"Gary C. Moore" <gospode@...
> wrote:Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2003 02:47:03 -0800 (PST)
From: "Gary C. Moore"
1. What do you think of anarchism? Is there any way it can even exist in reality? HOW can there even be a WAY of 'designing' an 'anarchist' society? Do you know Nestor Makhno?
2. How does Lenin's "withering away of the state" compare to anarchism? I understand it is dependent idealistically on the ending of classes and class warfare, but that is not sufficient in itself. Pragmatically, class structure itself, pragmatically as seen in the USSR merely destroys one privileged class to replace it with another. And, in saying that, Stalin comes to mind: he was automatically destroying not only the old class system but also the new class system as it came into being. Is this really how he understood it? Does this not also revolve back to the problem of the 'anarchist' state?
3. As to Marx, he has always seemed extremely vague in what I have read about any 'communist' state. However, when I state it this way, I see at least part of the problem since any 'communist' state is, in a definite and practical way, indefinible in the present but is the result of a historical process. But then does that not then go directly to the same problem as the 'anarchist' state has?
4. Somewhat off the mark but not really as "How can it be?" -- In an ontological ethics of pure honesty, I would not say "Heidegger was evil because he was a Nazi" but "Heidegger was evil because he was dishonest about being a Nazi." (This would also include his overall methodolgy inclusive of all his work, but in this fashion: Heidegger does make honest, straightforward, rational statement that would and could be the basis of a real philosophy -- BUT he does not make these statements in a prominent fashion and he does not connect them up coherently himself, though he may -- but then again he may not -- he may really intend for you to work this through absolutely and totally by yourself -- which, of course in the end, absolutely leaves him out of your process completely as discardable trash.)
Now,the seeming problem with an ontological ethics of honesty is, "If Heidegger is honest about being a Nazi, then he is alright." However, being in the "right" has not only nothing do do with an ethics of honesty but is diametrically opposed to the very 'idea' of honesty as simple honesty cannot have Platonic Ideas or "the Right and True cause." Honesty simply and purely means you accept the consequences of your actions. That is, if you say "I am a Nazi!" or "I am a Communist!" you should realize you are liable to 'good' and 'bad' -- 'advantageous' and detrimental' (but to or for what or whom EXACTLY AND PRECISELY? "My self" is still a whole crowd of people, many of whom you do not like.) -- results. And that is all. There can be no over-riding justification of honesty that is outside of honesty or, of course, 'honesty' ceases to be honest. Which brings us, once again, to Doctor. Hannibal Lector (Thomas Harris), master of psychology and philosophy. I have become even more enthralled with the Florentine detective's meditation on Marcus Aurelius in HANNIBAL.
So . . . . What do you think?
Gary C. Moore
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]