»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
The Cult of Death
| Philosophy 101 |
|
The Cult of Death |
|
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
http://nytimes.com/2004/09/07/opinion/07brooks.html quote: I don't have time to go into this, but I think David Brooks is right. It is time, I think, to start making the connections between 911, Bali, Madrid etc...and Columbine. |
||
| © Copyright 2004 Brad - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
I want to come back to this too ... for now, though, do you think Brooks is suggesting a genocidal response to the cult of death? Jim |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Why in particular would you lump Columbine into the Islamist Extremist war? Of course there is a connection between terror events perpetrated by Islamist Extremists -- we're not fighting a war against terror -- it is a war against Islamist Facsicm. It is a supernational entity, just like a supernational corporation, or a supernational church. You can train people to be desensitized to the suffering of others simply by subjecting them to brutality all of their lives. We have spilled milk. It has to be cleaned up -- but we need to make sure that we don't spill it again. Osama Bin Laden wasn't sitting in his cave one day and suddenly stumbled over a copy of the U.S. Constitution and said 'Hey -- we have to do something about these freedom mongers'. He made his reasons explicit when he declared war on us. We were an imperial force occupying the holy land in Mecca, we were supporting Isreal, We were preparing for another invasion of Iraq while we were keeping Saddam locked up like a lion in a Zoo. The Chechen rebels have been slaughtered by the Russians. Their people are routinely detained and tortured (um-- think we invaded a country on that premise) by the Russians. There are reasons behind this -- no matter how unreasonable the enemy has become. I don't think either that loving children is human nature -- it is one human nature. Some cultures have thrived on destruction -- the Western World just happens to have not been one of them. When David went to war he killed everyone, men, women, and children... and he was a man after God's own heart. The point that Brooks makes well though is that brinksmanship --- takes us to the brink. There is no negotiation -- especially with a supernational enemy -- and they are the hydra -- we cut off a head and two grow back. How do you beat a hydra? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Concentrate on the act. Everything else is superfluous. Irrationality is indeed supernational, but that doesn't mean much. What good has actually resulted from the current explosion of terrorism? Has any of their goals been met? |
||
|
Krawdad Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597 |
L.R. Could you define "Islamic Facsicm" (sic)? Fascism includes an ideology of belligerent nationalism, among other things, so I'm not sure what you mean in your supernational context. Doesn't seem to fit the Mussolini model. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Islamist (with a T) fascism (thanks) is not Islamic. What the T means instead of the C is the ideology that government should follow Islamic law, not secular law. It is nationalism. Mussolini was more adamant about 'corporatism' than 'fascism' -- it was the unity of the state with corporate industrial and financial power into a single centrally focused, all powerful unit. Islamist Fascism is the same. Brad, Since fighting terror hasn't eliminated terrorism one can equally say that our goal hasn't been met either. The acts are battles. Focus on the war. (edit) By supernational I merely mean that it is not geographically dependent -- it can exist anywhere and everywhere. |
||
|
Krawdad Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597 |
L.R. You seem to be circling your wagons. I don't see a real difference in Islamic vs Islamist. Are you suggesting that "Islamic" law is not religious? I asked the question only because you seemed to be redefining fascism. You confirmed my suspicion. It's a popular thing to do it seems. Some are calling the current US regime fascist, as well. Both fascist? Neither. Mussolini's Italy defined fascism (what you want to call corporatism, which is what I might call today's global (supernational?) ruling force). One of the reasons that the current US regime is not fascist is because of the fundamentalist religious beliefs that are held by it. That was not part of Fascism. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Am I under attack? No I'm not suggesting that Islamic law isn't religious. An IslamisT wants to make religious IslamiC law into a form of government -- such as Iran -- it is an Islamist Fascist State -- as opposed to a secular government. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=islamist quote: http://www.fact-index.com/c/co/corporatism.html |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
I'm pretty sure Hitchens coined the term Islamo-fascism to describe Islamic terrorism so don't be too hard on Rebel.  I don't think Bush misspoke when he said we can never win a war on terror. The point of bringing Columbine into the picture is to show that terrorism is irrational. The glorification of death is ultimately for its own sake and not for a political goal. Every terrorist attack in Iraq makes us stay longer. Russians aren't thinking about Chechnya right now, they are thinking about revenge. Madrid was justified only after the Spanish decided to leave Iraq. The justifications will change with the wind, the acts will continue. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Seeing the last comment made in the resurection of the Nietsche thread, I think my point is being made for me. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I don't like Islamo-Fascism as a term though Brad because it obscures the distinction between Islam and the enemy -- which is something the enemy wants. The T makes it very distincT.  The longer we stay in Iraq the more advantageous it is for them -- it breeds more contempt and makes reqruitment easier. Their goal is to create a Pan-Islamic State (called Earth)-- they set up Iran -- then Afghanistan -- Chechneya would have been great if they could have done it... They want to be thrown in the briar patch Brad -- every time they lose -- they win. They are very patient. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Think of it more like this -- the reasons are individual portals into extremism -- it doesn't change the methodology or the aims of the extremists -- everyone just finds his own door. 9/11 commission report says basically three things; Kill the terrorists Stop breeding new ones Secure the borders and the domestic front |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Brad: quote: When you wrote "(whatever that means)" concerning "life", you made another point. Life must be defined in some meaningful schema if we are to be urged to value it (especially when it happens to be someone else's). The Nietzschian problem is that he didn't have any categories to affirm that life is essentially any better than death, or that non-cruelty is any better than cruelty. The islamist terrorists, unlike Nietzsche, do have their categories through their religious doctrines. Unfortunately these are skewed, as they lead to brutality. But in assessing the situation, dogma cannot (in fact, not theory) be done away with, because the questions always arise ... why is rationality better than irrationality? ... Why is life better than death?. And the premise "Life is better than death" is contradicted enough in the real world, that it must be a dogma of sorts, and not so self evident that we need not bother about the question "why". I think Reb's point is that we all have "reasons" for the actions we do, and it's still about those, and asking whether they are good reasons or not... Whether they are rational or not. Pulling back and retreating from that din of controversy, into "fresher air" and trying to establish a simpler cleaner life-affirming dogma, is an imaginary escape. Same song, different verse. Of course I agree with you that the Cult of Death takes us out of reason, and sanity, and life. But if you remember, Nietzsche probably thought that his most insightful character was the "Madman". Stephen |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
But Nietzche did have categories. He was an elitist: The rest of us should be put in the service of great art or music etc. Remember N. talked about the transvaluation of value, not the abolition. I don't agree with that of course, I just think it's wrong to equate N. with an out and out nihilism. quote: I think these two questions answer themselves. You can't discuss which is better, life or death, without first being alive, and you can't form the question, which is better rationality or irrationality, unless you are rational. Still, thinking about this a bit more, LR's point is that we have a specific target with specific goals in mind. I'm not so sure about that. The War on Terror is vague for political reasons, but the enemy is just as vague. I wanted to bring Columbine into the picture because it's a good example of irrationality at work. What did they want? To kill and be killed. Why did they want that? I don't think a rational answer can be found, only a feeling or an attitude. With most suicide bombers, I think it's the same thing. The justifications for their actions are given by those that don't commit suicide. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Certainly. Even a psychotic person has reasons -- they just may not be existent anywhere except inside his brain. quote: This is also an accurate representation of my point -- the enemy is not so vague though. Columbine is a different genus -- but it's particularly lent more to the 'cult of death' hypothesis. quote: And here is where we can draw the distinction between the two -- the Columbine killers weren't soldiers -- they were their own Generals. The clear enemy with clear objectives are the ones who don't commit suicide. Tactically they don't have immediate common goals -- Qaida has international mostly Western intent (and probably Chechen) Taliban -- Afghanistan GIA -- Algeria Gama'at Islamiya -- Egypt Hizballah -- Lebanon Jamaat-e-Islami -- South Asia Hamas -- Gaza Strip and West Bank That's the seven-headed hydra. (there may be more) All with intent -- all with purpose. If you're in shock when 350 innocent school children and their teachers and parents are killed -- or when they slam jets into buildings -- then their purpose is met two-fold. |
||
|
berengar Member
since 2004-01-02
Posts 86 |
The Columbine school murderers, the perpetrators of the Beslan massacre, the 911 terrorists etc are defined primarily by their embrace of death and negotiation with such groups is an irrelevance, as, I would argue, are the 'ideological' hues that may distinguish them. They are all characterised by a hatred of life; the fact that children are often on the receiving end is very telling. But why do they hate life? Because, for them, life is defined by the twin evils of despair and brutality. These two factors define life for many, and not just in economically deprived countries. As long as the fortunate do nothing to address these twin evils, the seeds of another senseless massacre is sown. |
||
|
Arnold M Member
since 2004-09-05
Posts 195 |
Berengar, what do you mean that the fortunate must address the twin evils of despair and brutality? |
||
|
berengar Member
since 2004-01-02
Posts 86 |
Arnold Yes, it's good to pin down general statements I try to get away with. I view despair and brutality as stemming from a sense of alienation; this can be economic, social, even existential. One very important way of combatting this alienation is by cultivating a more compassionate, proactive relationship with those outside the circuit of friends and family. Hard to do in practice, perhaps, and the means by which this is done will vary according to individual circumstance. For myself, it's (necessarily) a small thing; trying to be considerate to those we'd normally ignore or exploit. One has to start somewhere. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
