I read Barry Allen\’s review of Simon Blackburn, and if he has never met a relativist, then it can only be because he has never pushed an argument hard enough. Relativism is a rhetorical maneuver used by people when the logic of their arguments collapse. It usually doesn\’t happen till about half an hour into the argument, when the contradictions in a position are exposed. Then the duck and weave begins: \”Well, that\’s just your opinion…you\’re too dogmatic…scientists think they know everything…who can really know the truth… anything might be true.\” Sophistry has been with us since the ancient Greeks. But it is interesting to note that people who use this dodge begin by making positive assertions which they try to defend rationally. They are absolutists until their position collapses, at which point they become relativists. That is, until they think you\’ve forgotten the dodge, and then they become absolutists again.
Mark B.\’ comments on theory are refreshing, in particular his observations, though not new, still worth making: namely, there\’s a disconnect between the radicalism many theorists espouse and the comforts theyt enjoy from the academic system. Look at teaching conditions in the humanities, the lack of positions, the exploitation, especially of those who are devoted to beginning courses. I have never seen any concerted effort to remedy this situation, but I have seen the perpetuation of a \”star\” system whereby many purported revoluitionaries merely talk a good game.
For an early cogent criutique of this excess, see In Defense of Imagination by Helen Gardner (1982). Incidentally, I write as someone who did a dissertation on literary theory (hermeneutics), arguing that what was important was how theory informed one\’s teaching and reflection on it— a topic I found most in my profession dismissed as mere pedagogy.
I would like to add my voice to those praising Nick Cohen\’s review-essay on Paul BERMAN\’s Terror and Liberalism.
My intellectual and activism past certainly fits the profile of those whom Nick Cohen believes Berman\’s writings to be aimed at. Over the past 30 years I\’ve explored and participated in; Trotskyist study groups, pro-pot \’libertarian\’ organisations, anarcho-syndicalist experiments, Chomsky-ite anti-corporatist movements as well as pacifist, environmentalist and anti-nuclear movements.
I can\’t say I\’ve \”seen the error of my ways\”, (I\’ve never been a \”true believer\” in any movement or ideology, anyway), but I find myself seriously at odds with former associates in all the above-mentioned organisations and movements, over their apparent gullibility and determination to perceive radical Islamists as a species of \’fellow travellers\’ in the global opposition to American covert interference in other nation\’s affairs.
Yes, it\’s true that \”cold warriors\” in various American administrations and covert agencies have been responsible for instigating, fomenting and supporting the slaughter of many thousands of innocents by totalitarian regimes throughout the world. It\’s also true that these criminal activities have sometimes been undertaken primarily to benefit American-controlled multinational corporations. Chomsky is simply factually accurate in many of his observations.
However, the victims of these tragedies have overwhelmingly been socialists and other left-leaning persons – not the members of any particular faith or religion. In fact, when the Taliban and related Holy Warriors were organised, financed and trained through American covert operations in the first place, the purpose for doing so was to unleash them upon Russian (\”socialist\”) troops and their socialist allies in the Afghan government.
When the Taliban eventually gained control over much of Afghanistan, many of the non-combatants they subsequently slaughtered were…socialists. For pro-Taliban Islamists to claim solidarity with western Liberals who are committed to exposing and condemning America\’s covert operations (aimed at suppressing popular SOCIALIST movements around the world, on behalf of American corporate interests), is so obviously an opportunistic hypocrisy that it astounds me any rational person could buy into it.
As an artist, I see the beauty of science and fully believe that scientists, or anyone in any field demanding imagination, have their insights and experiences of beauty. I suspect many artists are sophisticated enough to know this.
But that is a small problem compared to the defense of evolution and, ultimately, the separation of church and state.
\”And to despise and ridicule those who rightly or wrongly do want to give thanks and identify their benefactor as \”God\” is to compound the sin.”(F.T.)
Paula Bourges-Waldegg response to this comment gives too much credence to what is nothing more than a tiresome strawman. Who are these evolutionists who \’despise and ridicule\’? Much more likely to be found are those who simply disagree.
Such disagreement is well founded. We may be thankful, in a general sense, for the fortuitousness of our circumstances. But we are under no obligation to direct that thankfulness to chimera.
The excellent report of Homa Arjomand on the Toronto Sharia Conference (August 12th 2005) deserves massive support from all quarters.
It is a splendid piece of sober reporting of what is, in effect, an issue of major –if not life-threatening – significance for many women who live as third-class citizens in their own countries with their rights to security of life, of property-rights, of guardianship of their own children, daily under threat by the imposition of Islamic sharia law, backed up (and made considerably more harsh and inhumane) in some Muslim countries, like Pakistan, by \”tribal authorities\” whose treatment of women can be of medieval obscenity — and ALL under the \”protection\” of Sharia (as interpreted by the tribal councils!).
I thank Heaven — or RATHER, I thank INDIVIDUAL HUMAN COURAGE — for the powerful presence of Ayaan Hirsi Ali despite the threats to her life from radical Islamists in Holland. I salute her courage and her tenacity in her continuing attempts to bring a measure of human equality of treatment to women in Islamic communities, whether in Europe or North America, or in their countries of origin.
Robert WILCOCKS, Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Prof. Stott has missed something.
Global Warming, as such, is an established fact.
Please note i say nothing about the causes of such warming.
The best evidence comes from the huge survey organised by the Woodland trust as Phenology observations for Britain.
The climate is warming.
What causes it, is very likely himan activity, but we can noit be certain.
Prof. Stott needs to be careful as to how he states his case.
I read Barry Allen\’s review of Simon Blackburn, and if he has never met a relativist, then it can only be because he has never pushed an argument hard enough. Relativism is a rhetorical maneuver used by people when the logic of their arguments collapse. It usually doesn\’t happen till about half an hour into the argument, when the contradictions in a position are exposed. Then the duck and weave begins: \”Well, that\’s just your opinion…you\’re too dogmatic…scientists think they know everything…who can really know the truth… anything might be true.\” Sophistry has been with us since the ancient Greeks. But it is interesting to note that people who use this dodge begin by making positive assertions which they try to defend rationally. They are absolutists until their position collapses, at which point they become relativists. That is, until they think you\’ve forgotten the dodge, and then they become absolutists again.
Mark B.\’ comments on theory are refreshing, in particular his observations, though not new, still worth making: namely, there\’s a disconnect between the radicalism many theorists espouse and the comforts theyt enjoy from the academic system. Look at teaching conditions in the humanities, the lack of positions, the exploitation, especially of those who are devoted to beginning courses. I have never seen any concerted effort to remedy this situation, but I have seen the perpetuation of a \”star\” system whereby many purported revoluitionaries merely talk a good game.
For an early cogent criutique of this excess, see In Defense of Imagination by Helen Gardner (1982). Incidentally, I write as someone who did a dissertation on literary theory (hermeneutics), arguing that what was important was how theory informed one\’s teaching and reflection on it— a topic I found most in my profession dismissed as mere pedagogy.
I would like to add my voice to those praising Nick Cohen\’s review-essay on Paul BERMAN\’s Terror and Liberalism.
My intellectual and activism past certainly fits the profile of those whom Nick Cohen believes Berman\’s writings to be aimed at. Over the past 30 years I\’ve explored and participated in; Trotskyist study groups, pro-pot \’libertarian\’ organisations, anarcho-syndicalist experiments, Chomsky-ite anti-corporatist movements as well as pacifist, environmentalist and anti-nuclear movements.
I can\’t say I\’ve \”seen the error of my ways\”, (I\’ve never been a \”true believer\” in any movement or ideology, anyway), but I find myself seriously at odds with former associates in all the above-mentioned organisations and movements, over their apparent gullibility and determination to perceive radical Islamists as a species of \’fellow travellers\’ in the global opposition to American covert interference in other nation\’s affairs.
Yes, it\’s true that \”cold warriors\” in various American administrations and covert agencies have been responsible for instigating, fomenting and supporting the slaughter of many thousands of innocents by totalitarian regimes throughout the world. It\’s also true that these criminal activities have sometimes been undertaken primarily to benefit American-controlled multinational corporations. Chomsky is simply factually accurate in many of his observations.
However, the victims of these tragedies have overwhelmingly been socialists and other left-leaning persons – not the members of any particular faith or religion. In fact, when the Taliban and related Holy Warriors were organised, financed and trained through American covert operations in the first place, the purpose for doing so was to unleash them upon Russian (\”socialist\”) troops and their socialist allies in the Afghan government.
When the Taliban eventually gained control over much of Afghanistan, many of the non-combatants they subsequently slaughtered were…socialists. For pro-Taliban Islamists to claim solidarity with western Liberals who are committed to exposing and condemning America\’s covert operations (aimed at suppressing popular SOCIALIST movements around the world, on behalf of American corporate interests), is so obviously an opportunistic hypocrisy that it astounds me any rational person could buy into it.
Roy Harrold
publisher, Prairie Plain Speaker
Edmonton, AB
Canada
As an artist, I see the beauty of science and fully believe that scientists, or anyone in any field demanding imagination, have their insights and experiences of beauty. I suspect many artists are sophisticated enough to know this.
But that is a small problem compared to the defense of evolution and, ultimately, the separation of church and state.
Mostly only the choir will read this article.
\”And to despise and ridicule those who rightly or wrongly do want to give thanks and identify their benefactor as \”God\” is to compound the sin.”(F.T.)
Paula Bourges-Waldegg response to this comment gives too much credence to what is nothing more than a tiresome strawman. Who are these evolutionists who \’despise and ridicule\’? Much more likely to be found are those who simply disagree.
Such disagreement is well founded. We may be thankful, in a general sense, for the fortuitousness of our circumstances. But we are under no obligation to direct that thankfulness to chimera.
The excellent report of Homa Arjomand on the Toronto Sharia Conference (August 12th 2005) deserves massive support from all quarters.
It is a splendid piece of sober reporting of what is, in effect, an issue of major –if not life-threatening – significance for many women who live as third-class citizens in their own countries with their rights to security of life, of property-rights, of guardianship of their own children, daily under threat by the imposition of Islamic sharia law, backed up (and made considerably more harsh and inhumane) in some Muslim countries, like Pakistan, by \”tribal authorities\” whose treatment of women can be of medieval obscenity — and ALL under the \”protection\” of Sharia (as interpreted by the tribal councils!).
I thank Heaven — or RATHER, I thank INDIVIDUAL HUMAN COURAGE — for the powerful presence of Ayaan Hirsi Ali despite the threats to her life from radical Islamists in Holland. I salute her courage and her tenacity in her continuing attempts to bring a measure of human equality of treatment to women in Islamic communities, whether in Europe or North America, or in their countries of origin.
Robert WILCOCKS, Professor Emeritus, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.