MD What makes an idea dangerous?

From: abahn@comcast.net
Date: Tue Oct 21 2003 - 00:58:07 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Begging the Question, Moral Intuitions, and Answering the Nazi, Part III"

    All Moqr’s

    Normally I don’t feel the need to address comments made by Platt, because of they appear so obviously ridiculous to me. However, the following quotes forced me to do a little soul-searching. Platt said about Rorty and his fellow travelers (of which Matt and I would be included):

    “I consider Rorty and his fellow travelers dangerous to a free society because without confidence in the concept of truth (and it's companion, logic), the public is disarmed against lies. ("I did not have sex with that woman . . ." is still being defended by many as a statement of fact.)”

    and

    “I find Rorty's theory of truth (what you can get away with) not only philosophically uninteresting but more than that, socially dangerous.”

    Now, I don’t feel the need to defend Rorty here, because Scott, David and Matt have all satisfactorily defended Rorty’s position on truth and demonstrated Platt’s complete misunderstanding of this position. However, something else jumped out at me upon reading these lines. What troubles me is that I also consider some people’s ideas dangerous. Platt and I (along with most others) would both consider ideas endorsed by Nazi’s as dangerous. So, what do we do about it? Platt would solve the problem with a bullet. Rorty would probably concur. I, being a pacifist, would resort to this only as a last resort. However, I might not protest too much if others took up arms to quiet a growing influence of Nazi and fascist ideas. So, Platt and I really don’t disagree here. But upon extension of these ideas, we quickly part ways.

    Maybe this is not what Platt means, but when he says Rorty and his fellow travelers are dangerous, I make the assumption that he would also reserve a bullet for all of us. Or, at the very least, he believes society would be better off if we all went away. Platt would shed no tears if Rorty, Matt or I came to meet tragic ends. What else could he mean when he says we are socially dangerous? Now the tragic part of all of this is that he bases his beliefs on some distortions of pragmatism, post-modernism and Rorty. However, lets leave that aside. Here’s where the soul-searching comes in.

    I can’t take the high ground. Because I also feel that society would be better off if certain individuals who held dangerous ideas would come to meet sudden and tragic ends. I don’t think I would shed any tears over their loss. Bob Dylan’s “Masters of War” would shed some insight on the feelings I have towards individuals who perpetuate war to settle disagreements. I have to admit that I think Platt’s ideas are dangerous. I don’t think he is too far removed from fascism. I think his political ideologies have very little respect for individual freedoms. That’s just what I think (His willingness to sacrifice life for a cause, his comments supporting the patriot act, his unwillingness to shed any compassion for the unfortunate in the world, I have heard enough over a long time to come to these conclusions on Platt’s views). However, again I can’t take the high ground if I think the world would be better off without individuals who hold views such Platt’s.

    So how do we decide what is a dangerous idea? The easy answer is to say that no ideas are dangerous, people are. We should allow everyone the opportunity to express their ideas, no matter the consequences. But then what do we do about the Nazi? Or about Islamic fundamentals who support terrorism? “The Bullet” shouts Platt and people like him. What about Communists who are responsible for the millions of lives lost during the communist rules in Russia, China and other countries during the cold war? “The bullet,” they cry once more. The problem that I see is all the innocent lives that are caught in the crossfire and the cycle of violence that results from this crossfire.

    So, I read about the role the CIA played during the cold war in military coups around the world. The usurpation of democratic movements around the world for installed dictatorships with close ties to the US (I am purposely being vague here). And I see this as great or even a greater evil. I see the trend continuing in the US policy of preemptive strike without the full cooperation of the rest of the world (United Nations). I don’t think I would shed many tears if those responsible for these policies met a tragic end. So, we are caught in a grey area. As much as I’d like to stick to pacifist principles, I can’t help but feel a sort of righteous indignation towards those who would resort to using bullets when presented with ideas that they view as dangerous. But, I am willing to extend this as far as feelings of relief if those individuals themselves met up with a fate awaiting them at the opposite end of a rifle. I am willing to bet that Platt shares equally strong feelings towards all those who hold
    ideas he considers dangerous.

    One of my fellow graduate students, whom I considered a friend, was of the exact opposite political persuasion as I. When my home-state senator’s, well-known liberal Paul Wellstone, plane went down in northern Minnesota killing all those aboard including his wife and daughter almost one year ago today, I mourned in New York state for his tragic loss. It was a loss I believed all Americans shared in. Upon speaking with my friend, who has always honestly expressed his views without concern for offending others, he told me he actually felt a sense of relief upon hearing the news. Like hearing that a player for an opposing team suffered a year-end injury, he said. He felt the conservative position in the US was suddenly much stronger with the loss of Wellstone. I was appalled until I realized that I might have the same feelings if an archconservative met a similar fate.

    I don’t know the purpose of this post. Perhaps it is to simply let others share in my dilemma while I’ve been soul-searching. I don’t think Pirsig offers us any way to get through this or tells us how to answer the question of what makes an idea dangerous? I think that is why I gravitate towards Rorty and Matt. Philosophy has nothing to say on what trait dangerous idea might share. Instead we have to come to some agreement through a democratic process. We must be allowed to debate and discuss the merits and the faults of all ideas. The other option is to look for some ultimate arbiter of truth, but this can only lead, it seems to me, to some level of fundamentalism—whether we base this arbitration on the Bible, the Koran, or the MOQ. I am not looking for any comments, just kind of thinking out loud. I think when we use the MOQ as an arbiter, this is what Matt refers to as the Kantian reading of Pirsig. I think when we use the MOQ to shed insight into which ideas are better for us to hold at this m
    oment in time this is what Matt refers to a pragmatist reading of Pirsig. Although it is a struggle, and I (along with Platt and many others) might wish for a Kantian reading, I think the pragmatist reading holds more promise in the end.

    Thanks,
    Andy

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 21 2003 - 01:02:35 BST