Tangled Ideas

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The following quote is by our own near and dear George H. Smith in an article I am presently reading entitled Thinking About War.

It is far easier to tangle ideas than to untangle them...

After doing a few years of forum life in the Objectivist-libertarian world, I can say in good conscience that if this isn't a perfect identification of the predominant pattern anyone can observe at any given time in our subcommunity, I don't know what is.

It cracked me up so much when I read it just now that I decided to post it without even finishing the essay first.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

There are no just wars. There are necessary wars and unnecessary wars.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[dan2100]

The following quote is by our own near and dear George H. Smith in an article I am presently reading entitled Thinking About War.

It is far easier to tangle ideas than to untangle them...

After doing a few years of forum life in the Objectivist-libertarian world, I can say in good conscience that if this isn't a perfect identification of the predominant pattern anyone can observe at any given time in our subcommunity, I don't know what is.

It cracked me up so much when I read it just now that I decided to post it without even finishing the essay first.

Michael

Side note: you might also want to look into Killing in War:

http://www.amazon.com/Killing-War-Uehiro-Practical-Ethics/dp/0199548668

Back to tangling ideas, I wonder if this is not so much because people intentionally tangle them, but merely because, since it's easier as George believes, it just happens. And online, it's so much easier to drop context -- coming in, as I've been accused of doing, in the middle of a discussion, making some assumptions, reacting, and then having others react to one's reactions, creating a huge mass of confusion... All the more so because it's so much easier to send something off unedited than, say, in an old fashioned letter or letter-to-the-editor.

[dan2100]

There are no just wars. There are necessary wars and unnecessary wars.

Ba'al Chatzaf

What determines necessity here? In order for there to be war, in my view, at least two sides have to cooperate in fighting each other. It seems to me, in this, there's nothing necessary -- as in preordained in the sense where one or more opposing sides might not fight.

[Rich Engle]

Adam:

There are no just wars. There are necessary wars and unnecessary wars.

Ackkkkk!!! Pat Buchanan paraphrase! Ackkkk!!!!

Now go wash off those filthy hands!

[sbeaulieu]

What determines necessity here? In order for there to be war, in my view, at least two sides have to cooperate in fighting each other. It seems to me, in this, there's nothing necessary -- as in preordained in the sense where one or more opposing sides might not fight.

I assure you, wars are not cooperative efforts. Take a look at the Kuwaiti invasion that brought the US into the Gulf War. Kuwait didn't invite Sadam Hussein, and neither did he invite us into Iraq.

As for necessity, that is determined by those that wage it. And I'm sure there's a myriad of reasons pondered before the carnage ensues. But predominantly, one side is the aggressor while the other defends. Each has a necessity, vehemently opposed by the opponent.

~ Shane

[dan2100]

What determines necessity here? In order for there to be war, in my view, at least two sides have to cooperate in fighting each other. It seems to me, in this, there's nothing necessary -- as in preordained in the sense where one or more opposing sides might not fight.

I assure you, wars are not cooperative efforts. Take a look at the Kuwaiti invasion that brought the US into the Gulf War. Kuwait didn't invite Sadam Hussein, and neither did he invite us into Iraq.

As for necessity, that is determined by those that wage it. And I'm sure there's a myriad of reasons pondered before the carnage ensues. But predominantly, one side is the aggressor while the other defends. Each has a necessity, vehemently opposed by the opponent.

I was fairly careful, I thought, in my wording. An invasion, per se, is not a war -- at least, not until the invaded people fight back. A war usually involves, don't you agree, at least two sides fighting? If so, they involve both sides to at least cooperate in the minimal sense of agreeing to fight each other. Anyhow, that's what I meant here. And don't you agree, in this sense, war is not necessary. One side could attack, but there's no necessity to fighting back -- and without that sort of cooperation, there's no war as such.

[sbeaulieu]

I was fairly careful, I thought, in my wording. An invasion, per se, is not a war -- at least, not until the invaded people fight back. A war usually involves, don't you agree, at least two sides fighting? If so, they involve both sides to at least cooperate in the minimal sense of agreeing to fight each other. Anyhow, that's what I meant here. And don't you agree, in this sense, war is not necessary. One side could attack, but there's no necessity to fighting back -- and without that sort of cooperation, there's no war as such.

I would agree it takes two to tango, but I wouldn't use the word cooperation in the sense you are. If you and I were to say have a fist fight because I threw the first punch, would you not fight back? Someone has to initiate the action, whereby the other reacts. In no way do I see that as cooperation. I see where you're going, though.

Battlefields are much different today as well. Two countries, city-states, towns, back in the day would agree to meet on the field of battle to settle disputes. That doesn't happen anymore. These days, most battles or asymmetric. Or one tries to gain the advantage of surprise (ala US Army rolling into Iraq with tanks). No cooperation there.

~ Shane

[dan2100]

I was fairly careful, I thought, in my wording. An invasion, per se, is not a war -- at least, not until the invaded people fight back. A war usually involves, don't you agree, at least two sides fighting? If so, they involve both sides to at least cooperate in the minimal sense of agreeing to fight each other. Anyhow, that's what I meant here. And don't you agree, in this sense, war is not necessary. One side could attack, but there's no necessity to fighting back -- and without that sort of cooperation, there's no war as such.

I would agree it takes two to tango, but I wouldn't use the word cooperation in the sense you are. If you and I were to say have a fist fight because I threw the first punch, would you not fight back? Someone has to initiate the action, whereby the other reacts. In no way do I see that as cooperation. I see where you're going, though.

Battlefields are much different today as well. Two countries, city-states, towns, back in the day would agree to meet on the field of battle to settle disputes. That doesn't happen anymore. These days, most battles or asymmetric. Or one tries to gain the advantage of surprise (ala US Army rolling into Iraq with tanks). No cooperation there.

~ Shane

I admit, I'm using cooperation in a way that's bound to cause some controversy among libertarians and Objectivists. My point, however, is that, to use your example, if you were to throw the first punch and, in fact, all the punches against me and I never fought back, would you really think it was a fist fight? No. My guess is that others watching it might just say you beat me up and that's all.

Ditto if, say, you threw a punch or two and I ran away. My guess is others watching would say you hit me and I ran away -- and not that we had a fist fight. So, even in order to have a fist fight with you, I must cooperate -- in, again, the minimal sense, of blocking and attempting to hit back. If I don't do those things, we don't really have a fight at all.

The same applies in military situations. For example, troops invade some nation or other, but there's no violent resistance. That's an invasion -- even an armed invasion. But it's not really a war. Of course, it might kick off a war -- as in: weeks later the locals do start attacking the invaders. But, assuming they have a choice here, until they do, there's no war. So, in my sense, war is not necessary. (Which is not to argue that it might be better than the alternative of sitting back and letting invaders or attackers do as they will.)

[sbeaulieu]

Dan,

I follow you. Although I'd find it hard to digest someone sitting back and doing nothing, there is still that chance, be it in a fight or invasion.

~ Shane

[dan2100]

Dan,

I follow you. Although I'd find it hard to digest someone sitting back and doing nothing, there is still that chance, be it in a fight or invasion.

~ Shane

Thanks. I know using a word like cooperate here can lead to confusion. I mean I agree this is not the sort of cooperation usually meant by libertarians and Objectivists.

[George H. Smith]

Back to tangling ideas, I wonder if this is not so much because people intentionally tangle them, but merely because, since it's easier as George believes, it just happens. And online, it's so much easier to drop context -- coming in, as I've been accused of doing, in the middle of a discussion, making some assumptions, reacting, and then having others react to one's reactions, creating a huge mass of confusion... All the more so because it's so much easier to send something off unedited than, say, in an old fashioned letter or letter-to-the-editor.

Ideas get tangled in various ways. The remark in my article was made in the context of the historical interpretations of just war theory by Brook and Epstein. The manner in which they tangle, and thereby misrepresent, previous thinkers is unfortunately typical of Orthos and can be traced to Rand herself, especially in her treatment of Kant.

The basic problem here, as I have stated many times before, is that one cannot do a priori history. That is to say, one cannot begin with a rudimentary knowledge of a few key thinkers, isolate what what believes to be the essential elements of their philosophies (for Rand, these were typically epistemological tenets), and then, as if by a process of syllogistic reasoning, deduce the consequences those philosophers must have had on the subsequent development of ideas.

History doesn't work that way. Although I do believe that an "inner logic of ideas" often operates in history (I discuss this in Why Atheism?), I don't believe that premises -- especially epistemological premises -- will always trump every other consideration, as Rand seemed to believe. Intellectual history is far more complicated than that, and one must actually study history to learn what those consequences have been. (If anything, a philosopher's political doctrines often prove the most influential, regardless of how he justified them. But that's another subject, and it would take me a while to explain why this is so.)

The essential idea of just war theory, according to Brook and Epstein, is altruism. This became their idée fixe, based on their reading of Augustine and certain assumptions about Christianity. And this caused them to tangle one idea of traditional just war theory after another into the web of altruism.

The metaphor of a Procrustean Bed is probably more appropriate here. Having fixated on the inaccurate standard of altruism, Brook and Epstein forced every just war advocate into that bed, lopping off and twisting whatever was necessary to make them fit.

There is nothing wrong with having a keen eye for historical essentials; on the contrary, this is a valuable skill for any historian. But this is a skill that the intellectual historian acquires over time and with a lot of effort, as he studies original sources in an empathetic spirit, attempting to understand past thinkers as they understood themselves.

An eye for historical essentials is not something one can learn solely through the study of philosophy. Even if it is philosophically true that A entails B, and B entails C, it may not be historically true that A has caused B and therefore C to come about. Historical causation in the realm of ideas is often not "logical" in the philosophical sense.

Ghs

Ghs

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Back to tangling ideas, I wonder if this is not so much because people intentionally tangle them, but merely because, since it's easier as George believes, it just happens. And online, it's so much easier to drop context -- coming in, as I've been accused of doing, in the middle of a discussion, making some assumptions, reacting, and then having others react to one's reactions, creating a huge mass of confusion... All the more so because it's so much easier to send something off unedited than, say, in an old fashioned letter or letter-to-the-editor.

Ideas get tangled in various ways. The remark in my article was made in the context of the historical interpretations of just war theory by Brook and Epstein. The manner in which they tangle, and thereby misrepresent, previous thinkers is unfortunately typical of Orthos and can be traced to Rand herself, especially in her treatment of Kant.

The basic problem here, as I have stated many times before, is that one cannot do a priori history. That is to say, one cannot begin with a rudimentary knowledge of a few key thinkers, isolate what what believes to be the essential elements of their philosophies (for Rand, these were typically epistemological tenets), and then, as if by a process of syllogistic reasoning, deduce the consequences those philosophers must have had on the subsequent development of ideas.

History doesn't work that way. Although I do believe that an "inner logic of ideas" often operates in history (I discuss this in Why Atheism?), I don't believe that premises -- especially epistemological premises -- will always trump every other consideration, as Rand seemed to believe. Intellectual history is far more complicated than that, and one must actually study history to learn what those consequences have been. (If anything, a philosopher's political doctrines often prove the most influential, regardless of how he justified them. But that's another subject, and it would take me a while to explain why this is so.)

The essential idea of just war theory, according to Brook and Epstein, is altruism. This became their idée fixe, based on their reading of Augustine and certain assumptions about Christianity. And this caused them to tangle one idea of traditional just war theory after another into the web of altruism.

The metaphor of a Procrustean Bed is probably more appropriate here. Having fixated on the inaccurate standard of altruism, Brook and Epstein forced every just war advocate into that bed, lopping off and twisting whatever was necessary to make them fit.

There is nothing wrong with having a keen eye for historical essentials; on the contrary, this is a valuable skill for any historian. But this is a skill that the intellectual historian acquires over time and with a lot of effort, as he studies original sources in an empathetic spirit, attempting to understand past thinkers as they understood themselves.

An eye for historical essentials is not something one can learn solely through the study of philosophy. Even if it is philosophically true that A entails B, and B entails C, it may not be historically true that A has caused B and therefore C to come about. Historical causation in the realm of ideas is often not "logical" in the philosophical sense.

Ghs

Ghs

Terrific remarks, George. Causation happens along many dimensions. Philosophy cannot be neatly separated from psychology, economics and technology. The world is one big X and there are important philosophical themes but many times the most important causes lie elsewhere. One brilliant example of historical analysis is Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

I want to leave printed somewhere (here, in fact ) an idea before it escapes me.

There was one point in your essay where you used the term "relevant" (or some variation thereof) where I am certain Rand would have used "essential." It was describing a characteristic, but I don't remember if the word "characteristic" was used. (And I'm too pressed for time to look it up right now.)

I really like "relevant" as a replacement for "essential" when dealing with history.

I want to think about this in Rand's theory of concept formation...

Michael