The posts are not previewed, as far as I know. Some end in Spam folder but
I just checked the Spam folder and I did not see any of recent Lit-Ideas
posts in it.
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 10:53 PM Mashhood Sheikh <senor_massao@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Somehow half of my emails don’t reach the forum. Is there a Mako
equivalent here Lawrence?
Mashhood
*From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *Lawrence Helm
*Sent:* 10. april 2019 22:32
*To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: The reasons for Hitler
Hmm. Interesting. Philosophy and philosophers have been discussed here
over the years, but I can’t bring to mind any modern philosophers that have
influenced ethical behavior, at least in a good way – if that is what
you’re saying. Of course Marx prophesied that Communism would comprise the
end of history and he indeed influenced ethical behavior, but not directly
in my opinion. Lenin later on applied the teachings of Marx, so we do have
that. Francis Fukuyama more recently argued in his *The End of History
and the Last Man *that Marx was wrong and that Hegel was right after all:
Liberal Capitalism would comprise the end of history. But I can’t bring to
mind how Samuel P. Huntington or Fukuyama influenced ethical behavior. For
a while Fukuyama was credited with influencing the creation of
Neo-Conservatives, and they behaved in interesting ways, but he denied that
he meant what they believed in.
Left by itself, I don’t see Liberal Capitalism as directly influencing
ethical behavior.
I suppose that Alan Bloom’s *The Closing of the American Mind *while not
in itself influential does point to the ethical behavior in American
Universities, but like Marx’s teachings, not in a good way. I don’t know
which ethical philosophers can be credited for that.
I recall discussions about this in the past. An influential philosopher
was said to influence a number of students who in turn would in subsequent
generations influence the population at large who would not believe that
they had been influenced, and in the case of the influence of
Existentialism would vehemently (I witnessed occasions of this personally)
deny that they had been influenced in such a way that what they said and
believe was consistent with the teachings of Sartre. I suppose if we think
of Camus’s *The Stranger* who murdered someone simply because he was in a
bad mood and that being considered to be the influence of Existentialism, I
suppose that can be considered ethical influence, but again not in a good
way. It would fall into the category of bad teaching, I would argue.
which according to Fukuyama would include the Nanny Socialism of Western
Europe as long as it doesn’t eschew Free Enterprise,
Maybe you can elaborate on which philosophers you have in mind. J
We have had discussions here of esoteric philosophers that few seem to
heard of who aren’t studying or teaching philosophy, but I don’t see how
such philosophers can be considered to be influential.
Lawrence
*From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [
mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ;<lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>] *On
Behalf Of *Mashhood Sheikh
*Sent:* Wednesday, April 10, 2019 11:40 AM
*To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [lit-ideas] Re: The reasons for Hitler
“Therefore, leaving matters of psychopathology, one seems left with the
old belief that good behavior is a result of good teaching and bad behavior
the result of bad.” If only world was this simple 😊
What we are left with is the massive contribution of philosophers defining
ethical values independent of religious doctrines.
Mashhood
*From:* lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> *On
Behalf Of *Lawrence Helm
*Sent:* 8. april 2019 18:24
*To:* lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
*Subject:* [lit-ideas] The reasons for Hitler
Someone a while back advanced the theory that no debate about anything
could continue very long without someone introducing Hitler as an example
of something or other. Presumably those who mentioned Hitler after this
were for a time scoffed at because of this theory, but I disagree. Hitler
really did live and he really did do all those things, and it behooves us
to learn from his bad example.
Therefore, leaving matters of psychopathology, one seems left with the old
belief that good behavior is a result of good teaching and bad behavior the
result of bad. I read Ian Kershaw’s *Hitler, 1889-1936 Hubris *back in
2004.
Kershaw writes on page 29, “’I owe it to that period that I grew hard.’
Hitler was referring to the years he spent in Vienna between February 1908
and May 1913, when he left the Austrian capital for Munich and the
beginning of a new life in Germany. The ‘mother’s darling’ had lost his
‘soft downy bed’ and the carefree existence he had enjoyed in Linz.
Instead of ‘the hollowness of comfortable life’, he was now thrown into a
world of misery and poverty’, with ‘Dame Care’ as his new mother. Even as
he dictated *Mein Kampf, *during his internment in Landsberg in 1924,
Vienna aroused in Hitler only ‘dismal thoughts’ of ‘the saddest period’ of
his life.”
With Hitler in mind then, let’s turn to an experiment some scientist did
years ago on an island with Howler monkeys. The scientists built platforms
throughout the island so they could look down at all the monkeys without
being a distraction or an interference. They classified these monkeys in
many ways, one of which was “dominance factor.” Dominance was rated in
terms of who led a particular pack to water, who decided it was time to
turn back, who intimidated whom, who led the pack against rival packs. [I
don’t remember the exact dominance numbers involved, but my assumptions
should convey the intent] A dominance number of three might make decisions
a lot of the time. A number five, might be a pack leader. It was noted
that packs regularly met at their borders, had some fights with the
neighboring pack and then returned home.
And then the scientists were amazed by a strange phenomenon. One pack
suddenly began moving around the entire island. No other pack interfered
with it. The scientist after studying this pack more closely discovered
that one monkey had a dominance factor off their charts. No other monkey
on the island had a dominance factor even close this one’s. Let us give
him the dominance factor 50. All the other monkeys gave way. It may have
been the confrontations with other monkey-packs that enabled the discovery
by this monkey that no other monkey or pack of monkeys could stand up
against him.
Hitler was a corporal and not a leader in Germany’s confrontation with its
enemies, but he did very well. After the war when many Germans were
outraged over being ‘tricked into surrendering,’ Hitler came into his own.
People listened to him. He said what they believed. He influenced and
inspired them. His great dominance factor was at last seen by all in all
its glory.
If any of the above is true and applicable, individuals with potentially
very high dominance factors are potentially in many primate genetic
population clusters. Perhaps Churchill and Roosevelt had genetic
potentials for dominance as high as Hitler’s, but his had been tested and
honed in ways that theirs were not.
Critics of the Second World War assert that if Britain, France, and the
U.S. had insisted on unconditional surrender at the conclusion of World War
One, World War Two would never have occurred. Believing that they learned
their lesson, Britain, the U.S. and the USSR occupied Germany for quite a
long time. Presumably few Germans this time have argued that Germany was
tricked into surrendering after World War Two.
Lawrence