[lit-ideas] Re: Muhammed and the Giant Peach
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 16:50:54 -0800
You quote me saying "I perform a (cold analysis of the evidence." You then
draw a conclusion about my conclusions. As evidence you provide an
incomplete quote from me with an emphasis upon on of those old bugaboo words
"none." [Does "none" mean "none without exception" or "none of the major
ones, or none of a certain sort?' The context ought to guide you.] I used
the word advisedly expecting no one would engage in this sort of quibble.
Note the entire quote which you do not provide: "And in the aftermath, none
of the expectations of failure occurred. The Iraqis did not rise up in
support of Saddam. The Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis did not begin an immediate
Civil War. The various religious and political elements did not reject
democracy. The Iraqis did not want us out immediately."
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Sunday, February 05, 2006 4:01 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Muhammed and the Giant Peach
"I am an ancient who performs a (cold) analysis of the evidence,"
As I see it, you don't analyze the evidence, you spin the evidence to suit
your conclusions. For example, in another post you write, "And in the
aftermath, none of the expectations of failure occurred."
What expectations of failure? They expected flowers. Bremer said the
insurgency took them by surprise. What evidence was there of expectation
of failure? They went in with an army even the Army laughed at, they
thought it would be so easy. Extensive reading of one point of view, yes.
Analysis, I don't see it.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 2/5/2006 5:18:46 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Muhammed and the Giant Peach
Yesterday I saw a few minutes of a C-Span discussion of Michael LeGault's
book Think, Why Crucial Decisions cant be made in the Blink of an eye. He
said that moderns have lost the ability and desire to engage in critical
thinking. In earlier times one developing an argument would analyze the
evidence and draw conclusions based upon it. But today it is considered
better to draw conclusions based upon the right emotion. I thought of the
very brief Let us reason together period Mike and I had Friday. He saw
that we had some things in common and proposed that we reason together.
In listening to LeGault on C-Span, it seemed to me that Mike and I might be
exemplifying the difference he was referring to. I could never say wars
ought not to be engaged in until I analyzed wars and the reasons for
engaging in them. Mike could presuppose Never again war.
He started with rejecting the idea that the US was the good guy. He asked
why we couldnt just see the world as Just Guys Seeing the Things from
their own perspective. I indeed believed that we each saw things from our
own perspective, and I could accept the pluralism of allowing for that, but
I couldnt go all the way based on the evidence. I couldnt accept the
consequences no matter what. If the Islamist seeing things from his own
perspective wants to kill me, I am not willing to be quite pluralistic
enough to allow him to do so.
Further down he said Lets start with the end to war. I could never start
there. I need to start with an analysis of war. I need to study the
reasons that wars start, their commonness, their effects and a variety of
other things. As it happens Ive already done a considerable amount of
that. I have concluded that while wars are not desirable, they are
sometimes necessary.
But my purpose here isnt to rehash our two note discussion of Friday, it is
to wonder whether Mike and I clash because I am an ancient who performs a
(cold) analysis of the evidence, while Mike, a modern seeks the right (warm)
emotions and is able to draw unerring conclusions from them.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
