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong

Take the spiritual view of Achilles (Odessey):

Odysseus: As for you, Achilles, no one was ever yet so fortunate as you have been, nor ever will be, for you were adored by all us Argives as long as you were alive, and now that you are here you are a great prince among the dead. Do not, therefore, take it so much to heart even if you are dead.

Achilles: Say not a word, he answered, in death's favour; I would rather be a paid servant in a poor man's house and be above ground than king of kings among the dead.

One could go on about the Christian precursor found in Socrates, but the above is the fundamental point. Alternatively, in the Apology, "For either death is a long sleep, the best of sleeps, or a journey to another world in which the souls of the dead are gathered together, and in which there may be a hope of seeing the heroes of old--in which, too, there are just judges; and as all are immortal, there can be no fear of any one suffering death for his opinions." Socrates, later & shortly after the trial, (and after Crito) in the Phadeo, talks of his final rewards looking up because he's a philosopher.

Nietzsche once claimed that there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. (Sorry, I just love that quote, unrelated as it might be). If there was more than one Christian, then Socrates was among the first. He rejected such things as strength, bribery, sophism while accepting and embracing a position of poverty & weakness. However, he posited the first thing that was needed for people who don't get justice in this world—a next, where one might. The Iliad & Odyssey clearly reject these, as do our other, older Greek works.

Socrates, unlike our Nazarene Christ, did not complete the revolution, but acted merely as an overture. He rejected an old morality, and began to adopt a new, but did not invent evil, as his rejection was not out of Nietzsche's "Jewish hate" but rather out of his own innate intellectualism.

You may well agree with the point: " All forms of passion - gluttony, lust, greed, or pride - where things to mastered, not rejected as sin." Recognizing the rejection (or mastery, if you please) of those was a prelude to declaring them as sin. (One last thought, after writing that, that I won't go into now, that such mastery over oneself, (as well as nature, primarily) was required of the Slave of Hegel's Master-Slave Dialectic as he moves forward—such mastery is what gives him the courage to…revolt, and regain his manhood).

But I am admittedly borderline off-topic there. A response to a counter to my argument's subdiscussion is a bit far removed. I shall endeavor to respond to the main point.

"Then" as in the time when they weren't in a position of power. Once society was Christian-dominated, and there was no more hatred and resentment or pity, Christianity got into a position where it could reform itself. Christian/Western society did not get the chance to better itself, not until there were no more oppressors - with a different set of morality - to focus all their energy on.

I don't agree here. Take two of the major steps in the refinement of Christianity. Luther's 95 Theses, and the Summa Theologica by Aquinas (among the more general impact of Aristotle's re-importation to the West where it had been preserved in the Middle East). Society began to be Christian dominated as early as 391 A.D., when all other religions were outlawed in the Roman Empire. While it took some time, it certainly began to be a dominant force. St. Patrick began the conversion of Ireland, some 2.5 thousand miles from Jerusalem, in 433 A.D. and onwards.

Do you honestly believe it was the 1000 year dominance of the Church that allowed them to reform? No. Indeed, having one central and dominant force caused them to stagnate. It was the weakness of the church, and the ability to disagree that caused others to reform it, in contradistinction to it reforming itself. A dominance so far gone that it could bear false popes, and hangers-on who were not Christian, but men who saw in the Church a way to get rich and hand your property and title down to your son.

It was the smashing of this dominance that caused reform. Church's natural demand for conformity made it an opponent of civilization. The removal of a barrier is not an impetus for going forward, and while its removal is something to be celebrated, let us not confuse a thousand-year barrier and its subsequent removal as a blessing. Europe was never unified by an outside threat, as we may begin to take evidence from the Sack of Constantinople. Was Eastern Orthodoxy an outside morality? Was Protestantism?

Though even if we accepted that society was Christian-dominated and there was no real threat to it, we ask how did the Reformation take place? What occurred? Massive, bloody wars in Europe, the French Religious Wars, the Thirty Years War, the Counter-Reformation, England's many back-and-forths, and so on. That is to say, that the path to reform was massive infighting among our religions, weakening them enough that state rulers could begin to exert their more secular power.

But this is precisely what I am advocating. I advocate the support of religious wars within Islam, to give them the great gift of their own version of Europe's Thirty Years War. If you're right, then it was never that Europe thought it was the only place or morality that existed, but rather that it became caught up in its own business. And this is my suggestion—help them absorb themselves and the lives of their most fanatical in the business of slaughtering the other side's most fanatical. While I don't think you're correct about the reasons for reform, even if you are, and you're following Europe's blueprint to civilization, the path Europe took is the path I'm advocating—a sick, bloody, war characterized by infighting and realpolitiking on all sides. I merely suggest we keep them contained.

It took the fall of the Ottoman Empire for Attaturk to work his magic, rather than a rise of Turkish self-esteem. A humiliating defeat at the end of World War I allowed for a reform that catapulted Turkey into the sort of country that is allowed in NATO, and has any sort of chance at the European Union.

There are no physical borders to secure, no organized structure to address.

This is only true to some degree. Saudi Arabia and Iran, and previously Afghanistan, offer direct counterexamples, viz., a Wahhabist protectorate of Mecca & Medina, an Islamic theocracy, and a failed state run by fundamentalist sunni muslims. These among other individuals, such as Muqtada al Sadr. There are symbols, leaders, and states to address.

 

[applesanity]

Oh, I only read the Kaufmann translations. (As if any other version is worthwhile?) I don't have the book handy, so my apologies if I gave the wrong title. I've also read it in the original German - if you think it's challenging enough in English, hah.

Where is there time to stagnate when your number one priority, more so than killing rival extremist muslims, is to drive those Zionists back out to the sea? At the end of the day a better interpretation of Islam might replace a lesser. But there's no guarentee that the next version is going to hate Westernism any less.

Mind you, in the scene where Achilles is dragging Hector's body through the camps, the onlookers reacted with disgust. They weren't saying, "Achiles, you're a cruel, merciless, evil sinner!" They were saying, "Oh, c'mon!"

Cruelty, mercy, evilness, and sin are all Christian notions. Sometimes us westerners forget that such ideas do not exist elsewhere or did prior. Let's not mistake the apparent asceticism you quoted for such. The Greeks challenged their gods, while their gods were occasionally more human than human. The reliefs on the Parthenon show people in procession or doing earthly things; the reliefs on Amiens Cathedral show people looking up and praying.

It's interesting to note, at least on this thread, the perception of these extremist radicals. They're "anti-civilization," they're backward, they're uneducated, they're essentially inferior. The perception is one more of contempt, not hate. Nobody has said outright that they're inherently evil, just that they really, really suck. Meanwhile, they hate us and everything we represent, so they've chosen to embrace all things that are not us. Wow, we've become the Romans.

 

[peacemongeriv]

Oh, I only read the Kaufmann translations. (As if any other version is worthwhile?) I don't have the book handy, so my apologies if I gave the wrong title.

No, you did, I tried to be clear but garbled my own message. Conventionally it's "morals", they took the position of "morality". I'm mixed about Kauffman as a translator in general, him having taken a definite position on Nietzsche, with my not having read it in German. Good for you for having read it, I've heard reading German philosophers (Kant, who...'nuff said) in the original german is often more difficult. (Something to do with having the verbs at the end, and the combining of words?)

As for our nemeses (viz., adherents to any anti-civilization doctrine) being evil, it seems pointless if you've already condemned them to die. Maybe it's helpful to rile up some members of society to your cause, but talking about "evil" never seemed quite purposeful. (Perhaps it's because I'm in a position of confidence ).