tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post4473366746047619303..comments2024-03-28T06:07:03.667-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: A FURTHER REPLY TO ROBERT SHORERobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger34125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-61982347814726212042016-07-26T14:38:19.918-04:002016-07-26T14:38:19.918-04:00My first reaction to the argument is that the time...My first reaction to the argument is that the time scale for a nuclear war is entirely different from that of the traditional narrow pursuit in foreign policy of reciprocal arrangements and re-arrangements based on the horror vacui principle. The question for me is not so much the destabilization a Trump may be quicker to bring as the moves towards a destabilized world that both Clinton and Trump might willy nilly perform in the pursuit of what they understand to be their interests---those of their class as well as their own. Can't the argument that the unreadibility and unpredictability of candidate Trump is a destabilizing factor and makes it imperative to vote for Clinton by default be reversed? In the doctrine of mutual assured destruction, couldn't a lack of stability be considered an advantage in allowing US imperialistic forces to continue to operate and exploit opportunities maximally, whereas the need seen by Obama and perhaps also by Clinton to climb down from a perceived notion of agressive military posture (no matter the armament policies and NATO positions) might increase the dangers? I'm thinking mostly of China and its rising role in the world economic system. The US have been monitoring its borders in a very intrusive fashion for decades. It seems clear the US will have to negotiate and back off, and China will expand its own empire, financially and militarily. Which presidential candidate is likely to take the better decisions, meaning, to create a path for an orderly withdrawal from positions US imperialism cannot keep forever? The answer is not clear to me. A first impression is that the predictability of a Clinton in shoring up the presently triumphant capitalistic imperial project is as dangerous as Trump's predictable unpredictability. After four or eight years of Clinton, will the US be on a course of smart retreat while using its power to enjoin more just arrangements in the use of labor and capital, or will it be on a confrontational course? --Gildas HamelGildas Hamelnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-84929636098497016412016-07-25T15:00:44.788-04:002016-07-25T15:00:44.788-04:00Professor Wolff,
Thank you for another interestin...Professor Wolff,<br /><br />Thank you for another interesting post. I agree with your conclusions, but was hoping you could elucidate what you mean when you say "imperial" and bring both the US and Russia under that term. Historically, hasn't this been associated with foreign control over a country's economy, most often foreign ownership of a country's natural resources? The term is fuzzy for me, and I'm certainly not an expert on the matter, but to argue against Russia being an imperialist power couldn't one point to large sectors of the unindustrialized Russian Empire being foreign-owned, and, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and introduction of neoiiberal policies, the Russian economy being opened up to Western corporations? Russia strikes me as a big and powerful third world country with its economy based mostly around the export of natural resources. The oligarchy (another third world characteristic) seems to be a clear consequence of the neoliberal policies that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. Perhaps I'm looking at the question the wrong way. In any case, I would much appreciate comments from you, professor, or other readers with thoughts on the topic.Karlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12111937187498394636noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-32240066260137542132016-07-25T14:26:56.633-04:002016-07-25T14:26:56.633-04:00With my tongue only part way in my cheek, and noti...With my tongue only part way in my cheek, and noting that as scary as Barry Goldwater was, he was a career politician and at least somewhat more deliberate than Trump (I acknowledge what a low bar that is), why doesn't Hillary's cadre update something like the highly effective little girl and the flower commercial ?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13327328087892111406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-30634316793717745892016-07-25T14:24:51.219-04:002016-07-25T14:24:51.219-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13327328087892111406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-50844303530041963992016-07-25T14:16:42.278-04:002016-07-25T14:16:42.278-04:00I guess my best guess seems clear and obvious to m...I guess my best guess seems clear and obvious to me. I hope your view is clear and obvious to you too, because it's not enough to just think my view isn't clear and obvious. Tom Cathcarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136970056480275148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-55605765698001890862016-07-25T13:05:30.122-04:002016-07-25T13:05:30.122-04:00That's awesome, Tom, that your "best gues...That's awesome, Tom, that your "best guess" is that he's a sociopath and that she isn't. Would you, however, say that that is "clear" and "obvious"? By "best guess," I take it that you don't think that is the case. I also take it that your best guess isn't any more informed than mine (despite that you might very well believe with complete certainty so). I suspect she's just as duplicitous and possibly even more sociopathic than he is. So armchair speculation aside, nothing I have seen suggest it's clear or obvious. Read my posts again if that last part wasn't made clear.hopelessmisanthropenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-825964268750405192016-07-25T12:52:25.866-04:002016-07-25T12:52:25.866-04:00I'm not an expert on either jurisprudence or T...I'm not an expert on either jurisprudence or Trump's mentality, so do I "know" that Trump's Supreme Court picks would guarantee reactionary opinions for the next 20 years? Nope, but as a voter I'm charged with making my best guess. My best guess is he's a sociopath. My best guess is he's a narcissist. My best guess is that ISIS could get under his skin and trigger his worst impulses. My best guess is that Hillary, while flawed and to my right, is more predictable. If one's assessment, hopeless misanthrope, is that there's no significant provable difference between the two, that doesn't remove the risk of taking one's best, semi-educated guess, and voting for Jill Stein doesn't get one off the hook. Tom Cathcarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136970056480275148noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-39875485117222638872016-07-25T12:24:04.187-04:002016-07-25T12:24:04.187-04:00Professor Wolff,
My general position on this ques...Professor Wolff,<br /><br />My general position on this question and this election generally is that we should all be much less certain than we are, and should decide our course of action primarily in light of that (I think) unprecedented uncertainty rather than primarily on our confident predictions, which have been so often wrong throughout the primaries.<br /><br />So I gladly accept the possibility that I might be very wrong about HRC, but doesn't your claim about Trump depend somewhat on armchair psychological evaluation of Trump, which is equally contentious?<br /><br />And you must admit that many other commentators (like Leiter) rely on very strong non-professional psychological claims in their arguments against Trump. Isn't that asymmetry a possible problem for a reliable or at least strong conclusion about who is a greater nuclear risk?<br /><br />In any case, I would sincerely be interested in your further thoughts about the psychology of Clinton's decision making--on where I'm wrong and your own interpretation of her decisions like Iraq and Libya.<br /><br />I don't think my general claim is extremely controversial or outlandish on its face: that she makes many decisions out of political expediency (e.g. endorsing marriage equality only after it stops being a political liability). <br /><br />When that includes possibly supporting an illegal, unnecessary, and very poorly justified war out of expediency, knowing that thousands of civilians will die, that strikes me as arguably symptomatic of a higher than average degree of sociopathy. (I'm assuming she's too intelligent to have believed the shoddy evidence or to have trusted the administration's claim of unseen better evidence.)<br /><br />I don't think the claim she's narcissistic is so outlandish or unusual as to not deserve counter argument either. To be sure, a higher than average degree of narcissism is probably necessary for politicians, and she may not be as bad as Trump, but I'm honestly surprised you would insist it's an almost *entirely* wrong diagnosis. (It seems a bit uncharitable to reject a view so sweepingly without further explanation.)<br /><br />But I sense there's a kind of temporary almost apocalyptic madness that has taken hold of us all of late, myself included. From every party and wing on every side of the political spectrum, we are anxious to assert, defend, and entertain maximal views. Every danger is unprecedented, every evil is diabolical. The surprising though probably not coincidental side effect of this is that we become excessively charitable, cautious, and nuanced in our judgements of those we'd otherwise be much tougher on. Held up against a world of so many Devils-than-which-there-can-be-no-greater we all come off as almost angelic or at least (and this is what counts to save us from self hatred and despair for our future) just good enough.<br /><br />I'm still afraid we may perish from being merely good enough, and from placing our trust and lives in the merely good enough. Which isn't to imply we will won't perish either way.Yannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-24099966670756238692016-07-25T12:23:35.560-04:002016-07-25T12:23:35.560-04:00Hopeless misanthrope,
You sound a bit self-righte...Hopeless misanthrope,<br /><br />You sound a bit self-righteous yourself. Why this crusade against Professor Leiter? <br /><br />s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-22109847522961688662016-07-25T12:03:28.490-04:002016-07-25T12:03:28.490-04:00Of course informal speech is informal. But it is a...Of course informal speech is informal. But it is also often exaggerated and careless. You say that he is "probably right" that Trump is a sociopath. Are you a psychiatrist? Have you given Trump Hare's inventory? If not I suggest you check out what bullshit means (see Harry Frankfurt's 'On Bullshit').<br /><br />"Can you give a source for that besides your own informal opinion? "<br /><br />That is the difference. I can supply facts. She advocated for the war in Iraq. It took her many years to admit that that was a mistake and eventually she did (it took Trump far less time, only a matter of a few months to reverse his position on the war). But she has also advocated for many other disastrous foreign interventions such as Libya since Iraq. Again, these are facts. They are not slapdash psychological evaluations by non experts such as yourself or Leiter. That's the difference. I base my political views on these kinds of facts, not bullshit. hopelessmisanthropenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-44572134765071514072016-07-25T11:52:38.764-04:002016-07-25T11:52:38.764-04:00Hopeless misanthrope,
Informal speech is not hype...Hopeless misanthrope,<br /><br />Informal speech is not hyperbolic or careless or slapdash. It's informal. <br /><br />Leiter is probably right in insisting that Trump is a sociopath, but he's doing that informally, not as a professional psychologist. That does not make his opinion hyperbolic or careless or slapdash. <br /><br />As a matter of fact, you yourself have made a series of affirmations about Professor Wolff and Professor Leiter, about Trump and Clinton. For example, you claim that Clinton has not learned from her actions. Can you give a source for that besides your own informal opinion? Can you footnote that? Are you privy to what goes on in Clinton's head or to her private conversations? No, so if you give your own informal opinions in this blog, why do you object when Professor Wolff and Professor Leiter do?<br /><br /> s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-53462614056848941932016-07-25T11:38:01.545-04:002016-07-25T11:38:01.545-04:00s. wallerstein,
You are right about one thing. In...s. wallerstein,<br /><br />You are right about one thing. In blogs, it's common for people to be careless in their claims. And people use hyperbolic speech. That doesn't make it any less BS though. Of course many of us including myself have called people sociopaths before in a way that's exaggeration. But some people base their political views on such slapdash psychological evaluations. I don't do that and neither should you. I base mine on facts. What has he said and done specifically to make the claim that HRC is "clearly" a better candidate? Trump has shown a long history of lies, narcissism and probably even ripping many people off. Clinton has shown a long history of wanting to bomb other countries even when hundreds of thousands of innocent people are killed and then not taking any responsibility for that and not learning from her actions. <br /><br />I am a Jill Stein supporter. I don't like either HRC or Trump. I also don't like bullshit whether that be from politicians or philosophers claiming that they in the business of rational discourse and are supposedly pros at it. hopelessmisanthropenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-5655864662956493432016-07-25T11:30:30.891-04:002016-07-25T11:30:30.891-04:00S. Wallerestein concecdes too much to the ignorant...S. Wallerestein concecdes too much to the ignorant misanthrope: psychology isn't rocket science. Trump is obviously a sociopath and obviously suffers from what the DSM used to recognize as narcissistic personality disorder. I'm only agnostic on his other possible mental illnesses, which would require more intimate details about him. But I encourage our blog host to delete all of the misanthrope's comments, so he goes away and doesn't disrupt the usually high quality of discussion here. Again, my apologies, but linking always risks bringing cranks out of the woodworks.Brian Leiterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08749548844483929392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-7460160159877536842016-07-25T11:19:48.036-04:002016-07-25T11:19:48.036-04:00Hopeless misanthrope,
I think that you're con...Hopeless misanthrope,<br /><br />I think that you're confusing games.<br /><br />This is a blog, not a philosophy seminar and Leiter writes in another blog, not a psychiatric hospital.<br /><br />Blogs are more informal than philosophy seminars or psychiatric hospitals. In blogs people express their opinions as citizens or as bloggers, not as professionals. We all know that Leiter is not a psychologist or psychiatrist and when Leiter gives his opinion (in his blog, not in one of his academic papers), he assumes that all of us know that he is not a psychologist or psychiatrist and that he is giving his informal opinion about Trump's personality. That's the way the blogging game works. s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-50620454320520637232016-07-25T11:08:12.063-04:002016-07-25T11:08:12.063-04:00Here's another good example of bullshit: Claim...Here's another good example of bullshit: Claiming that someone is a "sociopath" as Brian Leiter does when Leiter is not a trained psychologist/psychiatrist, and without supplying a certified psychological evaluation as evidence. In my opinion, both HRC and Trump show some signs of being a sociopath such as narcissism and mendacity. Those aren't all the traits or even the most distinctive traits of a sociopath from what I have read. But I don't know, I'm not trained to make that evaluation. That may just be hyperbole on his part but it doesn't seem to be because he's basing his argument on why voting for HRC is "clearly" the better option on that character evaluation. hopelessmisanthropenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-40184164442878216382016-07-25T10:50:20.179-04:002016-07-25T10:50:20.179-04:00Is Trump a narcissist? Possibly. A pathological li...Is Trump a narcissist? Possibly. A pathological liar? Again, very possibly. But Clinton also has shown repeated mendacity. Look at her lying to the FBI on her emails. Look at her lying about being shot at by snipers or about how she has always supported gay marriage. So on the character question, if we are to judge someone's character based on mendacity as some do, we cannot be certain that Trump's overall character is worse than that of Clinton's. <br /><br />But obviously character is far more than just mendacity and narcissism so it's rather simplistic to do so. I don't know why I should even have to make this point. All I am saying is that it seems that for many Clinton voters, they make claims using "clear" and "obvious" too often without solid evidence on these tricky issues. I don't think it's that obvious that she will be far worse than he will be. I'm sorry if that demand for higher standards of debate comes off as "ignorant". hopelessmisanthropenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-82256210502622276162016-07-25T10:38:52.130-04:002016-07-25T10:38:52.130-04:00Yan, I think your psychological evaluation of Clin...Yan, I think your psychological evaluation of Clinton is almost entirely wrong, regardless of what you think about her politics or her decisions on particular issues.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-42027794168967099472016-07-25T10:36:24.605-04:002016-07-25T10:36:24.605-04:00"Why should one dismiss the statement of &quo..."Why should one dismiss the statement of "it is clear" as bullshit?"<br /><br />Being bullshit doesn't mean that it isn't true. It means that the bullshitter doesn't have solid reasons to believe it to be true. So when someone says that it is "clear" that something is true even when it isn't clear and he provides no evidence to make it obviously clear, that is likely bulllshit. <br /><br />As for reading, Brian Leiter ought to reread my comments. His response is based on not reading carefully or perhaps not understanding what I wrote. I was talking about what Trump will be like in regards to his policies as a president (and how that it isn't clear what they are from his views expressed on his campaign since they are not reliable and often contradictory). Leiter mistook this as saying that we don't know what Trump's character is like. This is just inexcusably dense. hopelessmisanthropenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-57638882286246442632016-07-25T10:32:08.863-04:002016-07-25T10:32:08.863-04:00I agree with the conclusion, but think it's a ...I agree with the conclusion, but think it's a far less certain and obvious one than presented. <br /><br />Everyone mentions Trump's unpredictability, but I don't think people are taking it seriously enough. Trump strikes me as almost *literally* unpredictable, almost arbitrary in his opinions and statements. And so I think it's almost impossible to gauge his dangerousness: he could be far more, or far less, dangerous than anyone imagines. I think that is, in itself, an almost decisive point against him, but it still doesn't justify claiming he is almost certainly more dangerous, only that we are probably better off with a danger we know and feel confident we can overcome than with an unmeasurable possible danger. <br /><br />That is, I think we must factor in the unknown qua unknown into the assessment, not pretend that because it's unknown it's quantity is great. But we can still draw a weaker version of the same conclusion.<br /><br />I'm also uncertain about the claim that Clinton would not take military action rashly or without consultation with the military--except in a superficial sense. My impression of Libya (but maybe Syria and Honduras too)--as recounted in various sources, but the big NYT article is the main one I have in mind--is that it was rash, based on the opposition feeding them lines they wanted to hear, and not really carefully considering expert advice: everyone was split, the president was hesitant, and she pushed it through.<br /><br />Finally, my impression is that Hillary is every bit as much a narcissistic sociopath as Trump is supposed to be. (Maybe more so, I'm not sure Trump fits the sociopath diagnosis so obviously. I'm no psychologist, but would find it strange if the disparate over the top boastfulness that is his dominant trait is typical of sociopathy: it seems like a desire to be loved, admired, approved of of a kind that presupposes a kind of empathy, if a perverted, narcissistic form.)<br /><br />Anyway, the point is I think Clintons personality makes her more unpredictable than we think. I suspect her choices on both Iraq and Libya were a mix of career expediency (avoid looking like a weak on terror presidential candidate, add presidential FP experience to the resume) and a pathological need to prove she's tough (not unlike GWs pathological need to finish his fathers work while also besting it).<br /><br />Both trait are dangerous because decisions are not made in the national interest, but I'd say she's less dangerous precisely because she's more of a sociopath. She doesn't care enough about others to get into war to prove her worth. She'll only make war to advance her career, and that suggests more of the kind we've had for 15 years, not civilsation ending ones.Yannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-9890876287732781492016-07-25T10:01:41.913-04:002016-07-25T10:01:41.913-04:00Why should one dismiss the statement of "it i...Why should one dismiss the statement of "it is clear" as bullshit?<br /><br />One might be a bit skeptical whether what is being affirmed is really so clear, but from something being clear to it being bullshit is a long stretch and there are lots of positions in between. s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-78877841018528434102016-07-25T09:29:39.125-04:002016-07-25T09:29:39.125-04:00Roger Albin, Both points are well taken, and I ag...Roger Albin, Both points are well taken, and I agree with them both. As Freud would have said [and as Althusser would have mis-said], the decision to oppose Trump is over-determined.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-22105153943313383722016-07-25T07:53:59.186-04:002016-07-25T07:53:59.186-04:00Prof. Wolff - A cogent argument. A couple of poin...Prof. Wolff - A cogent argument. A couple of points for you to consider.<br />1) In one of the comments above, you state that climate change is a longer range problem. We don't, however, have a longer time frame to address it effectively. The window for keeping global temperatures below a safe threshold will close in the next few decades and we need substantial action now to mitigate this threat to our civilization. We can debate who is safer, Trump or Clinton (and I largely agree with you), but it is indisputable what would happen to US climate policy if Trump were elected - any chance of keeping global mean temperature rise below 2C will evaporate. In this context, Trump is a certain, not a theoretical threat to our civilization. <br />2) The biggest threat in terms of nuclear weapon use isn't a major exchange with Russia or China - its smaller scale use of nuclear weapons. It is easy to imagine Trump and his supporters incinerating a bunch of cities in the Middle East or North Korea. Even smaller scale nuclear arms use, on the scale of a war between India and Pakistan, would have dire consequences by producing a nuclear autumn that would substantially reduce world food production of many years. Look up the more recent work of Toon and Robock.Roger Albinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-75339980041021642492016-07-25T06:47:44.000-04:002016-07-25T06:47:44.000-04:00Thanks for this—timely, morally urgent, and utterl...Thanks for this—timely, morally urgent, and utterly terrifying. May Trump's tiny fingers stay forever distant from The Button.Daniel Munozhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10308920642524596609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-61163569112558133392016-07-24T16:17:21.988-04:002016-07-24T16:17:21.988-04:00So you debated Kissinger. What was your perso...So you debated Kissinger. What was your personal impression of him in general? We all know his war criminal record in Viet Nam and Cambodia and his nefarious role in backing and instigating military coups in Chile and Argentina as well as his rather masterful move to pact with China, but what drives him? Who is he? Is he just a pure opportunist in search of someone to sell his soul to?s. wallersteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17448905469871566228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-90700053180125357492016-07-24T16:15:54.215-04:002016-07-24T16:15:54.215-04:00Thank you, Bob, for the sanity. If I may, I'm...Thank you, Bob, for the sanity. If I may, I'm just catching up with Chris's comments of a few days ago. You are, of course, correct, Chris, that center-left parties can be pushed to the right. That is because that's where they perceive the center of the electorate to have moved. 1992 is the most obvious example, but there are many others. And sometimes they move to the left for the same reason: 1932 ff., 1964 (because liberal voters didn't foresee what LBJ would do about Viet Nam), 1972. We could debate the wisdom or morality of moving more to the right because that's where the voters are perceived to have moved (and the accompanying justification that without getting elected, no part of the liberal agenda will be implemented.) But my concern about your analysis, Chris, is on another tack. You fear that if we keep compromising, we'll just keep moving further to the right. My fear is that if Trump is elected, the temptation will be to move MUCH further to the right next time. Tom Cathcarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136970056480275148noreply@blogger.com