So now we can blame Darcy for future evil. I don't think he is naive enough to consider any future leader of a country a savior. I also don't see any ignoring of history in his posts, I see much misspellings in yours.Originally Posted by Alexander III
Wow! The one who agrees with you has a mind! How coincidental!
Seriously, though, you all do realize you've been repeating the same things for about the last ten pages, no? I mean, how many time can you say, "I never said that, I said this," in one thread? The hyperbole is becoming hilarious. On one hand, we now have Kiki who sympathizes with Hitler and thinks he bears absolutely no responsibility for his actions, and on the other we have Darcy and StLukes who hate Hitler so blindly, their short-sightedness will usher in the next genocidal tyrant. Both views are ridiculous, but that's where you are.
Last edited by Mutatis-Mutandis; 03-07-2012 at 06:02 PM.
Explain that to me.
Misspellings have nothing to do with it. And it is 'many' misspellings as they are countable.
In ignoring the vast responsibility of any other person in this, you, Darcy and StLukes and anyone else with the same opinion are ignoring that it was not something that came out of thin air. It is surprising that it actually took so long, really.
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
He seems to be the only one who actually thinks, yes.
And I say it again, I do not sympathise. Who ever said that, that I sympathise? I for one did not. It is amazing how people can misconstrue words, if they wish.
I have repeated several times that he is responsible, jeez, how many times again: he is ultimately responsible despite his ideas having come from generations before him.
I cannot help that these two blockheads do not wish to consider historical context in this matter which turns out to be all-defining. If that is sympathising then you do not know the meaning of the word. As you are teacher as well, I would urge that you learn it.
Why, pray, do we ALWAYS accuse someone of sympathising who puts a different spin on the whole matter and offers a look from the exact other side, IF the thing people are discussing is negative? If the thing is positive you are a traitor, if it is negative a sympathiser. Why pray? Because we cannot think differently and 'what I believe is right?' Man would never have come as far as he has done if he had always taken that view. Read that post of Alexander again and tell me, what is wrong with it? What is not true in it? Is it too uncomfortable to consider a wrongdoer like Hitler as a man? No doubt that is it. It is far easier to just say 'he is evil. the end' and all those 6 million will have died in vain because you learnt nothing from their deaths. Good on you.
Even German historians have in the meantime taken a different view, since 1961.
Last edited by kiki1982; 03-07-2012 at 06:19 PM.
One has to laugh before being happy, because otherwise one risks to die before having laughed.
"Je crains [...] que l'âme ne se vide à ces passe-temps vains, et que le fin du fin ne soit la fin des fins." (Edmond Rostand, Cyrano de Bergerac, Acte III, Scène VII)
For one of the only thinkers in this thread, Kiki, it's quite amazing how you completely missed my point.
First of all, I don't need to explain anything to you, you can read for yourself. Secondly, you don't need to be so condescending, as I don't need to be corrected on my word usage- and I know what the word many means. I used the word much because I FELT LIKE IT !
[QUOTE=kiki1982;1121501
Is it too uncomfortable to consider a wrongdoer like Hitler as a man? No doubt that is it. It is far easier to just say 'he is evil. the end' and all those 6 million will have died in vain because you learnt nothing from their deaths. Good on you.
Even German historians have in the meantime taken a different view, since 1961.[/QUOTE]
We are not responsible- you are stating an opinion when you say we have not learned anything from their deaths. Who are you? And I knew this thread would result in insulting posts from you- I just thought it would happen sooner. Who cares what you think, really.
I'm done.
Once again st.lukes, you like darcy have completley misunderstood what Kiki was saying.
First of we are not saying that Hitler was not responsible, neither are we denying the monstrosity of his acts. But saying Hitler was evil and did evil things is not enough. It is a shallow view of the way thing were, and it is that same shallow view which will lead to other Hitlers in the future, because instead of trying to understand what is arguably one of the most schocking and complex moments of history you are trying to blanket it under a simple "hitler was evil.. the end". I aplogize but that view on things is usless.
Alex... no one is suggesting that we not explore the various historical and biographical aspects that went into the creation of Hitler, WWII, and the Holocaust. But if anything is simple-minded it is the idea that we can merely analyze history and biography and come up with a clear cause and effect that might be used to guarantee that history will never repeat itself..
Let turn to the opposite side of the spectrum of "exceptionality", and take William Shakespeare, for example. We cannot simply assign the brilliance of his artistic achievements to the mere accidents of history and society. Certainly there must have been an endless array of individuals whose biography and history were similar. And yet Shakespeare remains an exceptional individual... not merely a product of society and biography. By the same token, neither history nor biography alone explain Hitler... nor do they vindicate nor exonerate from responsibility. It would seem to me that an individual who is unquestionably responsible for the systematic murder of millions of innocent human beings more than fits the bill of "evil".
Firstly do you think Hitler did everything by himself? I hope not. Because there was an entire system, thousands if not millions of men who were all equally part of it. SO laying the entire blame on hitler is at once narrow minded, and also clouding our view. It is very easy to say it was all Hitler, it is a bit more complex once we realize that Hitler was just a charcater in a very long tradgedy, there were many men worst than Hitler, and the modern historical view is that Hitler was pushed into may things.
Alex, knowing you, I suspect that this entire debate is of little or no real interest. You simply take the position of the "devil's advocate" to play at portraying yourself as an original thinker, willing to shock. You seemingly had no problem taking a stern moral position when it came to someone calling your mother a b***h, and yet here you would suggest that we take the time to weight endless nuances of "right" and "wrong" when it comes to genocide. Of course others were involved in the Holocaust and in facilitating Hitler's rise to power. Does that fact absolve Hitler from blame... or rather does it not simply mean that there were others equally deserving of blame and/or being termed as "evil".
Now, let me make a modern anology. All the republicans in america look at the economy and say look, this is all Obamas fault. To all of us this seems a very biased and limited view. Because we know that this econimical collapse is not obamas fault, but the fault of the last 30 odd years of national zeitgesit and political and financial systems which would inevitably lead to the finacial collapse.
Saying the Holocaust was all Hitler is to me as narrow minded as saying the bad economy is all obama.
You analogy really stretches things far beyond any degree of reason.
Hitler was just a pawn in the scheme of things, a big pawn, but nonethless just part of a cultural and political ziestgeist which was moving towards its natural conclusion, namley the holocaust.
If Hitler was but a "pawn" then no one, no where, at any time is more than but a "pawn"... and I highly doubt you believe that. Indeed, such is one of the most inane things you have ever posted. Our individual actions, choices, and achievements are not limited to the political zeitgeist. Social realities do not make a Hitler nor a Shakespeare. How is it, for example, that the same political zeitgeist which could create a Hitler... wholly free from any responsibility for his actions (because he was but a "pawn" of history) could also produce figures such as Schindler or any number of other Germans who never lost a clear notion as to what is "right" and "wrong"... human or inhumane?
To all the men who knew what The Kaisser and his army and scientists were doing to the Herero and Namaqua people in their affircan colonies at the begining of the 20th century, the holocuats 40 odd years later would have come as no suprise.
Certainly, "evil" will never come as a surprise. Humanity forever retains the capacity to do "evil". Most human beings retain a moral compass and restrain tghemselves from acting upon thoughts that they recognize are "immoral" or "evil". I personally fantasize about mounting a Gatling Gun on the front of my car in order to deal with idiot drivers during rush hour... but I don't act upon my thoughts, which I recognize as being somewhat less than morally upright.
But everyone was suprised.
Only the naive were surprised. Only those who could not fathom the depths of evil and inhumanity that the human mind could unleash were surprised. As A Rabbi acquaintance has repeatedly stated, the only real surprise about the Holocaust is that it was not undertaken by the French.
Because most people behaved like you and Darcy in this situation and instead of choosing to examine the complexity of history and scrutinize, they just chose to lay out uninformed blanket statements to make history more ordered and simpler to understand, which leads to ignorance and the mistakes of the past being repeated.
Again... no one has suggested that we should not engage in the examination of the complexity of history... that is simply a strawman employed repeatedly, contrary to what either Darcy of I have said. But certainly you recognize that correlation and causation are not one and the same thing. We can analyze history 'til we're blue in the face... it doesn't explain Hitler nor Shakespeare... nor when and where another Hitler or Shakespeare might arise.
Here read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herero_...maqua_Genocide
And then try telling me about the "uniquness of Hitler" and how no one saw it coming, and how the holocaust was hitlers sole creation.
When we say Hitler was "exceptional" it need not be reduced to meaning "unique" or "sole example". Considering the great many individuals who were just as much influenced by history and and a difficult childhood and did not evolve into sociopaths who were willing to kill millions, Hitler was exceptional... or stood out from the crowd.
I appologize if I come of as bitter and personaly attacking you (darcy and st.lukes) but this subject gets me heated up, as in your attitudes I see the ingoring of history and obscuring of truth, just so that the world can be ordered in a more simple and satifying manner. And it is this very attitude which will lead to the horrors of the past being repeated in the future, because the truth of the past remains unknwon and everyone is there waving flags and cheering because this new guy, he is nothing at all like the evil men of before. truth is, that when this "new savior" comes and you shall be cheering him on, he shall appear to you nothign like the mosneters of the past, because your image of the monsters of the past is mainly fictitious and is disjointed from the truth. What you guys preach is the benefit of ignorance, and it is this ignorance which shall damn us some day.
Alex... once again this is a good act on your part. I doubt that a single individual here at LitNet (outside Kiki...) buys your outraged act when you have repeatedly made it clear that you are anything but the least little bit concerned about the faceless masses (who will be the victims of any future dictator) as you, yourself, are certainly one of the "deserving" elite. One might point out that seeing oneself above everyone else is one of the most common attributes of the common sociopath. I won't go into your comments concerning my grasp of history... which I fully understand are merely intended to add to the drama... and perhaps to impress Ms. Kiki. But you know as well as anyone here that my grasp of history quite likely far exceeds your own and that I am in no way preaching in defense of "ignorance" (again the same strawman). Although even if I were, I suspect that preaching a defense of ignorance is somehow less repugnant than preaching in defense of Hitler and the Holocaust. (See... I can play the strawman game as well as yourself)
Last edited by stlukesguild; 03-07-2012 at 07:35 PM.
Beware of the man with just one book. -Ovid
The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the man who can't read them.- Mark Twain
My Blog: Of Delicious Recoil
http://stlukesguild.tumblr.com/
Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait . . . StLukes, are you suggesting Alex puts on some kind of act here at LitNet? WHAAAAAAAT?!?!?!?!
Can just anyone become evil? If so, does that make it inappropriate to call them evil, once it has happened? And does calling someone evil mean that one can't comprehend the circumstances and process behind that person's descent into evil?
Even Bible thumpers... well, most of them, as far as I can tell that is--I know that Calvinists and others might be exceptions to this statement... Anyhow, even Bible thumpers typically view evil as something that tempts one (everyone), and can be resisted or succumbed to, it's a matter of circumstance that we all are warned against, and there can be forgiveness, etc. I don't think the "evil" label is simply a way to sweep things under the rug, or hold them at arm's length as something by its nature utterly separate. In most of the western world, in fact, people involved in social/political discourse are being compared to Hitler on a daily basis, there's a strong awareness that such things can happen again, the alarm is going off all the time. And it isn't because it's everywhere gone out of fashion to call him "evil" (I'm sure it hasn't).
So I don't think there's much reason to worry over applying the word "evil" to individuals such as Hitler, Charles Manson, etc., in principle or practice. Any fear of it allowing complacency to set in, or it blinding us to consideration of social/psychological factors (or whatever else) is more than offset by the danger of banishing the word (and its application to people and deeds) from sensible conversation. It's a yardstick ("Evil") for what absolutely must be regarded as inhumane. It's the difference between a nation's leader working against unfair (even evil...) oppression from abroad, and someone explicitly not recognizing a person or a race of people as being human beings, for example. That a leader might get his/her truly held ideas and the examples for his/her intended actions (of either type, responsible or evil) from someone else doesn't change this, or eliminate the distinction.
Sorry if this has all been said already, I have surely missed a lot of what's been said here. And, I have to say, it seems one hell of a burden for German people to see their country's name attached to such terrible history so often. Further, those who are coming at this from modern psychological perspectives, or from some Eastern philosophy/religious perspectives, and from any other angles that might broadly resemble Kiki's stance, I will certainly acknowledge that they are, in a very important sense, making an important point that is loaded with validity. But, while I know evil is a powerful word, and its misapplication would be dangerous, I think it's overly cautious and even more dangerous to utterly dissociate an individual from their calculated and considered actions.
Every human being? Well, except for Hitler right? And all the other tyrants supposedly who are anomalies. And the mother rapists, and the impulsive murderers.
I'll tell you right now instead, for the last time as we are going around in circles. If one believe morality is objective, therefore independent of human beings opinions, then you need to prove that. You've given me evolutionary psychology (hardly an agreed upon source of objective morality) Is morality inbuilt then, or is morality also constructed by human beings? If morality is on some level constructed by imperfect-morally grey beings with desires and uncontrollable emotions, then it is at it's very base, not objective. It's not independent of our opinions, unless you believe in a God or some such thing.
There is that which is desirable to us, absolutely. There is that which makes society easier to live in (no murder, no theft), but I still fail to see anywhere set in stone, what is objectively, independent of us and our desires, moral. Subjectively and culturally, I see moral judgements, ones that I believe in, every single day. Objectively I do not.
I don't really have anything else I can add or much else to say, from a personal perspective.
Vladimir: (sententious.) To every man his little cross. (He sighs.) Till he dies. (Afterthought.) And is forgotten.
I'm not arguing that Hitler was solely responsible for the holocaust. I originally said "Nazis," but even then I wouldn't say they were solely responsible. But denying that Hitler and the Nazis bear MUCH of the responsibility, and were GUILTY, in the same sense that the murderer did not invent the gun nor compel the fates to spin the web of incidents which led to his action but is nevertheless guilty of his crime.... well that is just ludicrous.
Alex your comparison of Obama to the economy and Hitler to the holocaust is spurious. A leader has way way way more power over war and genocide than he has over the economy. A better comparison would have been Bush and the Iraq War = Hitler and the holocaust.
Someone else said that France was also a rabidly anti-semitic country. No holocaust of Jews originated in that land.
Ok, so Nixon was not to blame for the escalation of the war in Vietnam, Alexander was not himself the force which took out Persia, and Caesar, a man born into nobility in a war-like culture and in the wake of several would-be tyrants like Marius and Sulla, no to Caesar cannot be attributed the civil war nor the dictatorship nor anything else that transpired while he held kingly influence over Rome.
Alex you say you mean no offence but then you say that my attitude is what may lead to other Hitlers coming to power in the future. For pete's sake man, open your eyes. I said that I myself could have become as evil as Hitler if I shared his experiences and circumstances. I said there is "nothing essentially different between me and Hitler." I fully realize the significance of the nature of the circumstances, not just the man. You and Kiki simply have some irrational hang up regarding the word evil. That's all it is.
If anything it would be your view Alex, a fatalistic view which lays blame on circumstances rather than on men, which would bring about a comparable repeat of Hitler's tenure as chancellor. In my view I see a guy like Hitler and I say, "wow, what an evil son of a *****, let's go kill the ****." In yours you say, "well, this is an anti-semitic time, the fascists have broad support, fate has thus willed it."
Anyone who denies the existence of evil individuals should imagine your own mother being repeatedly raped and then tortured and then killed, all of this done slowly, over the course of an entire week. If you would not label the person who did that evil then I don't know what to say to you.
What St Lukes just said about Shakespeare and Hitler is spot on and if reason reigned would silence this thread.
Last edited by Darcy88; 03-08-2012 at 12:05 AM.
I also don't see how we would progress through further discussion. Objective morality is so self evident to me discussing it is akin to describing the sun to one blind from birth. Call if faith or whatever you will, but all the admirable men from every age and every place all correspond to a fixed pattern of virtue.
Fair enough. It's been interesting nonetheless and one of the reasons I lurked around this forum for quite a while was because of the obviously intelligent people involved in all manner of discussion.
Vladimir: (sententious.) To every man his little cross. (He sighs.) Till he dies. (Afterthought.) And is forgotten.
My friend, you have a mind.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure Alex's first language is Italian.
That, and evolutionary psychology also accounts for "evil." If one monkey bashes another's brains in and steals his banana, the one who's willing to kill has a higher likelihood of passing on it's genes. Evolutionary theory could be used to explain and support any aspect of human behavior, that's it's flaw when one is attempting to use it in debate.
Last edited by JuniperWoolf; 03-08-2012 at 08:19 AM.
__________________
"Personal note: When I was a little kid my mother told me not to stare into the sun. So once when I was six, I did. At first the brightness was overwhelming, but I had seen that before. I kept looking, forcing myself not to blink, and then the brightness began to dissolve. My pupils shrunk to pinholes and everything came into focus and for a moment I understood. The doctors didn't know if my eyes would ever heal."
-Pi
Posting Permissions
