That's because the whole "God=moral" thing is flawed. It's like me showing you a bike with no seat, and saying, "This bike has no seat, and can't be ridden, demonstrating that bicycles can be both ridden and not ridden."
That argument only works if you accept his premise that, by intervening in one place, we are immoral for not intervening in all places, which I've rejected already.
Kadahfi said on state TV that he was going to go house to house in Benghazi and kill anyone in there.
I guess that not technically genocide but it is along those same lines. Thats what precipitated the Arab League to action because it pissed off the entire region.
Truthfully, what I haven't mentioned is the whole Levinas angle - the philosopher whose work he's building on. I'd rather not get into that, but we can, but Derrida's operating from a baseline that one has an infinite obligation to others.He'd extrapolate that because he is a quack.
Derrida did a good job of showing certain biases in the system, as well as some dichotomies that we do have in society. But as I said upthread, he then tried to break everything down into some "x has y and y has x and they are at conflict" scheme, which doesn't always work.
Said "responsible" action is only "irresponsible" if one has infinite resources and time. Otherwise, it's called "reality". In Derrida's world, there is NO way to be moral. Either you do nothing (which is immoral) or you do something (which is immoral, because you did X instead of Y). The only MORAL answer (doing everything) is obviously impossible. Which is why it's stupid.
We can get into that if you want, but that's his baseline.
That's a problem - and one that he recognizes is present in his idea.
That being said, isn't there a distinction between the state's that would resist participation and the people? Isn't that like equating the rebels in East Libya with Quadafi?
You can't be serious about the 2nd part, Fuzzy. Half the Arab League is killing their own civilians. They are using Kadahfi as a sacrificial lamb because they've never liked him but to claim the Arab League is in this for humanitarian reasons is just not correct.
Which is what I object to in the first place. What good is a moral framework that is impossible to fulfill?
You might be able to make that reasoning for totalitarian regimes but not for democracies.
Intellectual masturbation.
This is hard to explain, but the good comes not in achieving the goal, but in fighting. Perfection is unattainable, sure, but there is something, noble, ethical, etc... in trying to get there.
Solid take
Serious question, are you a philosophy student?Solid take
Seriously. I dare you to tell them that getting slaughtered by Gaddafi or bombed by the US is an interpretive matter, that there is no "outside the text."
I'll get right on it.
Why's that relevant anyway? Weren't you complaining about making things personal a couple days ago?
It still doesn't make complaining about something as intellectual masterbation any less ty of a take.
You really do not follow foreign policy.
I am not kidding about the 2nd part. I said nothing about their motivations to reacting to Kadhafi's statements.
I know those autrocratic states consider their own powers first.
Did you ever stop and think why the Arab League signed off?
It certainly was not because allowing the west to intervene in another autocrats country sets a good precedent for future relations.
The internet and al-jazeera are changing the middle east. The social control that these regimes have been ablet o force through propaganda and shutting off outside influences is over.
The majority of the middle eastern population supports the Libyan rebels and all of these autocrats are so worried about uprisings in their own country they signed off on it.
i am sure Bahrain wanted to get some heat off their own mess.
What i do not get is why you think that matters.
The bottom line is that the Arab League and NATO sans Germany asked us to intervene.
Holding up the American revolution as an example of how nonintervention is justified jsut goes to show how little context you are going by.
Without French intervention Washington, Adams, et al. do not make it to 1779.
We are a country directly because a world power stepped in and got involved.
Then there is the whole barbary coast historical context of tripoli but hey just make up and people have no idea of history so we will get it to stick it seems.
And that's not even the point. You claimed what I was saying as rank modernism. I fail to understand 1) why saying you have to work within the ins utions = modernism 2) what you mean by "modernism" and 3) why my position is untenable, unstrategic, bad, etc...?
How you get from that to Libyan intervention and Quadafi, I honestly don't know.
Last edited by vy65; 03-25-2011 at 04:32 PM.
Far be it from me to deprive you of your dimly recalled and barely coherent sop rism. You can keep it.
Did you feel insulted by the question? I was just curious.
It wasn't a ty take, IMO. You disagree with it because you value the philosophy but I stand that ideologies and philosophies with no value in the real world are good for little more than intellectual masturbation. There's plenty of that in this forum so its not a big deal.
Fair enough. And I wasn't insulted - just wondering where you were coming from.
Alright man, this is the 3rd time you've gone down this road. If you want to lob ad hominem at me go ahead but I'm far from WC and I'm not as ignorant as you want to paint me here.
There motivations are certainly an important part of the equation and they have to be taken into account whether you mentioned them or not.I am not kidding about the 2nd part. I said nothing about their motivations to reacting to Kadhafi's statements.
[quote]
I know those autrocratic states consider their own powers first.
Did you ever stop and think why the Arab League signed off?
[quote]
Um, o? See above.
Its not about precedent. The precedent for US and Western intervention was set long before this conflict. Its about deflecting pressure from their internal struggles outside and to make it seem as if they are behind change. You can't possible take anything the Arab League does seriously regarding this situation considering what they do at home.It certainly was not because allowing the west to intervene in another autocrats country sets a good precedent for future relations.
Maybe so but that doesn't mean they're all of a sudden going to stop trying.The internet and al-jazeera are changing the middle east. The social control that these regimes have been ablet o force through propaganda and shutting off outside influences is over.
Obviously - but its to deflect pressure and not because they actually believe in the humanitarianism.The majority of the middle eastern population supports the Libyan rebels and all of these autocrats are so worried about uprisings in their own country they signed off on it.
You don't think its important to analyze the motivations of an action ?i am sure Bahrain wanted to get some heat off their own mess.
What i do not get is why you think that matters.
This is a fair point, but it also ignores the context of modern intervention and how it has failed spectacularly in most cases.The bottom line is that the Arab League and NATO sans Germany asked us to intervene.
Holding up the American revolution as an example of how nonintervention is justified jsut goes to show how little context you are going by.
Without French intervention Washington, Adams, et al. do not make it to 1779.
We are a country directly because a world power stepped in and got involved.
Modern intervention is both extremely expensive and doesn't work very often. I'd love to see the case of how a very weak and losing rebel force in a civil war is a good candidate for intervention because so far no one has made one.
Then there is the whole barbary coast historical context of tripoli but hey just make up and people have no idea of history so we will get it to stick it seems.
Poppy and rubbish.
You can't say "the good is in doing something" and then simultaneously call it immoral.
That's not even touching the stupidity of trying to achieve the impossible (as opposed to the highly improbable).
Shoot, is Derrida's goal of "non-community" even believable? Desirable? Achievable? I'd say no to all three.
One thing you left out, though, is that 1) the French had something to gain from our independence, as it would directly hurt a rival and 2) the French really hated the British.
I don't think either of the two applies to this case.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
