New York Times on the Web Forums
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's
war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars"
defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make
the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an
application of science be successful? Is a militarized space
inevitable, necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
(582 previous messages)
- 05:26pm Mar 15, 2002 EST (#583
Almarst , you're absolutely right about the most basic
things in almarst-2001
3/15/02 4:16pm . Right about what people need. - - Right that
Western civilization IS doing dangerous and ugly things -- and the
world is far, far uglier than it ought to be, or could be, if people
were only a little more decent, and a little wiser.
At the same time, I think you're too sentimental -- even
dangerously so, about other cultures. The Cambodia of Pol Pot was a
very warm, human, emotional place - in ways we'd all like to avoid
-- but not reasonably a part of "western culture."
The relations lchic
3/15/02 11:53am cites are disproportionate and
I may be as concerned as you are - - but I can't agree absolutely
with when you say:
. . . what is called The Western Civilization,
lead today by triumphal USA, is concentraited all its energy and
resources on a task of building a BETTER MACHINES and not a BETTER
HUMAN BEINGS and SOCIETY.
You can find plenty of effort - some successful at making better
human beings, and a better society.
Our problems are both harder and, I think, more hopeful than you
suggest. We're dealing with problems - basic problems - about
proportion - - and about moral (and I hate to say it, but I'm going
to) logical rules.
Not all that much would have to change for a lot of things to be
a LOT better. But some of the changes would be hard.
The "missile defense", and the horrors of nuclear and other war,
offer some key examples.
We need to get clear about, and clearly share, consequential
facts. When it really matters.
And, in all kinds of ways, we need more of a sense of proportion
- - and we need to be able to discuss our senses of
3/11/02 1:28am said
" Btw, I saw someone refering to Jesus earlier.
Maybe this whole Bush/Chenny/Rumsfeld/Wolforwitz shows are all
part of their plan to speed up His Return. Now if that is the
case, I am all for it."
Maybe we could do perfectly well, without any divine
intervention, if we got scared enough to get a few things straight.
- 05:32pm Mar 15, 2002 EST (#584
Mazza , I think you're being honest, but I recoil when you
"The US system is based on Hobbes' philosophy of
man's imperfections. The 7 deadly sins are a way of life and there
is no answer to the Ted Bundy's, Andrea Yates, or the knucklehead
who cut me off in traffic this morning on my drive to work.
"We muddle ahead and hope that our efforts have a
net positive effect
I think what you say there stinks.
And is characteristically lacking something vitally needed
-- a sense of proportion, and a reasonable sense of context.
It is ugly -- the opposite of "beautiful" in Heisenberg's sense.
- 05:36pm Mar 15, 2002 EST (#585
Lchic and I feel that, if people paid more attention to
aesthetics, and paid especial attention to the notion of ugliness
set out here, we might have improved guidance for crafting a world
of social relations where "man's inhumanity to man and woman" was
less in evidence.
In "Beauty" http://www.everreader.com/beauty.htm
, Mark Anderson quotes Heisenberg's definition of beauty in the
" Beauty is the proper conformity of the parts
to one another and to the whole."
We could use more of a feel for beauty, for proportion, in this
basic sense. The "missile defense" boondoggle, for example, is
ugly - - full of gross lies and disproportions.
So are a lot of other things almarst objects to.
- 05:55pm Mar 15, 2002 EST (#586
Mazza mentioned Thomas Hobbes, the english philosopher.
In my dialog with becq on the MD thread last year, I came
up against a Hobbesian view that I found disturbing, because it
denies a basis for moral action that many find essential. (
becq has denied that he is Bill Clinton - and except for
judgements based on consistency relations, I have no reason to doubt
Here is becq:
My positions can be rest reflected in Hobbes.
beckq 9/25/00 4:33pm
I think that even Bill cannot overcome the basic
flaws of man. Go back to Hobbes. beckq 9/27/00 11:36am
Lcic found the references that let me find out what Clinton
meant: lunarchick 9/28/00 2:04am
Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/h/hobbes.htm
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): Life http://www.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/wphil/lectures/wphil_theme13.htm
abstract:..Natura Naturans: Natural Law and the Sovereign in the
Writings of Thomas Hobbes ...by..Conal Condren http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/cash/content2sub2.html
Conference: Natural Law and Sovereignty in Early Modern Europe http://www.gu.edu.au/centre/cash/frameset2.html
Hobbes philosophy is deeply pessimistic about the possibilty of
good faith on the part of men, and it is radically against religion.
A key quote is that "All priests are enemies of the state."
I don't think Clinton was entirely consistent in this position,
or completely persuaded by it. But it may explain some of the moral
tone-deafness he sometimes showed. And it may account for some of
the hostility religous people (and not only on the right) sometimes
felt for him.
New York Times on the Web Forums