This is a list of each post I've made about my time in South Korea, arranged by date.
NEW: Yahoo Photos Page.
Unfurling the Sails - August 27, 2005
First Impressions of the City - September 1, 2005
First Saturday - September 3, 2005
Incheon Hills, First Trip - September 4, 2005
Dinner and a Field Trip - September 10, 2005
Lost in Incheon - October 3, 2005
Friday, August 26, 2005
Thursday, August 11, 2005
Albert Camus: Resistance, Rebellion, and Death
This was written by Albert Camus in 1958. Algeria was in the process of throwing off French rule, and it was a bloody, vicious affair. I think much of what he says is relevant in our comtemporary clash with violent extremists. This article could easily be written today, substituting relevant names and events.
"When the fate of men and women of one's own blood is bound, directly or indirectly, to the articles one writes in the comfort of the study, one has a right to hesitate and to weigh the pros and cons. In my case, if I am aware that in criticizing the course of the rebellion I risk justifying the most brazen instigators of the Algerian drama, I never cease fearing that, by pointing out the long series of French mistakes, I may, without running any risk myself, provide an alibi for the insane criminal who may throw his bomb into an innocent crowd that includes my own family. I went so far as to admit this fact baldly in a recent declaration which was commented upon most strangely. But anyone who does not know the situation I am talking about can hardly judge of it. And if anyone, knowing it, still thinks heroically that one's brother must die rather than one's principles, I shall go no further than to admire him from a distance. I am not of his stamp.
This does not mean that principles have no meaning. An opposition of ideas is possible, even with weapons in hand, and it is only fair to recognize one's opponent's reasons even before defending oneself against him. But on both sides a reign of terror, as long as it lasts, changes the scale of values. When one's own family is in immediate danger of death, one may want to instill in one's family a feeling of greater generosity and fairness, as these articles clearly show; but (let there be no doubt about it!) one still feels a natural solidarity with the family in such mortal danger and hopes that it will survive at least and, by surviving, have a chance to show its fairness. If that is not honour or true justice, then I know nothing that is of any use in this world.
Only from such a position have we the right and the duty to state that military combat and repression have, on our side, taken on aspects that we cannot accept. Reprisals against civilian populations and the use of torture are crimes in which we are all involved. The fact that such things could take place among us is a humiliation we must henceforth face. Meanwhile, we must at least refuse to justify such methods, even on the score of efficacy. The moment they are justified, even indirectly, there are no more rules or values; all causes are equally good, and war without aims or laws sanctions the triumpth of nihilism. Willy-nilly, we go back in that case to the jungle where the sole principle is violence. Even those who are fed up with morality ought to realize that it is better to suffer certain injustices than to commit them even to win wars, and that such deeds do us more harm than a thousand underground forces on the enemy's side. When excuses are made, for instance, for those who do not hesitate to slaughter the innocent in Algeria or, in other places, to torture or to condone torture, are they not also incalculable errors since they may justify the very crimes we want to fight? And what is that efficacy whereby we manage to justify everything that is more injustifiable in our adversary?"
- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death
"When the fate of men and women of one's own blood is bound, directly or indirectly, to the articles one writes in the comfort of the study, one has a right to hesitate and to weigh the pros and cons. In my case, if I am aware that in criticizing the course of the rebellion I risk justifying the most brazen instigators of the Algerian drama, I never cease fearing that, by pointing out the long series of French mistakes, I may, without running any risk myself, provide an alibi for the insane criminal who may throw his bomb into an innocent crowd that includes my own family. I went so far as to admit this fact baldly in a recent declaration which was commented upon most strangely. But anyone who does not know the situation I am talking about can hardly judge of it. And if anyone, knowing it, still thinks heroically that one's brother must die rather than one's principles, I shall go no further than to admire him from a distance. I am not of his stamp.
This does not mean that principles have no meaning. An opposition of ideas is possible, even with weapons in hand, and it is only fair to recognize one's opponent's reasons even before defending oneself against him. But on both sides a reign of terror, as long as it lasts, changes the scale of values. When one's own family is in immediate danger of death, one may want to instill in one's family a feeling of greater generosity and fairness, as these articles clearly show; but (let there be no doubt about it!) one still feels a natural solidarity with the family in such mortal danger and hopes that it will survive at least and, by surviving, have a chance to show its fairness. If that is not honour or true justice, then I know nothing that is of any use in this world.
Only from such a position have we the right and the duty to state that military combat and repression have, on our side, taken on aspects that we cannot accept. Reprisals against civilian populations and the use of torture are crimes in which we are all involved. The fact that such things could take place among us is a humiliation we must henceforth face. Meanwhile, we must at least refuse to justify such methods, even on the score of efficacy. The moment they are justified, even indirectly, there are no more rules or values; all causes are equally good, and war without aims or laws sanctions the triumpth of nihilism. Willy-nilly, we go back in that case to the jungle where the sole principle is violence. Even those who are fed up with morality ought to realize that it is better to suffer certain injustices than to commit them even to win wars, and that such deeds do us more harm than a thousand underground forces on the enemy's side. When excuses are made, for instance, for those who do not hesitate to slaughter the innocent in Algeria or, in other places, to torture or to condone torture, are they not also incalculable errors since they may justify the very crimes we want to fight? And what is that efficacy whereby we manage to justify everything that is more injustifiable in our adversary?"
- Albert Camus, Resistance, Rebellion, and Death
Monday, August 08, 2005
No Archimedean Point
It's our dirty laundry, our family secret, our skeleton in the closet. It gets ignored or glossed over. Usually we go about our daily lives ignoring it altogether.
Knowledge. Just what the hell is it? How can we really say anything for certain? It's a long running debate and no one has come up with a definitive answer.
Every theory of knowledge eventually runs into the same problem - they're all circular. In the final analysis, every system must be believed before it can be accepted.
Empiricists say only the five senses can be trusted, but obviously they can't examine that premise empirically. Rationalists say we are inborn with certain faculties for gathering knowledge, but can't get past Descartes' deceptive demon problem. There is simply no Archimedean point on which we can stand and make statements that are beyond question.
I'm not going to try to solve that problem here. It's way beyond me. I am, however, going to explain how I evaluate truth statements. This post is just an initial introduction.
I guess I'm in the vein of pragmatists. This line of thought had its origin in the 19th-century utilitarians like JS Mills. Mills believed knowledge was developed in a survival of the fittest manner; people entered into a marketplace of ideas, and the most accurate ideas would eventually win out. Mills obviously had a lot of faith in people. I'd say that the marketplace of ideas is necessary for an Open Society, but it isn't an epistemological proving ground.
I say I'm in the vein of pragmatists because I think that each idea we have about the world will sooner or later be tested in some way. For example, on an apparent level our senses are constantly tested. If our eyes or ears are not giving us accurate information, sooner or later we will be hit by a truck. I don't see the point in questioning the existence of existence; try to live it out, and you'll be flattened on the 401. The object, as someone said, will object.
That doesn't vanquish Descartes' demon, and it doesn't prove we don't exist in The Matrix. It does show us, however, that our continued existence is dependant on the accuracy of our five sense. We gain vital, life saving knowledge from empirical observation.
But everyone knows that. Nobody really questions the existence of existence anyways. The stuff we argue about is metaphysical. The stuff that goes beyond the apparent world. And this is what the bulk of human intellectual life is concerned with. The humanities and social sciences are shot through with metaphysical statements, and even the hard sciences are not exempt.
There are three general ideas I want to talk about.
Knowledge, I think, can have a modular nature. By this I mean that each system will make some correct statements, and some false statements. The false statements do not render the entire system false; they must simply be selected out. Survival of the fittest. For example, if a particular system contains a statement like "A = not A", than the whole system does not collapse; but that statement must be rooted out and something else must take its place.
Secondly - and this is where pragmatism is important - if a system does not risk being hit by a truck, then it is a pointless system. What good is knowledge if it doesn't explain the world? I want to know why WWI happened. I want to know what is behind suicide bombings. Tell me why the Earth casts a shadow on the moon.
In other words, if a knowledge system does not take into account and explain events, behaviour patterns and the natural world, then at best it is a logically airtight, free-floating series of utterly useless statements. Systems must make statements that can be contradicted by our experience; if you aren't risking being hit by a truck, then who cares what you are saying? I don't. The whole point of knowledge is give coherence to our experience, and divorcing knowledge from experience is desperate folly.
And thirdly, everything above is nice and idealistic. Even getting hit by a truck. The problem with all of it is, however, that we don't have unmediated access to our experience. I'm not contradicting myself here; I'm explaining a difficultly. Every epistemology must not only have a test for truth, but it must also explain how we gather information in the first place. How, exactly, do we interact with the world, quite apart from any academic methodology?
I've already talked about this. The post on Martin Heidegger and AI is important, and so is the post on Michel Foucault and discourse. Both discuss the practical limits and bounds on our perception of the world.
So, this is the first post in another series - developing a method to explain our world.
Knowledge. Just what the hell is it? How can we really say anything for certain? It's a long running debate and no one has come up with a definitive answer.
Every theory of knowledge eventually runs into the same problem - they're all circular. In the final analysis, every system must be believed before it can be accepted.
Empiricists say only the five senses can be trusted, but obviously they can't examine that premise empirically. Rationalists say we are inborn with certain faculties for gathering knowledge, but can't get past Descartes' deceptive demon problem. There is simply no Archimedean point on which we can stand and make statements that are beyond question.
I'm not going to try to solve that problem here. It's way beyond me. I am, however, going to explain how I evaluate truth statements. This post is just an initial introduction.
I guess I'm in the vein of pragmatists. This line of thought had its origin in the 19th-century utilitarians like JS Mills. Mills believed knowledge was developed in a survival of the fittest manner; people entered into a marketplace of ideas, and the most accurate ideas would eventually win out. Mills obviously had a lot of faith in people. I'd say that the marketplace of ideas is necessary for an Open Society, but it isn't an epistemological proving ground.
I say I'm in the vein of pragmatists because I think that each idea we have about the world will sooner or later be tested in some way. For example, on an apparent level our senses are constantly tested. If our eyes or ears are not giving us accurate information, sooner or later we will be hit by a truck. I don't see the point in questioning the existence of existence; try to live it out, and you'll be flattened on the 401. The object, as someone said, will object.
That doesn't vanquish Descartes' demon, and it doesn't prove we don't exist in The Matrix. It does show us, however, that our continued existence is dependant on the accuracy of our five sense. We gain vital, life saving knowledge from empirical observation.
But everyone knows that. Nobody really questions the existence of existence anyways. The stuff we argue about is metaphysical. The stuff that goes beyond the apparent world. And this is what the bulk of human intellectual life is concerned with. The humanities and social sciences are shot through with metaphysical statements, and even the hard sciences are not exempt.
There are three general ideas I want to talk about.
Knowledge, I think, can have a modular nature. By this I mean that each system will make some correct statements, and some false statements. The false statements do not render the entire system false; they must simply be selected out. Survival of the fittest. For example, if a particular system contains a statement like "A = not A", than the whole system does not collapse; but that statement must be rooted out and something else must take its place.
Secondly - and this is where pragmatism is important - if a system does not risk being hit by a truck, then it is a pointless system. What good is knowledge if it doesn't explain the world? I want to know why WWI happened. I want to know what is behind suicide bombings. Tell me why the Earth casts a shadow on the moon.
In other words, if a knowledge system does not take into account and explain events, behaviour patterns and the natural world, then at best it is a logically airtight, free-floating series of utterly useless statements. Systems must make statements that can be contradicted by our experience; if you aren't risking being hit by a truck, then who cares what you are saying? I don't. The whole point of knowledge is give coherence to our experience, and divorcing knowledge from experience is desperate folly.
And thirdly, everything above is nice and idealistic. Even getting hit by a truck. The problem with all of it is, however, that we don't have unmediated access to our experience. I'm not contradicting myself here; I'm explaining a difficultly. Every epistemology must not only have a test for truth, but it must also explain how we gather information in the first place. How, exactly, do we interact with the world, quite apart from any academic methodology?
I've already talked about this. The post on Martin Heidegger and AI is important, and so is the post on Michel Foucault and discourse. Both discuss the practical limits and bounds on our perception of the world.
So, this is the first post in another series - developing a method to explain our world.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
Open Texture Contents
Posts by Topic and Date:
Current Events / Politics:
2004 Federal Election Preview - June 13, 2004
2004 Federal Election Aftermath - June 29, 2004
Missile Defense and Abortion - August 25, 2004
Gun Control I - September 1, 2004
Gun Control II - September 17, 2004
Watershed: 2004 U.S. Election Aftermath - November 3, 2004
Book Burnin' - June 7, 2005
Abu Ghraib Isn't Over Yet - July 29, 2005
Bush Family Spirit Guide? - September 20 - 2005
Philosophy / Culture / Ethics
Young Man Syndrome - April 27, 2004
T.V. and Story Telling - May 20, 2004
Kurt Vonnegut - August 12, 2004
Hazing, Dionysian Style - October 13, 2004
Becoming Perplexed - January 30, 2005
Structuralism: 2, Two, II - April 14, 2005
Michel Foucult: Discourse - April 16, 2005
Martin Heidegger: Artificial Intelligence - April 20, 2005
Ernst Cassirer: Magical Language I - July 8, 2005
Ernst Cassirer: Magical Language II - July 13, 2005
Epistemology I: No Archimedean Point - August 8, 2005
Albert Camus: Resistance, Rebellion and Death - August 11, 2005
Evolution / I.D. I: History - September 10, 2005
Postmodern Relativism - September 13, 2005
Evolution / I.D.: Meth/Meta Naturalisms - September 15, 2005
Evolution / I.D.: Falsifiability, Anti-Science, etc. - September 21, 2005
Evolution / I.D.: Scientific Young Earth Creationism - September 30, 2005
Solzhenitsyn on Violence and Falsehood - October 2, 2005
Evolution / I.D.: Intelligent Design - October 3, 2005
Evolution / I.D.: Education Concerns - October 6, 2005
A lazy post about war - October 13, 2005
Creating Yourself and the World (cross indexed to religion) - October 17, 2o05
Philosophy of Law:
Aristotle and Aquinas - April 25, 2005
Austin's Command Theory and Holmes' Realism - April 29, 2005
Hart's Rules Theory - May 13, 2005
Dworkin's Principles - May 25, 2005
Critical Legal Theorists - June 29, 2005
Power and Recognition - July 27, 2005
More Than Just The Text - July 28, 2005
Religion:
Christian Right Declares War on Homosexuals! - May 4, 2004
Challenging Faith - May 28, 2004
The Bounds of Credulity - July 19, 2004
Augustine on Genesis - July 21, 2004
Slacktivist's Left Behind Archives - April 30, 2005
A Functional Theory of Religion - July 20, 2005
Back in the Game! - October 10, 2005
Creating Yourself and the World (cross indexed to philosophy) - October 17, 2o05
Reviews:
Christopher, Great Big Sea, Spirit of the West - July 6, 2004
The Village - August 3, 2004
Collatoral, Alien vs. Predator, The Exorcist - August 25, 2004
Sarah McLachlan - May 17, 2005
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith - May 21, 2005
Batman Begins - June 17, 2005
Miscellaneous
Inaugural Post - April 26, 2004
Saved! Preview
Blogger Book Tag - June 4, 2005
Current Events / Politics:
2004 Federal Election Preview - June 13, 2004
2004 Federal Election Aftermath - June 29, 2004
Missile Defense and Abortion - August 25, 2004
Gun Control I - September 1, 2004
Gun Control II - September 17, 2004
Watershed: 2004 U.S. Election Aftermath - November 3, 2004
Book Burnin' - June 7, 2005
Abu Ghraib Isn't Over Yet - July 29, 2005
Bush Family Spirit Guide? - September 20 - 2005
Philosophy / Culture / Ethics
Young Man Syndrome - April 27, 2004
T.V. and Story Telling - May 20, 2004
Kurt Vonnegut - August 12, 2004
Hazing, Dionysian Style - October 13, 2004
Becoming Perplexed - January 30, 2005
Structuralism: 2, Two, II - April 14, 2005
Michel Foucult: Discourse - April 16, 2005
Martin Heidegger: Artificial Intelligence - April 20, 2005
Ernst Cassirer: Magical Language I - July 8, 2005
Ernst Cassirer: Magical Language II - July 13, 2005
Epistemology I: No Archimedean Point - August 8, 2005
Albert Camus: Resistance, Rebellion and Death - August 11, 2005
Evolution / I.D. I: History - September 10, 2005
Postmodern Relativism - September 13, 2005
Evolution / I.D.: Meth/Meta Naturalisms - September 15, 2005
Evolution / I.D.: Falsifiability, Anti-Science, etc. - September 21, 2005
Evolution / I.D.: Scientific Young Earth Creationism - September 30, 2005
Solzhenitsyn on Violence and Falsehood - October 2, 2005
Evolution / I.D.: Intelligent Design - October 3, 2005
Evolution / I.D.: Education Concerns - October 6, 2005
A lazy post about war - October 13, 2005
Creating Yourself and the World (cross indexed to religion) - October 17, 2o05
Philosophy of Law:
Aristotle and Aquinas - April 25, 2005
Austin's Command Theory and Holmes' Realism - April 29, 2005
Hart's Rules Theory - May 13, 2005
Dworkin's Principles - May 25, 2005
Critical Legal Theorists - June 29, 2005
Power and Recognition - July 27, 2005
More Than Just The Text - July 28, 2005
Religion:
Christian Right Declares War on Homosexuals! - May 4, 2004
Challenging Faith - May 28, 2004
The Bounds of Credulity - July 19, 2004
Augustine on Genesis - July 21, 2004
Slacktivist's Left Behind Archives - April 30, 2005
A Functional Theory of Religion - July 20, 2005
Back in the Game! - October 10, 2005
Creating Yourself and the World (cross indexed to philosophy) - October 17, 2o05
Reviews:
Christopher, Great Big Sea, Spirit of the West - July 6, 2004
The Village - August 3, 2004
Collatoral, Alien vs. Predator, The Exorcist - August 25, 2004
Sarah McLachlan - May 17, 2005
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith - May 21, 2005
Batman Begins - June 17, 2005
Miscellaneous
Inaugural Post - April 26, 2004
Saved! Preview
Blogger Book Tag - June 4, 2005
Friday, July 29, 2005
Abu Ghraib Isn't Over Yet
Eventually, I'll get around to a post wherein I'll talk about how the following is standard procedure in wars - support war, support atrocity. But for now, come with me and soak in impotent rage.
Back in May, Donald Rumsfeld testified about additional photos and video tapes from Abu Ghraib. These photos and tapes had yet to be released, and Rumsfeld was arguing that they should be kept secret because "if these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."
How much worse? You sure you want to know?
A link from Salon:
. . .if Seymour Hersh is right, it all gets much worse.
Back in May, Donald Rumsfeld testified about additional photos and video tapes from Abu Ghraib. These photos and tapes had yet to be released, and Rumsfeld was arguing that they should be kept secret because "if these are released to the public, obviously it's going to make matters worse."
How much worse? You sure you want to know?
A link from Salon:
. . .if Seymour Hersh is right, it all gets much worse.
Hersh gave a speech last week to the ACLU making the charge that children were sodomized in front of women in the prison, and the Pentagon has tape of it. The speech was first reported in a New York Sun story last week, which was in turn posted on Jim Romenesko's media blog, and now EdCone.com and other blogs are linking to the video. We transcribed the critical section here (it starts at about 1:31:00 into the ACLU video.) At the start of the transcript here, you can see how Hersh was struggling over what he should say:
"Debating about it, ummm ... Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out."
"It's impossible to say to yourself how did we get there? Who are we? Who are these people that sent us there? When I did My Lai I was very troubled like anybody in his right mind would be about what happened. I ended up in something I wrote saying in the end I said that the people who did the killing were as much victims as the people they killed because of the scars they had, I can tell you some of the personal stories by some of the people who were in these units witnessed this. I can also tell you written complaints were made to the highest officers and so we're dealing with a enormous massive amount of criminal wrongdoing that was covered up at the highest command out there and higher, and we have to get to it and we will. We will. You know there's enough out there, they can't (Applause). .... So it's going to be an interesting election year."
Notes from a similar speech Hersh gave in Chicago in June were posted on Brad DeLong's blog. Rick Pearlstein, who watched the speech, wrote: "[Hersh] said that after he broke Abu Ghraib people are coming out of the woodwork to tell him this stuff. He said he had seen all the Abu Ghraib pictures. He said, 'You haven't begun to see evil...' then trailed off. He said, 'horrible things done to children of women prisoners, as the cameras run.' He looked frightened."
So, there are several questions here: Has Hersh actually seen the video he described to the ACLU, and why hasn't he written about it yet? Will he be forced to elaborate in more public venues now that these two speeches are getting so much attention, at least in the blogosphere? And who else has seen the video, if it exists -- will journalists see and report on it? did senators see these images when they had their closed-door sessions with the Abu Ghraib evidence? -- and what is being done about it?
(Update: A reader brought to our attention that the rape of boys at Abu Ghraib has been mentioned in some news accounts of the prisoner abuse evidence. The Telegraph and other news organizations described "a videotape, apparently made by US personnel, is said to show Iraqi guards raping young boys." The Guardian reported "formal statements by inmates published yesterday describe horrific treatment at the hands of guards, including the rape of a teenage Iraqi boy by an army translator.")
Follow the Telegraphy and Guardian links to learn more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
