[lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 08:08:13 -0700
Gad, Andreas, you and Irene . . . You say "Here is a central passage, which
I originally pointed out to Lawrence several months ago:" [and which I
discussed in my previous note which you obviously didn't read]:
"The end of history would mean the end of wars and bloody revolutions.
Agreeing on ends, men would have no large causes for which to fight. They
would satisfy their needs through economic activity, but they would no
longer have to risk their lives in battle. They would, in other words,
become animals again, as they were before the bloody battle that began
history. A dog is content to sleep in the sun all day provided he is fed,
because he is not dissatisfied with what he is. He does not worry that
other dogs are doing better than him, or that his career as a dog has
stagnated, or that dogs are being oppressed in a distant part of the world
If man reaches a society in which he has succeeded in abolishing injustice,
his life will come to resemble that of the dog."
Fukuyama is here representing Nietzsche's & Kojeve's position and not his
own. The paragraph at the bottom of page 310 that provides the context for
the paragraph Andreas quotes begins, "Alexandre Kojeve shared Tocqueville's
belief in the inevitability of modern democracy, even as he too understood
its cost in similar terms. Fukuyama then quotes a passage from Kojeve and
provides footnote 18 which reference's Kojeve's work. Fukuyama is not
representing his own point of view but Nietzsche's and Kojeve's. He goes on
describing it and at the end of this chapter, on page 312, he writes, "When
Nietzsche's Zarathrustra told the crowd about the last man, a clamor arose:
"Give us this last man, O Zarathustra!' 'Turn us into these last men!' they
shouted. The life of the last man is one of physical security and material
plenty, precisely what Western politicians are fond of promising their
electorates. Is this really what the human story has been 'all about' these
past few millennia? Should we fear that we will be both happy and satisfied
with our situation, no longer human beings but animals of the genus homo
sapiens? Or is the danger that we will be happy on one level, but still
dis-satisfied with ourselves on another, and hence ready to drag the world
back into history with all its wars, injustice, and revolution?"
Fukuyama considers Kojeve's and Nietzsche's views and asks whether they are
likely to come to pass. He then answers his question in the next chapter,
Chapter 29 which begins on page 313 with, "It is difficult for those of us
who believe in liberal democracy to follow Nietzsche very far down the road
he takes. He was an open opponent of democracy and of the rationality on
which he rested." It is safe to say that Fukuyama rejects the passage that
Andreas quotes. That passage does not represent Fukuyama's point of view.
Once we put Andreas "critical passage" into perspective we see what it is
that Fukuyama is saying and what he isn't saying. Were he to embrace what
Andreas implies he would be known as a Nietzschean rather than a Hegelian.
As to the rest of Andreas comments, which given the above would add Bush and
Cheney to the followers of Nietzsche and which waxes weird against the
Neocons, against defending ourselves, against Rogue attacks prior to the end
of history, the less said the better.
But note Andreas last sentence "Lawrence wants me to believe that he is a
liberal and a pacifist, yet at the same time, he accuses me of being... a
liberal and pacifist." I once again marvel at the twisted thought processes
that Andreas seems cursed with. I have regularly opposed pacifism. I have
written countless notes against pacifism. I reject pacifism. The only
thing that even remotely suggests itself is that in challenging the
pacifists to accept an approach that would lead to world peace, he assumed I
was in someway thinking I couldn't accept ultimate world peace at the end of
history without becoming a pacifist. Ah, I feel another headache coming on.
Well, no, Andreas if that is what you think. The end of history will not be
achieved without defending ourselves against The Rogues, the Dictators, the
megalomaniacs functioning in societies which give no other scope to their
megalothymos.
Fukuyama's views and Huntington's are opposed. Only one of these viewpoints
will ultimately prove to be accurate. Which is it? Alas it is too soon to
tell. Huntington's at present seems more descriptive in that we are
presently clashing with the Islamic Civilization. On the other hand,
Fukuyama considered such clashes and said they would recede as more and more
nations embraced Liberal Democracy.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas Ramos
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 11:49 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: On the prospect of World Peace
Quite simply: if Lawrence thinks that Fukuyama supports liberal democracy,
when exactly why
is "liberal democracy" a term that he and Fukuyama use as an insult? Neocons
despise liberal
democracy. It produces equal rights, tolerance, diversity, and all those
things that the
neocons dislike. Does bin Laden has legal rights? Does Lawrence really want
the USA to take
a legal approach to bin Laden and deploy lawyers in the World Court? Of
course not.
I said Fukuyama was brilliant and an excellent writer. He knows that he
can't come out and
say "down with the US Constitution!", so he hides behind rhetorical
arguments. Lawrence
writes that after the Berlin Wall fell, Fukuyama was seen as a triumphalist
("the West has
won!"). Fukuyama himself rejects that view. Fukuyama writes that liberal
democracy shall
win, but he means that in an ironic sense.
Here is a central passage, which I originally pointed out to Lawrence
several months ago:
"The end of history would mean the end of wars and bloody revolutions.
Agreeing on ends, men would have no large causes for which to fight. They
would satisfy their needs through economic activity, but they would no
longer have to risk their lives in battle. They would, in other words,
become animals again, as they were before the bloody battle that began
history. A dog is content to sleep in the sun all day provided he is fed,
because he is not dissatisfied with what he is. He does not worry that
other dogs are doing better than him, or that his career as a dog has
stagnated, or that dogs are being oppressed in a distant part of the world.
If man reaches a society in which he has succeeded in abolishing injustice,
his life will come to resemble that of the dog."
Read that and think of Bush saying that. Or Cheney saying that. They think
Americans have
become weak and flaccid and must stand up and fight.
Read that last sentence once again:
"If man reaches a society in which he has succeeded in abolishing injustice,
his life will
come to resemble that of the dog."
If Blacks are equal to whites, and Adam can marry Steve, and women get equal
pay for equal
work, and wealth has been redistributed, we will become dogs? When Fukuyama,
the
theorectical darling of the Neocons, wrote this, did the Neocons agree with
this, or did
they reject this as Kojeve's (misguided) thoughts and they were glad that
soon, injustice
would be abolish?
Neocons have engineered massive tax breaks for the wealthy, looted the US
treasury, started
illegal racist wars, and are plundering the global environment, and now
we're supposed to
believe they are really fighting to abolish injustice?
Lawrence asks:
> I confess to having trouble following the thought processes of Irene and
Andreas. Just why Andreas has concluded his note with "Lawrence is taking a
stand on both sides: he applauds Fukuyama for processes that will result in
world peace, and he rejects anyone who talks about world peace. We know
where he really stands." What could Andreas possibly mean by this?
and then he answers himself:
> The military will be needed to fight against Rogue states bent upon
aggressive military
> action against Liberal Democracies. In other words we still need to fight
wars against
> hostile malevolent forces bent upon the destruction or domination of
Liberal
Democratic nations. We don't want to give up our means of defense until it
is clear that it
is no longer needed.
Namely, "world peace" for Lawrence means military destruction of his
enemies, and there's no
end to that list. Lawrence wants to bomb the world to establish world
peace. There will
never be an end to Lawrence's quest for peace because he also believes in
the Clash of
Civilizations, and as long as there is anyone else, even Canadians, it's
"hostile malevolent
forces bent upon our destruction".
Lawrence wants me to believe that he is a liberal and a pacifist, yet at the
same time, he
accuses me of being... a liberal and pacifist.
yrs,
andreas
www.andreas.com
Other related posts:
