[lit-ideas] Re: On being a Marine and an American
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 22:48:26 -0700
Okay, Robert, I went back to see what I actually said that I take you to be
referring to. Here it is: "Am I convinced that your having met a few SAS
members gives you insight into their nature as fighting men? Or that John
McCreery's having a son-in-law does that for him? No."
Notice the term "fighting men." Explain to me how that sort of thing,
understanding that part of one's son-in-law that comprises the attribute
"fighting man," can be conveyed in conversation. The same question can be
asked about conversations Judy had with the SAS officers. This is something
that would be very difficult to convey. I think David grasps it and he
hasn't been in the military' so I'm not saying it can't be done, but from
conversation with John and Judy I doubt that it has been done by them. I
wouldn't expect them to be talking as they do if it had been. Notice that I
added to the doubt about Judy's ability to understand the nature of her SAS
guests as fighting men by referring to a book by Andy McNab. He was
criticized by the SAS for having divulged the largely secret information of
what the SAS was all about. Therefore, I intended to imply, in view of that
criticism, is it reasonable to expect that Judy's guests were willing to
tell her all about the nature of the SAS and what it meant to be an SAS
fighting man? My implied conclusion was "no." She wrote a later note
implying that whatever Andy McNab had said was to be doubted because he "had
crossed the line." The very fact that he had divulged what the SAS was all
about, I assumed Judy was intending to imply, compromised and made
untrustworthy anything he said about the SAS.
Here is what Judy wrote that got things going:
LH>Fortunately Marines are taught about Civilians in boot camp.
LH> They are taught that civilians barely have sense enough to get
LH>out of each other's way. We are taught not worry about the
LH>dumb things they say and do
I hope there are Marines who think differently
Judy Evans, Cardiff
Judy didn't quote my entire statement which was to Omar. He was jerking my
chain by calling Marines Mentally Ill. I was responding by arguing that
Islamists fit the description of what it meant to be mentally ill more
closely than Marines. I kept trying to get back on subject and so ended my
comments with, "Some of the people here on Lit-Ideas sound as though they
would rather stop the Marines than the Islamists. Fortunately Marines are
taught about Civilians in boot camp. They are taught that civilians barely
have sense enough to get out of each other's way. We are taught not worry
about the dumb things they say and do but to fight for them in spite of all
that."
Judy left off my first sentence and my last one. If she had included the
first sentence it would have put the words she quoted in better context. If
she included my last sentence the implication that I had ongoing contempt
for civilians would have been ameliorated by my willingness to fight for
them. Let me ask you, why do you think Judy pulled the middle sentences out
of what I wrote? Did she has some serious thoughts behind all that?
Someone who has been in the Air Wing for most of his career is likely to
have a slightly softer nature than someone who has been a grunt for the same
period. John's statement that his son-in-law "was not like that" was as
cryptic as Judy's comment. Hers I took to be a hostile jab. John's was
support, but what did he mean? Maybe his son-in-law was an extremely gentle
soul that had shucked his boot-camp training and through a life in the Air
Wing lost the Gung-ho-ness that I am inclined to think of when I think of
what it means to be a Marine. I was just trying to give him the benefit of
doubt. The Air Wing Marines I knew at McDonnell Douglas could talk as tough
as any one else.
But what I said, that some people would rather stop the Marines than the
Islamists is true. Notice that this Marine was stopped from pursuing that
line of thought by "some of the people here on Lit-Ideas."
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Robert Paul
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2006 9:07 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On being a Marine and an American
Lawrence replied to John:
'As to your claim to know more, or as much about being a Marine from
talking to your son-in-law, as I do from being one, don't forget you
disagreed with me. You said Marines aren't like what I described them
to be because your son-in-law wasn't. Your claim was tantamount to
saying you knew more than I did. To begin with unless your son-in-law
is enormously gifted in the art of communication and has taken the
trouble to enlighten you about all his experiences in the Marine Corps
including philosophizing over what it means to be a Marine; which I
doubt (I doubt it because communication is difficult and most people
aren't very good at it) you are very likely over-estimating your
understanding of what it means to your son-in-law to be a Marine.'
I think, Lawrence, that you made a general claim about what it was 'to
be a Marine.' John replied by saying that as far as that generalization
went, he knew of an exception, namely his son-in-law. He didn't claim to
know more than you do about 'what it's like.' He did say that he found
the claim that only an X can know what it's like to be an X,
troublesome. So do I. If we narrow otherness to its instantiation in
individuals it leads to the philosophically insupportable and morally
dubious claim that we can never know what it's like to be someone else.
It's a short step from there to saying that it's logically possible that
others are so completely unlike us that we may treat them as we like
(for we're superior, know better, are 'more advanced, etc.). Thus does
the supposed problem of other minds justify totalitarianism.
Descartes' supposition that strictly speaking one could never tell what
was 'within' those human-like beings going back and forth on the street
(for all we know, they're automata) led him to become, for a moment, a
Behaviourist: only that we (who 'we' are here is puzzling) can converse
reasonably with them shows that they're more than that. Well, of course
anyone might be driven to such desperation.
The reasoning in your reply to John comes close to the No True Scotsman
Fallacy. (Air Wing Marines aren't _really_ Marines; a real Marine
wouldn't reply as John's son-in-law did.) If this isn't your reasoning,
I'm not sure what it is.
'Also, I think you said your son-in-law was in the Air Wing. The grunts
don't consider Air Wing Marines real Marines. Of course it isn't true,
but that is what many of them say.'
If it isn't true, then what other Marines (the grunts) say, is
irrelevant. And if what they say is irrelevant here, why should it
matter which 'kind' of Marine John's son-in-law is?
Here's the NTS fetched from
http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallacies.htm
--------------
No True Scotsman
This error is a kind of ad hoc rescue of one's generalization in which
the reasoner re-characterizes the situation solely in order to escape
refutation of the generalization.
Example:
Smith: All Scotsmen are loyal and brave.
Jones: But McDougal over there is a Scotsman, and he was arrested
by his commanding officer for running from the enemy.
Smith: Well, if that's right, it just shows that McDougal wasn't a
TRUE Scotsman.
--------------
This list of fallacies is a handy resource that should be on every
refrigerator door.
Robert Paul
Reed College
Other related posts:
