Ah, you bring me to my agenda. You are using “acting rationally” and
“delusional thinking” as if they were constants “p” and “q” to which
propositional logic applies. I am suggesting that they are variables for which
only two extreme values are being singled out to create the illusion that the
issue can be resolved by propositional logic.
What fun.
John
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 9, 2019, at 11:44, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
It is neither valid nor interesting.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 4:43 AM Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
John, a generalization from some p does not need some q to no p needs no q
is rather... well.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 4:39 AM John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Are we talking about Germany’s not needing lebensraum in the East? If so,
are we prepared to say that all would-be conquerors are delusional,
regardless of their success or failure? Today we might say that any attempt
to invade another nation, tribe or individual’s space is wrong. But
irrational? Or delusional?
John
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 9, 2019, at 11:25, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I asked two questions. Question 2. might be explained by lack of due
diligence or something. It still needs to be explained how Question 1. is
explained.
On Tue, Apr 9, 2019 at 4:18 AM John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Are the only alternatives “acting rationally” and “delusional thinking”?
In retrospect we can see that he may have misjudged the strength of the
Soviet Union and the amount of aid that the USSR would get from America;
but here was a man whose armies had conquered most of Europe and defeated
everyone they had fought. In retrospect, we can see what we might call
lack of due diligence or being carried away by early success. But
“delusional”?
John
Sent from my iPad
On Apr 9, 2019, at 11:02, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So, you would argue that Hitler was acting rationally in starting a war
against the Soviet Union, for example ? It would not have anything to do
with delusional thinking ?
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 11:41 AM adriano paolo shaul gershom palma
<palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
no, i see nothing psychologically strange in hitler.
he was a political leader, in many respects a murderer, while it almost
impossible to understand whether he hurt 'facetoface' any peson. there
is a story in Austria about a niece, noone establiushed anything.
It is true that I had and have a low opinion of politicians, & Hitler
was one, with almost catastrphic results for germany (division of the
country, status of almost paryah among the nations etc.)
but a psychopath? I see nothing but a form of medicalized insult in the
term
equally if one see salafis or talibs as psychopaths there is no insight
into anything.
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
palma, a paolo shaul םֹשׁ ְרֵגּ
Er selbst bevorzugte undurchdringlich Klarheit
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 11:09 AM Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hitler was, or seemed lucid for the most part, at least when he was
not on drugs. Would you say that something must have been wrong with
him psychologically ? I am not going to go into diagnoses or anything
like that, neither of us is a psychiatrist.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 6:38 PM adriano paolo shaul gershom palma
<palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
well, maybe, maybe, I give you a maybe,
since I have no idea what is opposed to "literally insane", possibly
"metaphorically insane"? or what?
if the dude is a psychopath there are elaborate testing methods to
watch out for the pathology.
what I fear is that the term psychopath becomes a way of insult,
rather than attempt to capture the reality of the criminal, or of the
crime.
If someone is a psychopath there are symptoms, (e.g. schizoid
delirium, perceptual delusions, and many others)
from what I read of the Breivik interrogations, none was found, he
was lucid and clear. One may despise his opinions or political views,
but a psychopath, no....
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
palma, a paolo shaul םֹשׁ ְרֵגּ
Er selbst bevorzugte undurchdringlich Klarheit
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 8:32 AM Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hm... the acts these persons committed would themselves seem to be
evidence of psychopathology. I do not see how these acts could be
rational, even given their extremist political goals. It is not
clear how these goals are even furthered by the actions they took,
and might even be offset by them. Also, their self-descriptions
attempting to rationalize it should not be taken at face value - we
should not be inclined to believe Breivik when he claims that he is
Hitler more automatically then we would believe him if he claimed
that he was Napoleon. Certainly, the extremist ideology they were
exposed to played a role, and given the magnitude of the crimes it
is difficult to believe that there was no organization and planning.
But of course nobody is claiming that Breivik is literally insane -
if he were he would be in a mental hospital and not in prison.
O.K.
Virus-free. www.avast.com
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 4:48 PM adriano paolo shaul gershom palma
<palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
for the record, Breivik on Utoya killed some5 scores of people who
were members of teh youth league of the labour organizations.
that Breivik is far more cretinous than 'unabomber' I have seldom
any doubt. his killing was a political act,in standard terminology
the usual nazi thug killing people of the left. I fail to see why
that is
psychopathological, unless one thinks that any political fight is
psychopathology which defeates the argument's bones. Albeit for
some difficult to swallow, this is the form of political combat in
europe now, from Donbass to oslo
(Breivik also killed many by bombing the government wing in Oslo,
quite like McVeigh who bombed the federal building of Oklahoma city)
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
palma, a paolo shaul םֹשׁ ְרֵגּ
Er selbst bevorzugte undurchdringlich Klarheit
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 6:12 AM Lawrence Helm
<lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In regard to Anders Breivik, he said a lot of things about his
motives, but what he did was kill a bunch of people, most of whom,
if looking at their photos means anything, were Norwegian, or at
least Northern Europeans. He didn’t seek out just the people
whose ethnicity or immigration status he was opposed to. He
killed people indiscriminately in order to publicize his manifesto
. . . which is what Ted Kaczynski did as well although Kaczynski
killed or tried to kill people involved in the technology he was
opposed to.
“Two teams of court-appointed forensic psychiatrists examined
Breivik before his trial. The first team diagnosed Breivik with
paranoid schizophrenia[20] but after this initial finding was
criticized,[21] a second evaluation concluded that he was not
psychotic during the attacks but did have narcissistic personality
disorder.[2 [from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Behring_Breivik]
Like Kaczynski, Breivik believed he knew best what his nation
needed to do. Can you believe you are smarter than everyone else
and not be narcissistic? Perhaps you can if you really are.
Milton at an early age believed that he could write an epic that
would be the greatest of his age. In the opinion of critics, he
achieved his goal; so was he narcissistic? Does believing that
you are the greatest poet of your age by definition mean that you
must be narcissistic?
I didn’t read Breivik’s manifesto, but I did read Ted Kaczynski’s,
and didn’t think Kaczynski was narcissistic. What he believed
didn’t sound so very different from the arguments of Al Gore. . .
but of course Al Gore may have been . . .
“Since his imprisonment, Breivik has identified himself as a
fascist[29] and a Nazi,[30] who practices Odinism[30][31] and uses
counterjihadist rhetoric to support ethno-nationalists.”[ibid]
Perhaps we could be permitted to say that in these modern times a
lot of people have spent a lot of time putting names to the
activities of people who kill other people indiscriminately in
order to get a population at large to harken to their ideas; which
ideas when you read them seem fairly mundane. I’m sure there are
many Norwegians who object to non-integrating immigrants, but if
any of these Norwegians feel murderous, one might think they would
choose as their victims, these non-integrating immigrants and not
an indiscriminate number of their well-integrated fellow citizens.
General Sherman’s “march to the sea” was innovative when he did
it. While U. S. Grant and Robert E. Lee were killing each other’s
forces by the thousands, Sherman took his army into the south in
order to destroy, not its people, but the resources the South
needed to continue fighting.
Since that time, various nations during wars have attempted to do
the same thing through bombing, e.g., “During World War II, it was
believed by many military strategists of air power that major
victories could be won by attacking industrial and political
infrastructure, rather than purely military targets.[15] Strategic
bombing often involved bombing areas inhabited by civilians and
some campaigns were deliberately designed to target civilian
populations in order to terrorize and disrupt their usual
activities. . . The effect of strategic bombing was highly debated
during and after the war.[23][24][25][26] Both the Luftwaffe and
RAF failed to deliver a knockout blow by destroying enemy morale.
However some argued that strategic bombing of non-military targets
could significantly reduce enemy industrial capacity and
production[27][28] and in the opinion of its interwar period
proponents, the surrender of Japan vindicated strategic
bombing.[29 [from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_bombing_during_World_War_II]
With these as examples, can we apply terms to individuals and
applicable national leaders who engage in this sort of killing in
such a way as to exclude it as a pathological social epidemic?
Suicide, when there was a rash of them triggered by such stressors
as The Sorrows of young Werther, has been termed an example of
psychiatric epidemiology. So why not see indiscriminate killing
of others as another form of psychiatric epidemiology?
John Berryman’s father committed suicide and years later John did
the same thing: ‘In "Dream Song #143", he wrote, "That mad drive
[to commit suicide] wiped out my childhood. I put him down/while
all the same on forty years I love him/stashed in Oklahoma/besides
his brother Will". In "Dream Song #145", he also wrote the
following lines about his father:
he only, very early in the morning,
rose with his gun and went outdoors by my window
and did what was needed.
I cannot read that wretched mind, so strong
& so undone. I've always tried. I–I'm
trying to forgive
whose frantic passage, when he could not live
an instant longer, in the summer dawn
left Henry to live on.[2][from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Berryman]
Might we perhaps conclude that we are a species with very few
instincts and so need to be taught all that we need to know to
function in society. If we are taught as John Berryman, that
suicide is an acceptable way to solve one’s problems, then we are
at the very least influenced by this teaching and some percentage
of people so taught will sometime later on use this method.
Lawrence
Virus-free. www.avast.com
