On 16 September 1941, my maternal grandmother and great-grandmother were exterminated by Einsatzgruppe C, led by Otto Rasch, holder of two university doctorates in political economy and philosophy. On 13 June 1942, my 16 year-old maternal aunt was raped and killed by a Tadjik collective farmer. I owe my descent to my mother’s refusal to follow the example of three generations of women in her family, expressed by her bearing arms against Nazi invaders.
Comes now Slate senior editor Dahlia Lithwick to bemoan and decry “hurt feelings” that according to her comprise the real concern driving the hotly contested Florida law that makes it illegal for any physician to “ask questions concerning the ownership of a firearm” or “harass … a patient about firearm ownership during an examination”. She fails to note the symmetry of this law across the political spectrum with proposed and existing laws that bar insurance companies such as those that bear the costs of medical inquiries at issue, from asking potential clients about their sexual orientation or framing questions in such a way as to determine their sexual orientation. In Lithwick World, protecting the purview and privacy of citizens’preference in the pursuit of happiness goes without saying—until and unless their private preference stays outside the purview of pursuing the right to keep and bear arms. In Lithwick World, concern over President Obama “coming for yer guns”, realizing his signed support for legislation to ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns and assault weapons, is concern over “the lie that keeps on giving”.
According to Wikipedia, Dahlia Lithwick is Jewish, and keeps a kosher home. Regrettably, her Yiddishkeit does not deter her from pandering to lily-white middle-class gentiles eager to turn a blind eye to the perennial perils that inspire the keeping and bearing arms by Untermenschen not privy to their innate privilege. The last word on her subject belongs to Zero Mostel: “With kikes like you on the loose, who needs Hitler?”Posted on 10 June 2011Tags america, exceptionalism, guns, hypocrisy, jewsLeave a comment
In “Why I’m a Pacifist: The Dangerous Myth of the Good War”, published in Harper’s May 2011 issue, Nicholson Baker argues that Hitler’s Jewish policy was that of a hostage-taker. Baker concludes that the Allies should have heeded the pacifists such as Abraham Kaufman, Dorothy Day, Jessie Wallace Hughan, Rabbi Abraham Cronbach, Vera Brittain, Arthur Ponsonby, Clarence Pickett, Bertha Bracey, Runham Brown, Grace Beaton, and Victor Gollancz, by negotiating peace with Hitler in order to rescue Jews, instead of demanding unconditional surrender of Germany. According to Baker, this insistence inculpates Winston Churchill and FDR in Nazi genocide of the Jews.
So the Allies should have let The Axis absorb most of Europe in Germany and let Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere pay tribute to Japan, in exchange for Hitler letting the Jews go? I see no clues as to what Nicholson Baker might recognize as bargaining chips for the Allies to control and trade with the Axis. The Untermenschen residing in the occupied territories might want to have their say. Furthermore, the notion of Hitler holding Jews hostage against escalation of a European conflict into a world war is belied by the body count achieved by the Einsatzgruppen prior to America’s declaration of war against Germany. In the event, the lesson Hitler failed to teach to his adversaries, that terrorism on large enough scale can earn immunity from prosecution and be traded for political gains, is recapitulated today in the position taken by that Hamas-Fatah alliance:
ROBERT SIEGEL: You said recently that by signing this accord with Fatah, Hamas, and I quote you now, “became part of the Palestinian legitimacy,” that the movement gained legitimacy. The Israelis and others, some others, point to the 1988 Hamas charter very often and say that you should renounce that.
And I looked at the document, and, you know, at one point it claims that the Jews started the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, both World Wars, that they operate in league with the Freemasons and set up the Rotary Clubs and Lions Clubs to do their bidding. Do you think that Western democracies are going to grant legitimacy to people with a document that reads like the paranoid conspiracies of the Ku Klux Klan or the American Nazi Party?
Mr. HAMAD: Look, and first of all, I think people should not judge Hamas according to their charter because many changes happened inside Hamas. But many people in United States and the West or in Israel, they say no, no. Hamas is still as it is before 20 years, no. I think Hamas show a lot of flexibility, and it became more pragmatic, more realistic. Hamas could be a good player in making peace in this region, but please don’t use stick against them and punishment against Hamas.
SIEGEL: But people who point to the charter say, well, even if Hamas says it has changed and there’s evidence that it has changed, the charter hasn’t changed. These are still the declared principles of your movement, aren’t they?
Mr. HAMAD: No one talk about removal of Israel. We’re only talking about removal of the occupation, and I think this is according to United Nations resolution, this is legitimate.
For example, my parents were born in Tel Aviv. We have seven millions Palestinian refugee – as refugees living in Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, every – and Europe and Brazil and everywhere. They have no chance to return to their homeland. Is it their destiny to live as refugees forever? And Israel have a right to bring the Jews from South Africa, from the United States, from Russia, from everywhere to live inside the Palestinian territory, in settlements in the West Bank. I think it’s not logic. It’s not fair.
SIEGEL: Well, Mr. Hamad, thank you very much for…
Mr. HAMAD: Thank you.
SIEGEL: …spending time with us.
That’s Ghazi Hamad, who is deputy foreign minister of Hamas. He spoke to us from Gaza City. And we’ve also requested interviews, I should add, with a leader of Fatah and also with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
This is the endgame. Hamas will renounce its “great hope of bringing to an end the Zionist project in Palestine”, avowed three days ago by Ismail Haniyeh, the prime minister of the its government in Gaza, in exchange for Israel recognizing a Hamas-led Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank with its capital in Jerusalem.
Hard-liners in Israel and the U.S. will resist this capitulation to two generations of terrorists taking Jews and gentiles hostage, when not blowing them up. But there is a difference between Israel considering a compromise with Hamas and Fatah and the Allies considering a compromise with the Axis. Unlike the Nanking massacre and Babi Yar, Arab terrorism did not proceed under the color of authority endowed with international legitimacy. It must be well understood by both sides in asymmetrical warfare, that terrorist acts lose their advantage of asymmetry upon being perpetrated in the name of a state that itself is liable to be held hostage to a crushing military defeat, the likes of which befell Germany and Japan sixty-six years ago. So let the terrorists raise the stakes by getting their state this time. We’ll always have our recourse to carpet bombing and show trials. Posted on 18 May 2011Tags america, israel, jews, politics, terrorism, violence33 Comments Posted on 15 May 2011Tags america, exceptionalism, french, sodomyLeave a comment Posted on 24 March 2011Tags america, exceptionalism, lawyers, politicsLeave a comment
Some time ago, touristic extravagances of the POTUS elicited a great deal of waggish hand-wringing:
Obama arrives in India at the start of a ten-day tour of Asia. At the heart of the White House caravan is ‘The Beast’, a gigantic, ‘pimped-up’ General Motors Cadillac which security experts say is, short of an actual battle tank, probably the safest road vehicle on the planet.
But an outlandish car is only the start. Mr Obama will fly, of course, on Air Force One, the presidential private jumbo jet, which, boasting double beds and suites, is fitted out more like a luxury yacht. Some reports suggest it costs around ,000 (£31,000) an hour to operate.
Of course threats can come from any direction, so a squadron of U.S. naval ships will patrol offshore. Some reports have claimed that 34 ships, including two aircraft carriers, will be involved (not far off the size of the Royal Navy’s entire Surface Fleet) but the White House has denied this.
On land, as well as The Beast, Mr Obama’s entourage will travel in a fleet of 45 U.S.-built armoured limousines, half of which will be decoys. He will also travel with 30 elite sniffer dogs, mostly German Shepherds.
The White House has, according to some reports, booked the entire Taj Mahal Palace Hotel in Mumbai, the city’s most luxurious. It is not uncommon for the grander heads of state to reserve a floor or two, but a whole hotel is unprecedented. This hotel was the main target of the 2008 attacks by Pakistani militants which left 166 dead.
As to the cost of all this, the White House will not reveal details – which has allowed Mr Obama’s political foes to bandy about sums including a widely-quoted 0million (£123million) a day. Whatever the figure, it makes the costs associated with the Royal Train and the late Royal Yacht Britannia seem like small change.
It is also reported that a bomb-proof tunnel will be erected for Mr Obama ahead of his visit to Mani Bhavan—the Gandhi museum—on Saturday.
According to Daily News & Analysis, U.S. secret service agents visited the museum on Monday to plan Mr Obama’s security during his tour.
They were accompanied by Mumbai Police officers and civic officials of the D ward where Mani Bhavan is located.
While they were inspecting the route and the buildings lining the path to the museum, U.S. security officers noticed a nearby skyscraper in the highly populated area that could pose a threat.
To the amazement of the Indians accompanying the U.S. agents, it was apparently decided to erect a bomb-proof over-ground tunnel, which will be installed by U.S. military engineers in just an hour.
The kilometre-long tunnel will measure 12ft by 12ft and will have air-conditioning, close-circuit television cameras, and will be heavily guarded at every point.
It’s being built so it is large enough for Mr Obama’s cavalcade to pass through and will be manned at its entry and exit points.
The material that the tunnel would be made of has not been released but officials said that the structure would be dismantled immediately after Mr Obama and his party leaves the area.
—The Daily Mail, 6 November 2010
Two weeks earlier, Obama’s storied subaltern opined: “If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar.” Strangely enough, the potentate so anointed evaded on this occasion another favorable comparison to his illustrious predecessor:Germanico bello confecto multis de causis Caesar statuit sibi Rhenum esse transeundum; quarum illa fuit iustissima quod, cum videret Germanos tam facile impelli ut in Galliam venirent, suis quoque rebus eos timere voluit, cum intellegerent et posse et audere populi Romani exercitum Rhenum transire. […]
Caesar his de causis quas commemoravi Rhenum transire decreverat; sed navibus transire neque satis tutum esse arbitrabatur neque suae neque populi Romani dignitatis esse statuebat. Itaque, etsi summa difficultas faciendi pontis proponebatur propter latitudinem, rapiditatem altitudinemque fluminis, tamen id sibi contendendum aut aliter non traducendum exercitum existimabat. […]
Diebus X, quibus materia coepta erat comportari, omni opere effecto exercitus traducitur. […]
Caesar paucos dies in eorum finibus moratus, omnibus vicis aedificiisque incensis frumentisque succisis, se in fines Ubiorum recepit atque his auxilium suum pollicitus, si a Suebis premerentur, haec ab iis cognovit: Suebos, postea quam per exploratores pontem fieri comperissent, more suo concilio habito nuntios in omnes partes dimisisse, uti de oppidis demigrarent, liberos, uxores suaque omnia in silvis deponerent atque omnes qui arma ferre possent unum in locum convenirent. Hunc esse delectum medium fere regionum earum quas Suebi obtinerent; hic Romanorum adventum expectare atque ibi decertare constituisse. Quod ubi Caesar comperit, omnibus iis rebus confectis, quarum rerum causa exercitum traducere constituerat, ut Germanis metum iniceret, ut Sugambros ulcisceretur, ut Ubios obsidione liberaret, diebus omnino XVIII trans Rhenum consumptis, satis et ad laudem et ad utilitatem profectum arbitratus se in Galliam recepitpontemque rescidit. The German war being finished, Caesar thought it expedient for him to cross the Rhine , for many reasons; of which this was the most weighty, that, since he saw the Germans were so easily urged to go into Gaul, he desired they should have their fears for their own territories, when they discovered that the army of the Roman people both could and dared pass the Rhine. […]
Caesar, for those reasons which I have mentioned, had resolved to cross the Rhine; but to cross by ships he neither deemed to be sufficiently safe, nor considered consistent with his own dignity or that of the Roman people. Therefore, although the greatest difficulty in forming a bridge was presented to him, on account of the breadth, rapidity, and depth of the river, he nevertheless considered that it ought to be attempted by him, or that his army ought not otherwise to be led over. […]
Within ten days after the timber began to be collected, the whole work was completed, and the whole army led over. […]
Caesar, having remained in their territories a few days, and burned all their villages and houses, and cut down their corn, proceeded into the territories of the Ubii; and having promised them his assistance, if they were ever harassed by the Suevi, he learned from them these particulars: that the Suevi, after they had by means of their scouts found that the bridge was being built, had called a council, according to their custom, and sent orders to all parts of their state to remove from the towns and convey their children, wives, and all their possessions into the woods, and that all who could bear arms should assemble in one place; that the place thus chosen was nearly the centre of those regions which the Suevi possessed; that in this spot they had resolved to await the arrival of the Romans, and give them battle there. When Caesar discovered this, having already accomplished all these things on account of which he had resolved to lead his army over, namely, to strike fear into the Germans, take vengeance on the Sigambri, and free the Ubii from the invasion of the Suevi, having spent altogether eighteen days beyond the Rhine, and thinking he had advanced far enough to serve both honor and interest, he returned into Gaul, and cut down the bridge.
—C. Julius Caesar, De bello Gallico, IV, 16, 17, 18, 19, translated by T. Rice Holmes
John Soane, Caesar’s Rhine Bridge, 1814 It is hard to do justice to the moral and political superiority of the tunnel conveying Obama to the shrine of non-violence, over the bridge bearing Caesar to the next occasion of belligerency. Perhaps the most effective contrast obtains in juxtaposing prudential concerns of our 44th President with vulgarian bluster of Number 36:
During a private conversation with some reporters who pressed him to explain why we were in Vietnam, Johnson lost his patience. According to Arthur Goldberg, “LBJ unzipped his fly, drew out his substantial organ and declared, ‘This is why!’”
—Robert Dallek, Lyndon B. Johnson: Portrait of a President
Lyndon Baines Johnson and Senator Richard Russell By supplanting LBJ’s phallophoric aggressiveness with troglodytic pussyfooting, Barack Obama has established and exposed himself as the first Vaginal President of the United States. Posted on 6 January 2011Tags america, caesar, exceptionalism, latin, politics7 Comments
November 20, 2009
A thick file of private emails and unpublished documents […] was obtained […] and has since spread widely across the Internet starting Thursday afternoon. […] The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.
November 28, 2010
The New York Times and a number of publications in Europe were given access to the material several weeks ago and agreed to begin publication of articles based on the cables Sunday online. The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.
Royce’s excursion to Europe and the eastern U.S. fixed in his mind a decided hatred of his native state. California’s provinciality, its ruthless economics, its blind and selfish politics—everything, in fact, but its exquisite natural beauty—filled him with loathing. Compared with the cultural centers that Royce had just left, California had little to offer besides stock speculation, wheat ranching, political charades, racial warfare, and agitation. “Foundation for higher growth we sadly lack. Ideals we have none. Philistines we are in soul most thoroughly. And when we do talk, our topics of discussion are so insufferably finite!’ As a place for philosophical thought, it was execrable. “There is no philosophy in California—from Siskiyou to Ft. Yuma, and from the Golden Gate to the Summit of the Sierras, there could not be found brains enough [to] accomplish the formation of a single respectable idea that was not a manifest plagiarism. Hence the atmosphere for the study of metaphysics is bad, and I wish I were out of it.”
—John Clendenning, The Life and Thought of Josiah Royce, Revised and Expanded Edition, Vanderbilt University Press, 1999, p. 74
The word “logic”, fortunately or unfortunately, rings with varied overtones not all of which are in harmony. One ear may be deaf to what excites another, and great care must be taken in claiming that the “logic” of a subject has been found or revised. As one of my undergraduate professors once told me, “When you question a man’s logic you question his taste,” which may explain the contempt of some mathematicians for logical studies. Now that there seems to be a chance for formal logic to have a wider audience, all the more care is required. Easy victories waste too much time in celebration. Formal methods should only be applied when the subject is ready for them, when conceptual clarification is sufficiently advanced. This is not to discourage experimentation—only the party giving. Modal Logic is a good example: colorful axioms have been strung up all over, but few couples are dancing. Maybe Quantum Logic is another example, but at least the mathematics being served at that party is vastly more sophisticated than the Coca-Cola of the modal logicians. Besides, those who study the foundations of quantum physics readily agree that the fight has only just begun.2 [2 A general reference is J. M. Jauch, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. 1968). A related discussion and some interesting new ideas have been initiated in C.H. Randall and D.J. Foulis, “An Approach to Empirical Logic”, in American Mathematical Monthly 77 (1970) pp. 363-374.] Whether, then, the claim of a carry-over for modal logic is going to be justified is to my mind a very moot point and is one of the main motivations for attempting this essay.3 [3 Reservations about modal logic, mingled with some optimism, have been expressed by George Lakoff, “Linguistics and Natural Logic”, in Semantics of Natural Language, ed. by D. Davidson and G. Harman (D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland 1972) pp. 545-665. Note especially the final section of Concluding Remarks. The point about presuppositions and three-valued logic does not seem to be entirely well-taken, however, in view of van Fraassen’s well-known analysis in terms of supervaluations. This does not mean that the connections between “natural” and “formal” logic are all that clear.]
—“Background to Formalization”, Dana S. Scott, in Truth, Syntax and Modality, edited by H. Leblanc, Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics, Volume 68, 1973, pp. 244-273, at p. 245
In what important and often neglected sense are there many worlds? Let it be clear that the question here is not of the possible worlds that many of my contemporaries, especially those living near Disneyland, are busy making and manipulating. We are not speaking in terms of multiple possible alternatives to a single actual world but of multiple actual worlds. How to interpret such terms as “real”, “unreal”, “fictive”, and “possible” is a subsequent question.
—Nelson Goodman, “Words, Works, Worlds”, Erkenntnis, Volume 9 (1975), Number 1, pp. 57-73, at pp. 57-58; reprinted in Ways of Worldmaking, Hackett, 1978, p. 4
Richard Montague was a small, very dapper, compact, cufflink of a character. He was dressed in a neat blue suit, a snowy white shirt, and a matching crimson tie. We had met for drinks in mid-town Manhattan—he, Daniel Gallin, and I. His hands, I noticed, were square, the fingernails manicured and covered with a clear polish. A logician by profession, Montague had a reputation for great technical brilliance. His papers were adroit, carefully written, biting, and completely beyond the intellectual grasp of all but a handful of analytic philosophers.
For some reason he was ill at ease that afternoon, and looked fitfully around the hotel’s bar, as if he suspected somehow that nothing was going to turn out properly. Beyond the bar, in the lobby of the hotel, there was an absurd canary cage in which a pair of yellowish birds were cheeping nervously, complaining, I am sure, about the price of drinks or room service.
We talked of taxes and politics and How on Earth do you survive in this place—meaning New York. Then the discussion turned to mathematics and Montague cheered up. He had just commenced his research program into formal grammars and had published a series of papers of truly monstrous technicality. He liked to imagine that he and Chomsky were rivals. “There are,” he said, “two great frauds in the history of twentieth-century science. One of them is Chomsky.”
I reached for the peanuts.
“And the other?”
“Albert Einstein,” Montague said decisively, glad that I had asked.
—David Berlinski, Black Mischief: Language, Life, Logic, Luck, Mariner Books, Second Edition, 1988, pp. 139-140
Bonus links: Richard Montague’s obituary signed by Montgomery Furth, C.C. Chang, and Alonzo Church; reviews by Sacha Arnold of more or less improper treatments of Richard Montague in literary fiction, Less Than Meets the Eye by David Berlinski and The Mad Man by Samuel R. Delany, and The Semantics of Murder by Aifric Campbell.Posted on 8 November 2010Tags america, california, citationalism, exceptionalism, logic, philosophyLeave a comment
Our newspaper of record reports the dilemma posed by Jon Stewart: “The press can hold it’s [sic] magnifying glass up to our problems bringing them into focus, illuminating issues heretofore unseen or they can use that magnifying glass to light ants on fire and then perhaps host a week of shows on the sudden, unexpected, dangerous-flaming ant epidemic.” Undeterred by its second horn, the same issue offers Paul Krugman an opportunity to kvetch:
This is going to be terrible. In fact, future historians will probably look back at the 2010 election as a catastrophe for America, one that condemned the nation to years of political chaos and economic weakness.
For my part, the road ahead is so bright, I gotta tint my windshield. Unremitting financial hegemony of the smartest guys in the room doing “God’s work”, compounded by the executive arrogance of the καλοὶ κἀγαθοὶ extolling their likes as “very savvy businessmen”, have precipitated popular hatred of public intellectuals who have concluded that their responsibilities are to power alone. This hatred cannot be quelled by appeals to reason. As a result of universal suffrage, American politics needs rationality like a fish needs a bicycle. Its proper remedy is homeopathic, a dosage of President Palin galvanizing resentment against empowering stupid people, in a welcome reversal of the instant scenario.Posted on 30 October 2010Tags america, exceptionalism, plato, politics, sex, stupidity4 Comments
Thank you, U.S.A. You are the only land to support the vocation of an assclown.Posted on 4 July 2010Tags america, comedy, exceptionalism, home, persiflageLeave a comment
Исчезновение веры в идеалы — часть общемирового процесса…
В моей стране скорее наблюдается обратный процесс. Почти вся наша повседневная политика основана на непоколебимой вере в право на жизнь, свободу, и поиски счастья. Сухой остаток выражает бесхитростную веру в общественный прогресс.
Простите, а в какой это стране? Я серьезно спрашиваю.
Я понимаю. Но это немного другие идеалы. То есть проще сказать, что сохранились представления о добре и зле. Но тут же выяснится, что сохранились они и в России, но в другой форме. А вот при попытке описать разницу начнется такая путаница, что лучше туда не лезть.
Непоколебимая вера в право на жизнь, свободу, и поиски счастья, это не просто представление о добре и зле, а ещё вдобавок гражданский идеал. Какие гражданские идеалы сохранились в России?
Мне кажется, Вы сейчас распространяете декларируемый гражданский идеал на все общество. Нет, в России с гражданскими идеалами плохо, это известно.
Дело в том, что наши декларируемые гражданские идеалы именно так распространяются в нашем обществе. Я понимаю, что из старого мира это выглядит очень странно, но тем не менее, так оно и есть.
Дело в другом. Гражданский идеал есть средство, а не цель. То есть существование гражданских идеалов, которое выгодно отличает США от России (кто б спорил, проблему диалога народа с властью в РФ до сих пор решить невозможно) относится только к гражданской сфере, и мне кажется неправильным распространять его на все прочие сферы, заполняя вакуум, образовавшийся после произошедшего в XX веке краха главной основы гуманистического идеала — веры в неограниченность возможностей человека. Грубо говоря, американская конституция и американский образ жизни, равно как в СССР — советский, считались залогом успехов в науке, спорте и искусстве, но не самоцелью.
Вы будете смеяться, но гражданский идеал воплощённый в нашей Конституции является формальной и содержательной целью нашего общества.
Гражданского общества. Но общество не может сводиться к гражданской общине.
Как не может, так и не должно. Но мы ведь обсуждаем предполагаемое Вами исчезновение веры в идеалы, якобы являющееся частью общемирового процесса.
Так я и объясняю, что идеалы общества шире идеалов общества гражданского.
Что же именно исчезает в общемировом порядке?
Как я уже говорил, идеалы-цели, то есть идеалы, связанные с развитием человека. Исчезают вместе с верой в перспективы его развития. С верой в прогресс.
Вы считаете, что либеральная вера в право на жизнь, свободу, и поиски счастья не является идеалом, связанным с развитием человека?
Конечно, не является. Так же как вера в семейные ценности, например. В строительство справедливого общества — уже другое.
Вы считаете, что развитие человека возможно вне зависимости от его права на жизнь, свободу, и поиски счастья?
Не считаю (хотя есть люди, которые так считают)! Но именно поэтому я и говорю: средство, а не цель.
Только вот про поиски счастья я уже третий раз забываю спросить, и теперь спрошу: у них-то какая специфическая связь с западной (или конкретно американской) системой ценностей?
Простите, я совсем запутался. Вы сказали, что исчезновение веры в идеалы является частью общемирового процесса. Теперь Вы согласились, что что право на жизнь, свободу, и поиски счастья необходимо для развития человека. Соответственно, либеральная вера в это право является верой в идеал, никоим образом не исчезающей из американского общества. Не так ли?
Что касается поисков счастья, это понятие принадлежит Джефферсону, унаследовавшему его от Локка. Локк утверждал право на “life, liberty, and estate” или “lives, liberties, and fortunes”. Его последователи востребовали право на “life, liberty, and property”. Джефферсон же написал “the pursuit of happiness” вместо “property” в декларации о независимости. Следует отметить что понятие собственности в государственных трактатах Локка включает в себя все гражданские средства для поисков счастья, за исключением того, о чём заботится Мишель Уэльбек.
Да, я уже догадался, что это из Декларации независимости. Но слово выглядит сейчас таким же случайным и несвязанным со всеми остальными частями формулы, каким оно оказалось в сочиненной Джефферсоном парафразе.
Что касается основной темы, то схема такова: права человека необходимы для развития человека, следовательно могут рассматриваться не как идеал, а как средство его достижения. В качестве же самостоятельных идеалов в последние века фигурировал комплекс, связанный с совершенствованием человека, с его торжеством над мощью природы, с верой в прогресс, то есть с тот гуманистический комплекс, который породил, в том числе, и понятие прав человека. Вот весь этот проект, составивший специфику нового времени, теперь закрыт.
Вот тут я с Вами мог бы согласиться на основаниях тюремной культуры. Скажем так: тот гуманистический комплекс, который породил, в том числе, и понятие прав человека, начинается с рьяной гомофобии, к примеру в «Государстве» 403a и в «Законах» 636c и 838e. Напротив, либеральное общество рано или поздно приходит к заключению, что каждый гражданин имеет право злоупотреблять распоряжаться своей жопой так, как он хочет, причём это заключение выстрадано путём криминалистических расследований и судебных попыток пресечения. На этом этапе любой здравомыслящий гуманист захотел бы свою собственную жопу поднимать и уёбывать. Но было бы куда. Поскольку на настоящий день гражданский идеал гуманизма согласовывается с гражданскими вольностями жопы. Время от времени эта согласованность приводит к массовым кровопролитиям. К примеру, сторонники санкций против гомосексуализма проиграли вторую мировую войну и продолжают проигрывать многие войны поменьше. С другой стороны, англо-американское общество не испытывает недостатка в добровольцах, фактически защищающих право малых народов распоряжаться своей жопой так, как они хотят. К сему и прилагается тезис о праве на поиски счастья, воплощённый в нашей Конституции в качестве формальной и содержательной цели нашего общества.
Я всё это к тому, что граждане моей страны неоднократно проявляли, и продолжают проявлять, готовность к самопожертвованию во имя того гуманистического комплекса, который породил понятие прав человека. И это при том, что сами права они рассматривают неоднозначно. К примеру, наша армия не признаёт право военнослужащих на злоупотребление своими жопами.
Previous page Page 1 … Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Next page