This was a very interesting interview that touched on a lot of topics I am interested in, and overall, I think I like David Gornoski, but there are some points on which I disagree with him strongly.
For example, I don’t think Gornoski is giving pre-Christian cultures enough credit… even before Christianity, sacrifice was often not unanimous, and there were people who though to this from the victim’s perspective.
For example, Aristotle was a pre-Christian philosopher. Now, Aristotle himself was an awful, pro-sl*very person, but in his text we learn that some of his philosophical opponents were not:
but others think that herile government is contrary to nature, and that it is the law which makes one man a slave and another free, but that in nature there is no difference; for which reason that power cannot be founded in justice, but in force.
Alright, so Aristotle goes on to make a pro-sl*very argument, but it’s significant that he acknowledges that there were people in his time period — a pre-Christian time period — who argued that slavery was against nature and not founded in justice. We don’t really know much about these people, other than that Aristotle acknowledged that they did in fact exist. As Aristotle acknowledged that this people pointed out, the pro-sl*very side of the debate probably won control of society through military force, but clearly, not through unanimity.
This debate, between anti-sl*very and pro-sl*very, between good and evil, continues to this day. (And yes, I realize that there are many shades of grey between good and evil… but you get the idea.) As Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick
documents in What Sl*veholders Think: How Contemporary Perpetrators Rationalize What They Do, there are still pro-sl*very people alive running around doing pro-sl*very things.
cup [dot] columbia [dot] edu/book/what-slaveholders-think/9780231181822
How little we know about these people who, in Aristotle’s time period, argued that sl*very was unjust, should be a reminder that there were many people in history we know even less about. Just because we don’t have records of philosophical debates from Central America during Aristotle’s time period (at least, not to my knowledge, and admittedly I am not an expert in Central American archaeology) doesn’t mean that everyone was unanimous in their agreement on scapegoating or any other subject. And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just as there were ethical debates in pre-Christian Greece, there were likely ethical debates in every other part of the world with a human presence. I personally believe that wherever significant evil is to be found, there can also be found good people fighting against the evil, albeit possibly in covert, cautious ways. That’s not something I can prove is a universal truth, but empirically, every evil regime I’ve studied has inspired some type of resistance, however small.
To be continued… I also have some stuff to say about Diogenes (a Greek anti-sl*very philosopher) and Socrates (a controversial martyr who was scapegoated, but certainly not unanimously)
This was a very interesting interview that touched on a lot of topics I am interested in, and overall, I think I like David Gornoski. However, there are some points on which I disagree with him strongly. For example, I don’t think Gornoski is giving pre-Christian cultures enough credit… even before Christianity, sacrifice was often not unanimous, and there were people who thought of things from the victim’s perspective.
For example, Aristotle was a pre-Christian philosopher. Now, Aristotle himself was an awful, pro-sl*very person, but in his text we learn that some of his philosophical opponents were not:
but others think that herile government is contrary to nature, and that it is the law which makes one man a sl*ve and another free, but that in nature there is no difference; for which reason that power cannot be founded in justice, but in force.
Alright, so Aristotle goes on to make a pro-sl*very argument, but it’s significant that he acknowledges that there were people in his time period — a pre-Christian time period — who argued that sl*very was against nature and not founded in justice. We don’t really know much about these people, other than that Aristotle acknowledged that they did in fact exist. As Aristotle acknowledged that this people pointed out, the pro-sl*very side of the debate probably won control of society through military force, but clearly, not through unanimity.
This debate, between anti-sl*very and pro-sl*very, between good and evil, continues to this day. (And yes, I realize that there are many shades of grey between good and evil… but you get the idea.) As Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick
documents in What Sl*veholders Think: How Contemporary Perpetrators Rationalize What They Do, there are still pro-sl*very people alive running around doing pro-sl*very things.
How little we know about these people who, in Aristotle’s time period, argued that sl*very was unjust, should be a reminder that there were many people in history we know even less about. Just because we don’t have records of philosophical debates from Central America during Aristotle’s time period (at least, not to my knowledge, and admittedly I am not an expert in Central American archaeology) doesn’t mean that everyone was unanimous in their agreement on scapegoating or any other subject. And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just as there were ethical debates in pre-Christian Greece, there were likely ethical debates in every other part of the world with a human presence. I personally believe that wherever significant evil is to be found, there can also be found good people fighting against the evil, albeit possibly in covert, cautious ways. That’s not something I can prove is a universal truth, but empirically, every evil regime I’ve studied has inspired some type of resistance, however small.
To be continued… I also have some stuff to say about Diogenes (a Greek anti-sl*very philosopher) and Socrates (a controversial martyr who was scapegoated, but certainly not unanimously)
I would argue that scapegoating is simply an exercise of raw power … plus a bit of post-hoc self justification.
Inevitably the “scapegoat” is either a political rival, or someone who has been asking the wrong sorts of questions, or disrespecting the priesthood, etc. The reason people settle down after the scapegoat gets clobbered is not because of any human spirituality … but for no better reason than because they don’t want to be next.
It’s one of those things that powerful people need to display from time to time, in order to remind everyone they still have what it takes. It really doesn’t matter what the political structure is … you always have someone in a position of power, and that person has a strong incentive to keep the others in line.
The reason people settle down after the scapegoat gets clobbered is not because of any human spirituality … but for no better reason than because they don’t want to be next.
Having read Daniel P. Mannix’s History of Torture, I believe there is evidence to suggest that you may be correct about that. (Sorry I’m not certain about that, but the psychology of torture is difficult for me to understand even after having read a number of books on the topic, including that one.)
To cite one example from that book (if this entire passage is too long, maybe just read the part in bold — I include the rest for context),
The Inquisitors were ruthless as they were convinced that they were fighting with the powers of darkness for the prisoner’s soul. For the victim to die unrepentant was a victory for the devil. One of the most terrible of them was Conrad of Marburg who from 1227 until 1233 created a reign of terror in Germany unequalled until the advent of Hitler.
Conrad was born in the little German town of Marburg in 1180. He became a secular priest and begged in rags while practicing the most savage penitences on himself. He was regarded as a saint and could have reached any position in the Church, but Conrad refused all offers and continued his life of extreme austerity and self-imposed punishments.
In 1225, Conrad witnessed the execution of Henry Minneke at Goslar, Germany. Minneke had been the provost of a Cistercian convent, but had preached the doctrine that Christ was really the son of the Holy Ghost rather than of God the Father. He was burned at the stake for heresy. The sight of the dying man’s agonies awakened some deep passion in the fanatical priest. “Salvation can come only from pain,” he decided, and devoted his life to that doctrine.
Elizabeth of Thuringia, who had been married at thirteen to the Langrave but was widowed, became so impressed by Conrad that she put herself completely into his hands. Elizabeth was eighteen at the time and the mother of three children, but Conrad ordered her to abandon all worldly possessions, to leave her children and her home and live among beggars and lepers. She obeyed him but continued to visit Conrad in his private quarters. The rumor went about that during these meetings, Conrad had ordered the young girl to strip herself naked. Elizabeth proudly admitted the charge. “And here is the reason!” she said triumphantly, exhibiting a cat-o’-nine-tail, still dripping blood, with which Conrad had scourged her nude body. Later she said anxiously, “If I fear a man like this, what must God be like?”
In 1227, Gregory IX ordered Conrad to investigate a sect in Germany known as the Luciferans. This group considered that everything worldly was evil and as God could not have created evil, it followed that the devil must have made the world. Conrad departed on his mission but received word en route that Elizabeth had died as a result of her life of exaggerated asceticism. Conrad suffered a complete collapse at the news. He was unable to continue with his crusade and could do nothing but send loiters to the Pope Imploring him to have Elizabeth made a saint.
Another Inquisitor, Conrad Tors, had to be sent to investigate the Luciferans. Tors adopted as his moto, “It is fitting to burn a hundred innocent in order to destroy one heretic among them.” When accounts of Tors’ exploits reached Conrad, he was galvanized into activity. He displaced Tors and assumed command of the investigation.
Almost at once, Conrad had a great stroke of luck. A twenty-year-old girl who’d had a quarrel with her family told Conrad that they were Luciferans. Under torture, the family confessed and then, under the threat of additional tortures, implicated others. The accused were instantly arrested and tortured until they named still others and soon half the population of Germany was accusing the other half.
These confessions made under the most hideous tortures sound, not surprisingly, like the ravings of a lunatic. One woman described a Luciferan ceremony by saying that she was first forced to kiss a toad, which then turned into a duck “the size of an oven”. A black cat jumped out of the inside of a statue crying, “What does this teach?” A voice replied, “The highest peace.” Then the lights went out.
Conrad sent these confessions to Gregory, who exclaimed in horror, “Such people should be wiped from the earth, sparing neither age nor sex.”
Conrad tried to comply, while at the same time mourning for the tragic death of Elizabeth. In Strasburg alone he burned eighty men, women, and children. In his fury he spared no one — not even nobles or prominent church dignitaries. At last the Archbishops of Cologne, Treves, and Mayence appealed to the Pope, writing:
“Whoever falls into his hands has only the choice between a ready confession and a denial, whereupon he is speedily burned. Every false witness is accepted but no defense granted. Many devout Catholics have suffered themselves to be burned rather than confess to vicious crimes of which they were innocent. The weak ones lie about themselves and others. Brothers accuse brothers, wives their husbands, servants their masters. Many give money to the clergy for advice on how to protect themselves and everything is in confusion.”
Then Conrad went too far. He accused Henry, count of Sayn, of heresy. Henry was one of the most powerful nobles in Germany, and, supported by both the king and the German bishops, he demanded a public trial. The trial was held at Mainz in 1233. Conrad produced witnesses who had sworn to seeing Henry at Luciferan ceremonies, but when guaranteed protection from the Inquisitor’s tortures, the witnesses recanted, admitting that they had accused Henry only to save themselves.
The court ruled in favor of Henry. Conrad went mad with rage. He swore to have the entire court condemned as heretics and set off for Rome to appeal directly to the Pope. On the way, he was murdered by the nobles whom he had denounced. He died without knowing that two years later the Pope would answer his constant desperate pleas and canonize poor little Saint Elizabeth.
To Robert Murphy:
Do you have a article or a podcast or anything with your views of the Afghanistan papers anywhere? I was just listening to another podcast on the subject, and was wondering what your take was.
This was a very interesting interview that touched on a lot of topics I am interested in, and overall, I think I like David Gornoski, but there are some points on which I disagree with him strongly.
For example, I don’t think Gornoski is giving pre-Christian cultures enough credit… even before Christianity, sacrifice was often not unanimous, and there were people who though to this from the victim’s perspective.
For example, Aristotle was a pre-Christian philosopher. Now, Aristotle himself was an awful, pro-sl*very person, but in his text we learn that some of his philosophical opponents were not:
— Aristotle, Politics
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/6762/pg6762-images.html
Alright, so Aristotle goes on to make a pro-sl*very argument, but it’s significant that he acknowledges that there were people in his time period — a pre-Christian time period — who argued that slavery was against nature and not founded in justice. We don’t really know much about these people, other than that Aristotle acknowledged that they did in fact exist. As Aristotle acknowledged that this people pointed out, the pro-sl*very side of the debate probably won control of society through military force, but clearly, not through unanimity.
This debate, between anti-sl*very and pro-sl*very, between good and evil, continues to this day. (And yes, I realize that there are many shades of grey between good and evil… but you get the idea.) As Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick
documents in What Sl*veholders Think: How Contemporary Perpetrators Rationalize What They Do, there are still pro-sl*very people alive running around doing pro-sl*very things.
cup [dot] columbia [dot] edu/book/what-slaveholders-think/9780231181822
How little we know about these people who, in Aristotle’s time period, argued that sl*very was unjust, should be a reminder that there were many people in history we know even less about. Just because we don’t have records of philosophical debates from Central America during Aristotle’s time period (at least, not to my knowledge, and admittedly I am not an expert in Central American archaeology) doesn’t mean that everyone was unanimous in their agreement on scapegoating or any other subject. And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just as there were ethical debates in pre-Christian Greece, there were likely ethical debates in every other part of the world with a human presence. I personally believe that wherever significant evil is to be found, there can also be found good people fighting against the evil, albeit possibly in covert, cautious ways. That’s not something I can prove is a universal truth, but empirically, every evil regime I’ve studied has inspired some type of resistance, however small.
To be continued… I also have some stuff to say about Diogenes (a Greek anti-sl*very philosopher) and Socrates (a controversial martyr who was scapegoated, but certainly not unanimously)
This was a very interesting interview that touched on a lot of topics I am interested in, and overall, I think I like David Gornoski. However, there are some points on which I disagree with him strongly. For example, I don’t think Gornoski is giving pre-Christian cultures enough credit… even before Christianity, sacrifice was often not unanimous, and there were people who thought of things from the victim’s perspective.
For example, Aristotle was a pre-Christian philosopher. Now, Aristotle himself was an awful, pro-sl*very person, but in his text we learn that some of his philosophical opponents were not:
but others think that herile government is contrary to nature, and that it is the law which makes one man a sl*ve and another free, but that in nature there is no difference; for which reason that power cannot be founded in justice, but in force.
— Aristotle, Politics
https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/6762/pg6762-images.html
Alright, so Aristotle goes on to make a pro-sl*very argument, but it’s significant that he acknowledges that there were people in his time period — a pre-Christian time period — who argued that sl*very was against nature and not founded in justice. We don’t really know much about these people, other than that Aristotle acknowledged that they did in fact exist. As Aristotle acknowledged that this people pointed out, the pro-sl*very side of the debate probably won control of society through military force, but clearly, not through unanimity.
This debate, between anti-sl*very and pro-sl*very, between good and evil, continues to this day. (And yes, I realize that there are many shades of grey between good and evil… but you get the idea.) As Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick
documents in What Sl*veholders Think: How Contemporary Perpetrators Rationalize What They Do, there are still pro-sl*very people alive running around doing pro-sl*very things.
How little we know about these people who, in Aristotle’s time period, argued that sl*very was unjust, should be a reminder that there were many people in history we know even less about. Just because we don’t have records of philosophical debates from Central America during Aristotle’s time period (at least, not to my knowledge, and admittedly I am not an expert in Central American archaeology) doesn’t mean that everyone was unanimous in their agreement on scapegoating or any other subject. And absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just as there were ethical debates in pre-Christian Greece, there were likely ethical debates in every other part of the world with a human presence. I personally believe that wherever significant evil is to be found, there can also be found good people fighting against the evil, albeit possibly in covert, cautious ways. That’s not something I can prove is a universal truth, but empirically, every evil regime I’ve studied has inspired some type of resistance, however small.
To be continued… I also have some stuff to say about Diogenes (a Greek anti-sl*very philosopher) and Socrates (a controversial martyr who was scapegoated, but certainly not unanimously)
I would argue that scapegoating is simply an exercise of raw power … plus a bit of post-hoc self justification.
Inevitably the “scapegoat” is either a political rival, or someone who has been asking the wrong sorts of questions, or disrespecting the priesthood, etc. The reason people settle down after the scapegoat gets clobbered is not because of any human spirituality … but for no better reason than because they don’t want to be next.
It’s one of those things that powerful people need to display from time to time, in order to remind everyone they still have what it takes. It really doesn’t matter what the political structure is … you always have someone in a position of power, and that person has a strong incentive to keep the others in line.
Tel wrote,
Having read Daniel P. Mannix’s History of Torture, I believe there is evidence to suggest that you may be correct about that. (Sorry I’m not certain about that, but the psychology of torture is difficult for me to understand even after having read a number of books on the topic, including that one.)
To cite one example from that book (if this entire passage is too long, maybe just read the part in bold — I include the rest for context),
To Robert Murphy:
Do you have a article or a podcast or anything with your views of the Afghanistan papers anywhere? I was just listening to another podcast on the subject, and was wondering what your take was.