Posted on 11/19/2001 6:02:04 AM PST by walden
"I found the self-congradulatory tone to be infuriating. I still do."
Interestingly, that's exactly what I liked about it-- you call the tone "self-congratulatory", whereas I would characterize it as self-confident. I think the one, great virtue of western Victorian society (not only in Britain, but here as well) was its utter, unquestioning self-confidence. The response of the British authorities in India when some Indians said that the practice of burning the widow on the dead man's funeral pyre was "our custom", was, in essence, the practice of hanging by the neck until dead people who do such things is OUR custom. You practice your custom, and we'll practice our custom. They didn't argue about it, they just enforced civilized values.
Today, we're unwilling to do that. We act as though everything is debatable, nothing is solid. How many times have you seen a parent arguing with a small child over why it's not right to beat up other kids? The child is incapable of grasping the subtleties of the issue, and not far enough developed mentally to have much of a sense of empathy. The kid just needs firm, unbreakable rules, and the willingness of the parent to engage in unwinnable arguments only convinces the child that the issue is, in fact, arguable.
If the values of Western civilization are to survive and thrive, we are going to have to regain our confidence in them and be willing to proclaim that confidence out loud.
The war with Islam is over whether we should live under a civilization at all.
For all Western Civilization's faults, that stark difference makes most anti-Western arguments moot.
I'm not sure that one can generalize about countries in the middle east. In the case of Iran, you may be right. Afghanistan and Iraq, I don't think so. Jordan? Certainly. Syria and Egypt? Doubtful. Saudi Arabia? I think we're their only chance-- If we leave them alone, the Islamic fundamentalists will topple the Sauds and the average person will be in worse shape than before.
Given your choice of psuedonym, I'm not suprised you'd find the Nietzschean ideal of "commitment" appealing.
It is possible that you are right. Saudi Arabia may have to go through a stage of control by Islamic fundamentalists. If so, 70 years of American support for a corrupt and venal monarchy will have played a large part in provoking this. In any case, it is their country and their problem. Just an Iran is starting to throw off the shackles of theocracy, so too will the Saudis one day.
I'm sure you're right--good upbringing is essential to any society.
I learned this back in the 7th grade. Today, freedoms are taken for granted.
Who exactly should we blame for this? Oh right. The sniper targets. They throw rocks at the occupying army, don't you know?
American interference in Afghanistan was pretty much non-existant prior to its invasion by the Soviets-- and even then, the money we sent was funnelled through the Pakistani intelligence agencies because we wanted plausible deniability. Anyway, people who argue about how wrong we were in Afghanistan are just like the people who argue how wrong we were to support South Vietnam. Interestingly enough, all of the actual South Vietnamese immigrants to this country that I know think our only sin was to desert them. I agree with them. Our fault in Afghanistan was not that we supported those fighting the Soviets, but that we pulled out and left them to be preyed on by their Muslim neighbors.
I'm not aware of anything we've done in Iraq, other than stomp them out of Kuwait. Likewise, I don't think we've done much of anything in Syria. Jordan is another case, though: haven't you seen their young king on television? Very reasonable, very moderate, British-educated, and very interested in advancing his country into the modern age. Seems like pretty good western influence to me.
As for Saudi Arabia, you may think it's just fine to abandon them to two generations of Islamic fascism, but besides turning their lives to misery and creating a flood of refugees into the west, I think it's likely to make them more virulent sponsors of international terrorism than they already are. Bad idea, in my book.
But care must be taken: Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer were quite confident that they'd figured it out, and that they were doing the right thing (i.e., exactly what they wanted so long as they didn't get caught). But we can see that this is a heinous, false, insane understanding of human life.
Nietzsche was a cultural relativist--he thought "every society is entitled to their own opinion," and carried it to its logical conclusion: that, since no opinion is true and therefore the best, each opinion was worth the same--nothing. Thus, any opinion your will is commited to--that you're confident in--is justifiable. Walden was written along lines Nietzsche agreed with--that modern reason is toxic, and a return to more natural foundations was necessary. He just went to a bad "natural" place.
That was a mouthful. I've got to go pick up my girlfriend. Adios.
"In the end, more than freedom they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all -- security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and never was free again."
-- Edward Gibbons
You're right, and I hope we're not becoming Athens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.