Hitler and science

[Athena]

http://books.google....science&f=false

 

Last night I listened to a philosophical OPB radio show about humanism, and it was said Hitler's Germany was focused on science. This was used as an argument that just science is not enough. However, this morning I googled for information and yes, the Germans were focused on science for technology, but Hitler opposed science and reason! I want to set the record straight.

 

Nietzsche was very popular in Germany and had a strong influence on Germany. We might ask why he was so popular? He opposed religion and seemed to favor strong willed people taking what they want. It appears Hitler rode on Nietzsche's popularity as some may ride and Ayn Rand's popularity. Colleges in the US have replaced classical philosophers with German ones and Nietsche is very popular in the US too. But may be if there is a strong preference for science and reason we will be okay, even though our economy appears to going the way of Germany's economy?

Edited August 3, 2012 by Athena

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Even though this topic seems to start with invoking Godwin's Law, please keep all comments civil and on topic. Thanks!

[CharonY]

Regarding Nietzsche, his sister was an anti-semite and a supporter of the national-socialists in Germany. She deliberately distorted his writings to the extent that it supported the line of the nationalist party (especially his example of an Ubermensch was contorted to a caricature in order to promote the idea of aryan supremacy. (See Nietzsche’s Sister and the Will to Power: A Biography of Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche by Carol Diethe).

[Athena]

!

Moderator Note

Even though this topic seems to start with invoking Godwin's Law, please keep all comments civil and on topic. Thanks!

 

I hope sooner or later, the importance of understanding of the history of education is understood. People are working with so much misinformation, they can not be blamed for what popular talk has lead them to believe, but making judgments without being being well informed about what one is judging is being "reactionary". The comparisons with Hitler's Germany need to be taken seriously, because the US adopted the German model of bureaucracy that shifts power from the individual to the state, and also the model of education that goes with this. Judging what I have just said, without a good understand of the these models and the social and political ramifications of the change, is reactionary. Critical thinking, of which these forums pride themselves, requires asking questions. Hitler opposed this. Hitler, attracted people who love power and had no fear of abusing it.

 

The US focused philosophy on the Greek and Roman philosophers. The democracy of the US was built on these philosophers. However, when the US adopted German institutional models, the colleges replaced the Greek and Roman philosophers with German Philosophers. Nietzsche was very popular as Germany mobilized for the first world war, and remained popular when Hitler seem to embrace his philosophy and opposed the restraints of reason, while promoting being brutish and strong willed. We like to pride ourselves with the belief that what happened in Germany would never happen here, but some of us believe the dude that dressed up like the joker and killed all those people in the theater, is an expression of a social problem. My local newspaper questioned the cultural causes of such behavior, and the movie industry that seems obsessed with such movies and produces few feel good movies.

 

We have had a cultural change and Charles Sarolea book "The Anglo-German Problem" written in 1912, explaining how the Prussians centralized public education, and destroyed Germany's heroes, seems to explain the cultural change we have experienced. Richard M. Brickner, M.D. wrote "Is Germany Incurable" in 1943 when the world was dealing with the second world war. He describes Germany as paranoid, and defines paranoia as an excessive need to be superior and in control. Compared to the culture we had when had liberal education, we are very paranoid today. Not just paranoid, but we have the highest rate of violent crime of any modern nation. I am trying to remember another word used for this change, it means dark, depressed spirited, demoralized. People who feel personally weak, seem to like strong authority to protect them. This is in extreme contrast to the high spirited feelings we had when Louis Pasteur made milk safe for children, and everyone celebrated all the children's that would be saved. My goodness, we have gone through a very exciting period of history when we first began to marvel at the wonders of science and dream of what technology would do for us. I think many here assume I am opposed to technology because I have written so much about against education for technology, replacing liberal education, but I collect old books, and live with the excitement of people when Newton proved the universe is ordered and somehow Christianity embraced the ordered universe, and the idea that science was proving God exist. When I read of the thrill of new truths revealed by science and advances made and possible in the future, I experience the joy of this science. I was born crippled, and three times advancing medicine has given me the ability to walk. It is like being given a new life each time I regain the ability to walk. But the spirit of our nation troubles me. The unrealistic expectations trouble me, and the comparisons with Germany trouble me.

 

It is a huge break through to me, to learn Hitler opposed reason, but look what is happening in the forums. At least twice I have faced mod action, that was taken without the mod carefully reading. This is "reactionary". I have gotten many bad points from people who have made no argument. This is "reactionary". Everyone here might value freedoms and independent thinking, but "they are being reactionary" and are hitting without reasoning. This is a cultural change from the days we had liberal education. Our education was modeled after ancient Athens and Roman and is now modeled after German education for technology, and this has manifested a profoundly different culture, with social and political ramifications. People here and now are hitting me without reasoning with me, and I am not the only one experiencing this problem. I assume I am not suppose to talk of such things, because this is my agenda. Should I stop thinking, and give up all effort to have a meaningful life, and just think about the physical experience of happiness and being liked? When Cicero and Jefferson wrote of the pursuit of happiness, they were speaking of the intellectual pursuit of happiness, and this was directly tied to having good moral judgment, but not tied to religion, and it is the foundation of the culture we once had. Who understands any of this today?

 

As I experience this problem, I keep looking for information to understand the problem, and articulate it better. The philosophy show was wrong to suggest our problem, and apparent moral chaos is the fault of science. The problem is not our love of science, but the lack of liberal education. Liberal education liberates the mind, and because the issue came up on philosophy program, and they wrongly said Hitler's highly valued science, suggesting it is atheism and a focus on science that is causes social problems, we need to understand the problem is not science, and it is not failing to be religious, but a lack of liberal education. When we stopped transmitting our culture, we created a communication problem. We are speaking English, but we do not share the same meanings. I hope, I am allowed to stay in the forum long enough for people to get I do not mean what they think I mean, and am not the bed guy they think I am, but we have a serious communication problems, because we no longer share meanings and the same reasoning we were once taught, such as the meaning of the pursuit of happiness and its tie to morality without religion.

 

Regarding Nietzsche, his sister was an anti-semite and a supporter of the national-socialists in Germany. She deliberately distorted his writings to the extent that it supported the line of the nationalist party (especially his example of an Ubermensch was contorted to a caricature in order to promote the idea of aryan supremacy. (See Nietzsche's Sister and the Will to Power: A Biography of Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche by Carol Diethe).

 

Thank you for the information! However, I want to add to this, in the US we have stressed the will to power also. Oh my, I am having a huge realization. I have a very old about the will to power book, written in the US, that I need to find and check the date. I think it comes up at the same time science and technology is promising us great things. This goes with a newer book 1988, I just began reading, and how educating for the will of power, plays into the conflict over education, and also our thoughts about greed and capitalism. There is also Christianity. The Protestant work ethic is great for capitalism, and comes from Germany, the Holy Roman Empire, but it is also attached to Martin Luther's interpretation of the bible, and firm belief that God ordains who will be masters and who will servants, which is attached to our ideas of who is deserving and who is not, and justifications for exploiting people. In our past, government has used religion to make the poor content with their poverty. Religiously, we are to obey and work hard and to accept our poverty because Jesus was poor and this is a good thing. Nietzsche opposed this. Hitler also opposed this reasoning and the suppression of the will to power, and doesn't Ayn Rand also glorify the will to power? Aren't our young quite sure they are superior? There appears to be some conflicts here and I my brain is melting down. On the one hand a will to power is a good thing, but on the other hand, it can turn very bad.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Athena

[mooeypoo]

I don't quite see how this comparison is valid at all.

 

Hitler didn't use science, he abused science. In fact, he abused quite a lot of things in his (quite sadly brilliant) use of propaganda.

 

He abused the way movies are made to enrage young people and send them on violent rampages against Jews and minorities. He abused the sense of national pride Germans had along with the then-recent humiliation after the sanctions (quite extensive ones) that were in place in Versailles Treaty after the loss of World War I. He abused the scientific theories and twisted their meanings to present the German people as "the strong" and "the fittest" that survive over the weak and unsuitable in the evolutionary "battle". He abused the education system to brainwash children and recruit them to a militant racist group and later on to the S.S. and other Nazi groups. He abused the democratic system in Germany to achieve a completely (and indisputable) Dictatorship.

 

I am not quite sure how this means anything about the state of science in the US or anywhere in the world, and/or whether or not colleges in the US replace philosopher with Nietzsche, even if it's true.

 

On top of all of this, it's absolutely false to say Hitler rejected religion. There are multiple and quite extensive pieces of evidence showing clearly that he was far from an atheist. What he was fighting was to have control above the church (so the church does not steal his influence) which seems to be the reason why some of the elements of the Church were reduced in Nazi Germany. However, he was a staunch opponent to Atheism, and spoke about God and how the Arian nation is God's chosen people a lot in his Mein Kampf and other speeches. (This is a decent article with links to quotes. There are more, if you want me to pursue this angle of the debate: http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerQuotesGodReligion.htm)

 

I think your leap here is far from logical, Athena. I'm not entirely sure what it is you're claiming, or what you're afraid of exactly in that aspect. No doubt we need to be mindful not to repeat history, but I don't see how even if campuses across the US replace philosophers with Nietzsche that immediately means anything about going towards Nazism.

 

Maybe I misunderstood you.. if so, please clarify.

 

~mooey

[CharonY]

Also the book "Will to power" has now been recognized not to be written by him (published 1901 and then again 1906) but by his sister (who liberally used and abused his material). The link between Nietzsche's actual philosophy and Hitler's are tenuous, to say the least.

 

He was, just to give an example, critical of antisemitism. Regarding morals he had quite a complicated stance, from what I remember. He was a proponent of individualism (quite in contrast to Hitler and they way he utilized group dynamics). Also, from what I remember he rejected absolute moral norms and saw them as a human constructs. But there is much more to it and quite a bit is open to interpretation. But unless we used the distorted version of his sister and ignore the bulk of his genuine work, there is really little to discuss his work of philosophy in relation with Hitler and national socialism (except to add that he was also quite anti-socialist and was at least somewhat critical of nationalism, too.).

Note that national socialism (and facism) are opposed to individualism and liberalism.

 

 

I think Mooey answered the part about Hitler's abuse of science quite well and have not anything to add there. Except maybe that in some cases he did not need to twist science. In the olden days there were far less standards in the non-rigorous areas of science (and many disciplines did not really exist in an established form). With so much junk around it was relatively easy to mine the parts that fits into your ideology. In fact, it is a good example what could happen if one politicizes science in order to make propaganda, rather than to seek the truth (and how dangerous extrapolations from half-truths can be).

 

And from a historic viewpoint I think it is worthy to point out that the eugenics movement started in the US before it was implemented in Nazi Germany (and served to some extent as inspiration). Wiki

[padren]

Personally Athena, I think your comments about Hitler, science, education and the US comparisons are valid for discussion - they don't go "full Godwin" because (if I read you right) you are actually examining US parallels in aspects of policy and philosophy, not condemning US policies as paralleling Nazi Germany to poison the well.

 

I really can't get into the more detailed aspects of German philosophical influences because I am quite out of my depth, but I am tempted to say in a general sense that you may be too focused on key details with the one case (Germany) and its impact on American culture: I would like to argue it's a far more common symptom of simply being in the shadow of one's own success - it plagued Rome and Athens long before America or Germany were cursed with a distracting level of success.

 

It may sound quaint but "Success can be the biggest distraction to the activity of being successful" and the US has been very successful. We've had to try and make sense of it, explain it (often simplistically but still in good faith), and more recently ask why it feels like our long advantageous position is slipping away.

 

This is even true in town halls, co-ops, businesses, political parties, government departments and even advocacy groups. Upon becoming successful, the emerging sense of identity of the successful group becomes central to manage, and especially when the identity becomes contested by partisan bickering, can even steal the show to such a degree that the capacity for success becomes nonviable.

 

To apply this to Rome just prior to the Caesar and the Rubicon; it wasn't that the Empire failed to continue to produce educated people... Cicero made many great speeches in that era, but it was how political positions (senators, tribunes, praetors, consuls, etc) became little more than a way for powerful people to out maneuver each other, instead of producing necessary rulings and decisions to ensure the Republic's stability.

 

In other words it was successful as long as the people in those positions got them with the intention of achieving personal success through successful execution of the office for the Greater Glory of Rome - when politicians started to identify with power blocks and used those positions to fight partisan battles almost exclusively, it was an inevitable decline after that. More and more of the Republic's checks and balances were either gutted or twisted to "save" the Republic from opposing political opponents... on both sides, leading to the state of atrophy and popular discontent and the growing reliance on executive power to get critical decisions made.

 

I think we are in a similar state today, in that political parties have such a strong sense of identity they elevate themselves beyond their actual roles. Instead of two parties working out how to draft meaningful legislation through a combination of critical constructive rivalry and good old fashioned compromise, both are far too distracted by the "meta partisan battle" and all the various ways the entire system can be gamed. Instead of political strategies that are liable to appeal to voters as realistic solutions, we get political strategies that attempt to stack the Supreme Court, or beat the "magic numbers" in the Senate and House for control - with no plans on what to really do with that control other than "not have to compromise with the opponents anymore" as the end all be all.

 

Our Republic was not founded on "Winner takes all" partisan unilateralism. We used to meet in the House and Senate so opposing political viewpoints could be argued, discussed and refined and contribute to proposed solutions - now partisans hold closed meetings beforehand so they can tell the other side they already made up their minds. This makes it easier for individuals to protect, defend, and expand whatever they "identify" as their power-base to "do the peoples work" but they never actually get any of it done because cut-throat partisan rivalry is a full time job, and partisan threats are always immediate and unavoidable.

 

Even our news has succumbed to this affect - they aren't all politically partisan, but they are so self conscious about ratings and ad revenues (the self-identity issue) they've mostly replaced in depth reporting for sensationalism and hyperbole.

 

I believe these are the factors that have led us to our current incapacity for real legislative progress, and that has contributed greatly to our current sense of "being in our own former shadows."

 

 

To tie this into Germany and the US - I don't know if this was the state of affairs when Hitler gave up on art school, but Germany was definitely in its own former shadow with many seemingly intractable political problems at that time. The danger in this scenario is eventually citizens get tired of suffering under the partisan-induced stagnancy, and begin to see the straight forward granting of extended executive power as the only means to break the impasse - especially when played on by a trusted charismatic leader who originally only promises to restore the proper state of affairs but gains great aspirations as power becomes consolidated.

 

The US is not there yet. We are still thankfully far too partisan to trust any one leader, but I am willing to bet that many Obama supporters and many Romney supporters have very little faith in either candidate overcoming our current partisan gridlock and would consider "some" additional executive power as the only way anything will get done. Many liberals (myself included at times) often fault Obama for not using executive orders to break impasses more often.

 

It's less that German philosophies have impacted our culture for the worse, but more than we're suffering the common pitfalls of success and stagnation which holds many historical parallels, all of which are worth avoiding if at all possible.

Edited August 4, 2012 by padren

[Athena]

I don't quite see how this comparison is valid at all.

 

Hitler didn't use science, he abused science. In fact, he abused quite a lot of things in his (quite sadly brilliant) use of propaganda.

 

He abused the way movies are made to enrage young people and send them on violent rampages against Jews and minorities. He abused the sense of national pride Germans had along with the then-recent humiliation after the sanctions (quite extensive ones) that were in place in Versailles Treaty after the loss of World War I. He abused the scientific theories and twisted their meanings to present the German people as "the strong" and "the fittest" that survive over the weak and unsuitable in the evolutionary "battle". He abused the education system to brainwash children and recruit them to a militant racist group and later on to the S.S. and other Nazi groups. He abused the democratic system in Germany to achieve a completely (and indisputable) Dictatorship.

 

I am not quite sure how this means anything about the state of science in the US or anywhere in the world, and/or whether or not colleges in the US replace philosopher with Nietzsche, even if it's true.

 

On top of all of this, it's absolutely false to say Hitler rejected religion. There are multiple and quite extensive pieces of evidence showing clearly that he was far from an atheist. What he was fighting was to have control above the church (so the church does not steal his influence) which seems to be the reason why some of the elements of the Church were reduced in Nazi Germany. However, he was a staunch opponent to Atheism, and spoke about God and how the Arian nation is God's chosen people a lot in his Mein Kampf and other speeches. (This is a decent article with links to quotes. There are more, if you want me to pursue this angle of the debate: http://atheism.about...GodReligion.htm)

 

I think your leap here is far from logical, Athena. I'm not entirely sure what it is you're claiming, or what you're afraid of exactly in that aspect. No doubt we need to be mindful not to repeat history, but I don't see how even if campuses across the US replace philosophers with Nietzsche that immediately means anything about going towards Nazism.

 

Maybe I misunderstood you.. if so, please clarify.

 

~mooey

 

 

I am not sure you understand what I said. Do you think I said Hitler used science and did not use religion?

 

What do you think is my leap in logic?

 

Are you arguing colleges have not replaced classical philosophy with German philosophy? Are you arguing Nietzsche and Hegel were not influential in the development of NAZI Germany?

 

Are you arguing, adopting German institutions, specifically the bureaucracy for government, and the education that goes with it, does not make the US like the Germany we defeated? Then what is the point of adopting their institutions? This is like saying Imitating a famous rock star, does not make a person a rock musician, because so and so isn't doing drugs and rock stars do drugs. How do I say, the prejudice against Jews and the terrible things done, should not be our whole understanding of NAZI Germany. Being the strongest military force on earth is different from Hitler's New World Order how? Bush was not kidding when bragging of the New World Order, and he was not talking about something different from Hitler's New World Order. They both would have loved control of Baghdad. By imitating Prussian education, philosophy and military bureaucracy applied to citizens, we are on the same path Germany followed, and this is what justified Bush bragging about the New World Order. I am saying, if you use the ingredients for cake and follow the recipe, you get cake. I don't think the problem is my logic.

 

Now an informed argument of what I just said, might begin with what was wrong with our past education, and what was wrong with our bureaucrat organization, and why both needed to be changed, and how imitating our enemy does not make us our enemy. If someone stepped in with that kind of information, and could make that kind of argument, we would have the discussion I would to love to have, instead of me feeling like the target in a rough game of dodge ball, or the witch everyone enjoys burning at the stake. I have been at this for many years, and intimately understand why the Germans could not stop the NAZI machine, and perhaps you check out the increased executive powers of the President if you think our democracy is the same as it was. It was not the government that prevented citizens from stopping the machine, but their own families and friends, who didn't what to hear what they were saying, as father refused to listen to my explanation, and would walk out of the room, and all those don't understand the issues, and therefore, take offense and become extremely angry and begin attacking with personal attacks, censorship, bad points. To speak truth a person must be able to endure being hated, and as we know, in NAZI Germany when all else failed the family member, friend, neighbor was reported to the state, and the problem was eliminated. Things are different here how? I am talking the psychology and behavior is different how?

 

We are so fortunate to be born in a country with freedom of speech, but private property law trumps our freedom of speech, and no one seems to question how our freedom is protected if we do not protect it and are not willing to risk everything to protect our freedom of speech, including being silenced permanently. We now agree it is a good thing when someone looses a career because of saying the wrong thing. Must be politically correct you know. Or how about at least likeable? These forums, broadcasting stations, newspapers and magazines are all private property. The rules for private property and not democratic rules. Even the common domain is treated as private property and citizens can not use it unless they can pay a fee, and then their use of it is restricted by law, and my granddaughter is going to court because of being caught up in this fright for the common domain. I am saying, it was culture that made us different, and that is no longer true. If you use cake ingredients and follow the recipe, you get cake.

 

Personally Athena, I think your comments about Hitler, science, education and the US comparisons are valid for discussion - they don't go "full Godwin" because (if I read you right) you are actually examining US parallels in aspects of policy and philosophy, not condemning US policies as paralleling Nazi Germany to poison the well.

 

I really can't get into the more detailed aspects of German philosophical influences because I am quite out of my depth, but I am tempted to say in a general sense that you may be too focused on key details with the one case (Germany) and its impact on American culture: I would like to argue it's a far more common symptom of simply being in the shadow of one's own success - it plagued Rome and Athens long before America or Germany were cursed with a distracting level of success.

 

It may sound quaint but "Success can be the biggest distraction to the activity of being successful" and the US has been very successful. We've had to try and make sense of it, explain it (often simplistically but still in good faith), and more recently ask why it feels like our long advantageous position is slipping away.

 

This is even true in town halls, co-ops, businesses, political parties, government departments and even advocacy groups. Upon becoming successful, the emerging sense of identity of the successful group becomes central to manage, and especially when the identity becomes contested by partisan bickering, can even steal the show to such a degree that the capacity for success becomes nonviable.

 

To apply this to Rome just prior to the Caesar and the Rubicon; it wasn't that the Empire failed to continue to produce educated people... Cicero made many great speeches in that era, but it was how political positions (senators, tribunes, praetors, consuls, etc) became little more than a way for powerful people to out maneuver each other, instead of producing necessary rulings and decisions to ensure the Republic's stability.

 

In other words it was successful as long as the people in those positions got them with the intention of achieving personal success through successful execution of the office for the Greater Glory of Rome - when politicians started to identify with power blocks and used those positions to fight partisan battles almost exclusively, it was an inevitable decline after that. More and more of the Republic's checks and balances were either gutted or twisted to "save" the Republic from opposing political opponents... on both sides, leading to the state of atrophy and popular discontent and the growing reliance on executive power to get critical decisions made.

 

I think we are in a similar state today, in that political parties have such a strong sense of identity they elevate themselves beyond their actual roles. Instead of two parties working out how to draft meaningful legislation through a combination of critical constructive rivalry and good old fashioned compromise, both are far too distracted by the "meta partisan battle" and all the various ways the entire system can be gamed. Instead of political strategies that are liable to appeal to voters as realistic solutions, we get political strategies that attempt to stack the Supreme Court, or beat the "magic numbers" in the Senate and House for control - with no plans on what to really do with that control other than "not have to compromise with the opponents anymore" as the end all be all.

 

Our Republic was not founded on "Winner takes all" partisan unilateralism. We used to meet in the House and Senate so opposing political viewpoints could be argued, discussed and refined and contribute to proposed solutions - now partisans hold closed meetings beforehand so they can tell the other side they already made up their minds. This makes it easier for individuals to protect, defend, and expand whatever they "identify" as their power-base to "do the peoples work" but they never actually get any of it done because cut-throat partisan rivalry is a full time job, and partisan threats are always immediate and unavoidable.

 

Even our news has succumbed to this affect - they aren't all politically partisan, but they are so self conscious about ratings and ad revenues (the self-identity issue) they've mostly replaced in depth reporting for sensationalism and hyperbole.

 

I believe these are the factors that have led us to our current incapacity for real legislative progress, and that has contributed greatly to our current sense of "being in our own former shadows."

 

 

To tie this into Germany and the US - I don't know if this was the state of affairs when Hitler gave up on art school, but Germany was definitely in its own former shadow with many seemingly intractable political problems at that time. The danger in this scenario is eventually citizens get tired of suffering under the partisan-induced stagnancy, and begin to see the straight forward granting of extended executive power as the only means to break the impasse - especially when played on by a trusted charismatic leader who originally only promises to restore the proper state of affairs but gains great aspirations as power becomes consolidated.

 

The US is not there yet. We are still thankfully far too partisan to trust any one leader, but I am willing to bet that many Obama supporters and many Romney supporters have very little faith in either candidate overcoming our current partisan gridlock and would consider "some" additional executive power as the only way anything will get done. Many liberals (myself included at times) often fault Obama for not using executive orders to break impasses more often.

 

It's less that German philosophies have impacted our culture for the worse, but more than we're suffering the common pitfalls of success and stagnation which holds many historical parallels, all of which are worth avoiding if at all possible.

 

Oh no, I am out of time. Someone who is aware of what is happening?! :DI promise, I will get back to you as soon as possible.

Edited August 4, 2012 by Athena

[mooeypoo]

I am not sure you understand what I said. Do you think I said Hitler used science and did not use religion?

 

What do you think is my leap in logic?

I might have misunderstood your main point. I didn't think you were saying hitler used science and not religion, what I was meaning to make as a point is that it's hard to point out what hitler actually "used" because whatever he did "use", he ended up pretty much abusing.

 

I was more interested in what I understood from your last point that there might be some comparison between something that's happening in the US (whether it is removing philosophers and adding Nietsche or anything else) and the Nazi regime or way of thinking.

 

I think that comparison is lacking, and this is where your logic fails, because it seems like when you say that "may be if there is a strong preference for science and reason we will be okay" it means that the "only thing" (or almost only) that "saves us" from going the route of the Nazis is science. That would hint that what we do with philosophy is what the Nazis did with philosophy, and I think that's absolutely wrong - which makes your leap to compare the two cases flawed logic.

 

I think I wasn't as clear as I intended to be, but I hope this clarified my meaning?

 

 

Are you arguing colleges have not replaced classical philosophy with German philosophy? Are you arguing Nietzsche and Hegel were not influential in the development of NAZI Germany?

Lots of things were influencial in Nazi germany in a wrong way; that's my point, the Nazis mostly ABUSED these studies; it doesn't mean that if we study these people (even if we emphasize them on the expense of others) we go the same route too.

 

 

I frankly don't know enough about the trends of philosophy in US colleges to judge this. I took about 4 political science and philosophy classes in college, and only in one of them we mentioned Nietzche, and it was a very brief mention. From *my* personal experience, I haven't seen this trend, but I am aware my own experience might very well not be an exampe for a norm.

 

Then again, my point is that it doesn't matter -- even IF we go that route, the comparison to the Nazis is lacking because they abused the messages of the philosophers and twisted themeanings for propaganda-specific education.

 

I hope you're not claiming US colleges do that... and if they don't, then the comparison is lacking.

 

See what I mean?

 

Are you arguing, adopting German institutions, specifically the bureaucracy for government, and the education that goes with it, does not make the US like the Germany we defeated?

Not everything German is Nazi. Even I know that, and we have quite a bias "against" Germany in Israel.

 

In fact, Germany has quite a lot of extremely useful social structures and we absolutely have been using them all over the world. "Bureacracy" is a german concept; and whether or not we like the extremefication of it (which is what the dismissal of the word usually mean in day to day language) the main concepts are sound. There are a lot of German philosophers that are smart and influencial ad should absolutely be studied.

 

To say that if we adopt German institutions and bureacracy of government (which existed MUCH before WWII all over the world) will make us like Nazi Germany is beyond leap of logic, it's ridiculous.

 

If that's what you're claiming, then this is where I state your logic fails.

 

Then what is the point of adopting their institutions?

What do you mean by "their" institutions? Nazi Germany, or general concepts that happened to have started in Germany some time in the past?

 

Also, Nazi Germany didn't JUST use german philosphers and science, and abused things like Hollywood movies methodologies to create powerful propaganda. Should we ban hollywood as well?

 

I am not sure I understand what you're claiming, what institutions you're talking about, and how the US might be going towards being Nazi Germany at all.

 

Quite frankly, I'm a bit at a loss. Can you clarify what exactly you mean here?

 

I am saying, it was culture that made us different, and that is no longer true. If you use cake ingredients and follow the recipe, you get cake.

All over the world there are countries with different cultures that never came close or were anything like Nazi Germany. Obviously, it's not just about being different culture.

 

Are you really suggesting our culture currently comes anything close to the culture of Nazi Germany?

 

That's quite a claim, Athena. Before I answer this, I want to make sure I understand you correctly.

 

If this is what you meant, please tell me what aspects of the US culture you think are similar to Nazi Germany enough to be at risk of bringing that horrible regime onto democratic United States.

 

 

~mooey

[swansont]

I am not sure you understand what I said. Do you think I said Hitler used science and did not use religion?

 

What do you think is my leap in logic?

 

Are you arguing colleges have not replaced classical philosophy with German philosophy? Are you arguing Nietzsche and Hegel were not influential in the development of NAZI Germany?

 

Are you arguing, adopting German institutions, specifically the bureaucracy for government, and the education that goes with it, does not make the US like the Germany we defeated? Then what is the point of adopting their institutions? This is like saying Imitating a famous rock star, does not make a person a rock musician, because so and so isn't doing drugs and rock stars do drugs. How do I say, the prejudice against Jews and the terrible things done, should not be our whole understanding of NAZI Germany. Being the strongest military force on earth is different from Hitler's New World Order how? Bush was not kidding when bragging of the New World Order, and he was not talking about something different from Hitler's New World Order. They both would have loved control of Baghdad. By imitating Prussian education, philosophy and military bureaucracy applied to citizens, we are on the same path Germany followed, and this is what justified Bush bragging about the New World Order. I am saying, if you use the ingredients for cake and follow the recipe, you get cake. I don't think the problem is my logic.

 

Isn't this just guilt by association (which is the fallacy invoked by Godwin's law)? Or are you claiming that the actions of the leaders of nazi Germany were the inevitable result of that philosophy?

[padren]

Isn't this just guilt by association (which is the fallacy invoked by Godwin's law)? Or are you claiming that the actions of the leaders of nazi Germany were the inevitable result of that philosophy?

Just for the record, I don't think that's a fair "either or" comparison - the term "inevitable" implies inescapable, which pretty much nothing in life or history ever is. It may be more pragmatic to ask if that philosophy contributed significantly to the radical consolidation of executive power and subsequent actions of Nazi leaders, and whether the legacy of how those philosophies have impacted American society puts us at greater risk of the consolidation of executive power through popular consent.

 

 

I don't think this is guilt by association and often serious conversations will require a bit more nuance than tongue-in-cheek laws like Godwin's can cover - no matter how valuable that law is to help deal with ridiculous or blatantly idiotic conversations. I think there are better explanations for the observations and concerns she has raised, but determining that will require a somewhat more in depth conversation about the details.

 

I may agree that as a general rule, when someone says "[politician|party] is [as bad|worse than|acting like] a [insultingly offensive hyperbolic murderous authoritarian regime, usually Nazis or Soviets]!" the answer usually is "thread over" because no good will ever come from that.

 

However, an honest attempt to examine similarities (even if they turn out to be entirely superficial) towards the end of better understanding is an entirely different animal.

[Athena]

I might have misunderstood your main point. I didn't think you were saying hitler used science and not religion, what I was meaning to make as a point is that it's hard to point out what hitler actually "used" because whatever he did "use", he ended up pretty much abusing.

 

I was more interested in what I understood from your last point that there might be some comparison between something that's happening in the US (whether it is removing philosophers and adding Nietsche or anything else) and the Nazi regime or way of thinking.

 

I think that comparison is lacking, and this is where your logic fails, because it seems like when you say that "may be if there is a strong preference for science and reason we will be okay" it means that the "only thing" (or almost only) that "saves us" from going the route of the Nazis is science. That would hint that what we do with philosophy is what the Nazis did with philosophy, and I think that's absolutely wrong - which makes your leap to compare the two cases flawed logic.

 

I think I wasn't as clear as I intended to be, but I hope this clarified my meaning?

 

 

 

Lots of things were influencial in Nazi germany in a wrong way; that's my point, the Nazis mostly ABUSED these studies; it doesn't mean that if we study these people (even if we emphasize them on the expense of others) we go the same route too.

 

 

I frankly don't know enough about the trends of philosophy in US colleges to judge this. I took about 4 political science and philosophy classes in college, and only in one of them we mentioned Nietzche, and it was a very brief mention. From *my* personal experience, I haven't seen this trend, but I am aware my own experience might very well not be an exampe for a norm.

 

Then again, my point is that it doesn't matter -- even IF we go that route, the comparison to the Nazis is lacking because they abused the messages of the philosophers and twisted themeanings for propaganda-specific education.

 

I hope you're not claiming US colleges do that... and if they don't, then the comparison is lacking.

 

See what I mean?

 

 

Not everything German is Nazi. Even I know that, and we have quite a bias "against" Germany in Israel.

 

In fact, Germany has quite a lot of extremely useful social structures and we absolutely have been using them all over the world. "Bureacracy" is a german concept; and whether or not we like the extremefication of it (which is what the dismissal of the word usually mean in day to day language) the main concepts are sound. There are a lot of German philosophers that are smart and influencial ad should absolutely be studied.

 

To say that if we adopt German institutions and bureacracy of government (which existed MUCH before WWII all over the world) will make us like Nazi Germany is beyond leap of logic, it's ridiculous.

 

If that's what you're claiming, then this is where I state your logic fails.

 

 

What do you mean by "their" institutions? Nazi Germany, or general concepts that happened to have started in Germany some time in the past?

 

Also, Nazi Germany didn't JUST use german philosphers and science, and abused things like Hollywood movies methodologies to create powerful propaganda. Should we ban hollywood as well?

 

I am not sure I understand what you're claiming, what institutions you're talking about, and how the US might be going towards being Nazi Germany at all.

 

Quite frankly, I'm a bit at a loss. Can you clarify what exactly you mean here?

 

 

All over the world there are countries with different cultures that never came close or were anything like Nazi Germany. Obviously, it's not just about being different culture.

 

Are you really suggesting our culture currently comes anything close to the culture of Nazi Germany?

 

That's quite a claim, Athena. Before I answer this, I want to make sure I understand you correctly.

 

If this is what you meant, please tell me what aspects of the US culture you think are similar to Nazi Germany enough to be at risk of bringing that horrible regime onto democratic United States.

 

 

~mooey

 

I believe I said I am correcting the Public Broadcasting show. It was a philosophy show about humanism. Atheist were arguing all we need is science, and unfortunately, this argument assumes we are naturally good. We are not naturally good or bad, and I am working on an explanation so don't expect it now. What is important here, is someone referred to NAZI Germany as example of what happens when we only have science and they said Hitler used science. The link makes it clear, Hitler did not use science. Hitler actually opposed science and reason, and promised every magic!

 

We have changed education is such away that tends to make people reactionary. That is responding to a word, and not the meaning of what is being said. For this reason candidates try to demonize each other. As soon people believe they had identified the bad guy and the good guy, the contest is over. We now have reactionary politics and the power struggles are not how democracy works, but congress has a hard time getting anything done. When people get like this, they look for a powerful leader who can get things done.

Commentators are questioning if Romney is a strong enough man to be president. The terrible wars are fought, because a leader thinks s/he has to prove s/he is strong enough to rule. This is not how self governing people should be governing themselves, but Bush senior and Bush Junior alined themselves with the power of the New World Order and the power of God, "the Power and Glory" tied to the bombing of Iran.

 

And it seems we all love witch hunts. People seem to enjoy identifying witches and throwing stones at them. As soon as someone is suspect of being a witch the inquisition begins. This is done with questions to trap the witch, and the problem here is ignoring all the information that is not useful to the fun game of finding witches and throwing stones at them. The word can be God or NAZI. I suppose there are others. The person trying to discuss these important topics is like an animal caught a tar pit, because no one is trying to understand what is being said, they are trying to score points by throwing the stone that kills the beast. However, the word God had a different meaning when we had liberal education, and our reaction to it was different. There is a very important cultural difference here, and it is directly related to the change in education. Germans had a huge God problem. We begin with excitement about science revealing God and come to the decision that science can nothing to do with God. If you study classical philosophy you know, science and God together, and this does not mean the God of Abraham. If you replace classical philosophy with German philosophy than the only understanding of God is the God of Abraham, and Christianity is the enemy. Sorry, my granddaughter in on her way, and I have cut this short. The Germany philosophy, God of Abraham line is big trouble. rushing along---

 

Public education is an institution. It is like a genii in a bottle. The defined purpose is the wish and the students are the genii. We changed that wish in 1958. We replaced our liberal education with Germany's education for technology. We stopped transmitting our culture, and began educating for a technological society with unknown values. This change in education manifest a very different culture, and it is not the one defended in two world wars.

 

What goes with this Prussian military bureaucracy applied to citizens. That is what makes Social Security and Worker's Compensation possible. If everyone understood how our government was organized before adopting the Prussian military model, they would be in shock and wonder how in the world we managed government! How do I explain this to people who have absolutely no interest in the very dry subject of government organization? Think military order. It is a hierarchy of authority. Those at the top make policy and decisions, and those at the bottom just follow orders. Information can go up, but power does not go down. Germany was so organized, and they were a Christian Republic with some democracy, however, it doesn't matter who elect to be dog catcher, or if gays have rights, or even if abortion is legal or not. None of this has anything to do with truly political issue that makes a nation place in the world. It is the same thing the US had and it is not, so today we can have the same thing and not notice a difference, except now we have government problems that could not have before.

 

Before this change family law was strong, and it made family responsible for family, and there were no government assistance programs. Now a 16 year can tell his/her parents to go fly a kite, and become a parent with no job to support self or child and get government assistance. It is the government who has authority, not the parent. Mind you this is a rushed explanation, and I hope before rushing into an argument, you think about what is being said.

[mooeypoo]

I believe I said I am correcting the Public Broadcasting show. It was a philosophy show about humanism. Atheist were arguing all we need is science, and unfortunately, this argument assumes we are naturally good. We are not naturally good or bad, and I am working on an explanation so don't expect it now. What is important here, is someone referred to NAZI Germany as example of what happens when we only have science and they said Hitler used science. The link makes it clear, Hitler did not use science. Hitler actually opposed science and reason, and promised every magic!

 

I agree with you. More than that, I think the initial reference at all (not by you, but by the broadcast) to Nazi germany is fallacious and misleading to begin with.

 

What I was answering was the rest of your post, which I think was a bit of a leap on your part regarding Nietche and the supposed dismissal of other philosophers. I don't think this comes any remotely close to bringing anything remotely close to the situation that led to Nazi germany, so I don't think that our propensity towards science is what saves us.

 

We're not there, and that's not getting us there. There might be other things that might, at some point, under some circumstances, get societies towards this stage -- and we need to be diligent in making sure we spot those cases and warn so they don't come.

 

I just don't think what you put forth after correcting the broadcast was it.

 

I agreed with where you STARTED, I disagreed with what you ENDED with.

 

(I'l answer the rest a bit later, not ignoring your post, I'm just running late to a meeting)

 

~mooey

[Anders Hoveland]

Scientific research is often politically, socially, and ideologically motivated.

Even a study that is completely unbiased by itself can still be part of the wider bias of selective investigation.

 

So for example, whereas the nazis selectively funded studies to try to uncover racial differences, the progressive academic institutions today selectively fund studies to try to show how different races are similar, while cutting off funding to studies (or researchers) that uncover inconvenient truths.

[CaptainPanic]

So for example, whereas the nazis selectively funded studies to try to uncover racial differences, the progressive academic institutions today selectively fund studies to try to show how different races are similar, while cutting off funding to studies (or researchers) that uncover inconvenient truths.

What???

I don't know in which Non-transparent dictatorship you live, but over here in Europe, the EU is totally transparent about what they fund and what they don't. The FP7 programs (.pdf warning - see page 4), for example, are announced to all who want to know. It is public information. And anyone can enter a call. And they will evaluate the proposals and then choose a winner. This is a relatively objective thing. Same for national subsidies in most countries. All this transparency costs a lot of valuable time of the research community, because it's quite a bit of work to write a proposal.

 

And specifically about genetics: I dare to say that in human history, there has never been so much research into genetics. The entire DNA of millions of people has been entirely sequenced. How much more research do you want? You can nowadays deliver a tissue sample of yourself to a lab, and they'll tell you what part of the world your ancestors came from. This technology exists already. What studies are cut off, exactly?

[swansont]

Scientific research is often politically, socially, and ideologically motivated.

Even a study that is completely unbiased by itself can still be part of the wider bias of selective investigation.

 

So for example, whereas the nazis selectively funded studies to try to uncover racial differences, the progressive academic institutions today selectively fund studies to try to show how different races are similar, while cutting off funding to studies (or researchers) that uncover inconvenient truths.

 

Lack of supporting evidence noted.

[Athena]

Lack of supporting evidence noted.

 

Oh my goodness sake. If I could take you to the U of O library we could look at the Abtracts, you know what they are right? If not hear is a wikipedia explanation http://en.wikipedia....ding_of_science

 

Now when Reagan took office research on poverty is completely replaced with research on welfare fraud. It is such a complete change in research that we know it wasn't truly scientific, but research done for a purpose. When enough research was done, the media was screaming about welfare fraud. This is during a recession, right, when young families needed the help most. I don't know about other states, but Oregon cut welfare to two parent families and fathers had to dessert their families so they could get help. This sky rocketed unwed pregnancies. It also made these young men who took to the hills less employable. To add to our troubles, we were blaming the poor for our bad economy, unlike this time around, when we are blaming bankers, however, there was the same crash of real estate prices and people who had bought things like hotels at the inflated price went bankrupt. We were in disbelief about the recession causing homelessness, because Reagan denied their existence and said they were was just bums, as I was frantically trying to help for homeless single mothers. Anyone out of work for over 6 months could just forget about getting work, because with all the lies, employers thought, anyone out of work for that long was not serious about getting a job.

 

Eugene, Oregon was very resistant to helping the poor and the homeless. It used federal grant money for the poor to renovate private business property, such as the historic buildings downtown that house such businesses as the Eugene Athletic Club that caters to the rich. The idea was to give our downtown a look of wealth. Soon after it went into business, it forced out the plasma donation center across the street, that brought a lot money into town, and put it is desperate people's pockets. The rich were offended by the sight of the poor people. The rich we able to benefit from the money designated to the poor, by claiming it would give the poor jobs.

 

When I argued with city counselors for a homeless shelter, I was told voters rather have a public golf course then a shelter for the poor. I was an advocate for the homeless at the time, and am glad to say, because of the pressure we able to create, business people put their heads together and got a lot going for the homeless. I don't remember any golf course being built. My point is between Reagan and the downtown property owners local political power, we have nasty discrimination against the poor, and money favors those in power.

 

I don't know exactly how to validate all of this, next to taking you to the U of O library where between the abstracts and newspaper collection, I can lead you to all the validation you want.

Now shall we talk about all the cities that exist because of a federally funded business? My father worked for NASA, and consulted on Star Wars. Hum, how do I explain this? The Military Industrial Complex of which Eisenhower spoke, consumes huge amounts of federal money and provides high paying employment in many cities. Cuts to these programs can be devastating to the communities that are supported by them. These scientist can not easily get jobs in their communities when their research project is shut down and they have to move to the few places where their expertise is needed. We have to keep weapons plants going to keep communities going, and the money spent on aircraft and weapons research and building is a vital part of our economy. Now any political party that can keep this going will get votes and the ones who fail, loose votes. Really you question if this involves political interest? Have you made an effort to understand what Eisenhower was talking about when he warned of the Military Industrial Complex that his administration put into place?

 

What???

I don't know in which Non-transparent dictatorship you live, but over here in Europe, the EU is totally transparent about what they fund and what they don't. The FP7 programs (.pdf warning - see page 4), for example, are announced to all who want to know. It is public information. And anyone can enter a call. And they will evaluate the proposals and then choose a winner. This is a relatively objective thing. Same for national subsidies in most countries. All this transparency costs a lot of valuable time of the research community, because it's quite a bit of work to write a proposal.

 

And specifically about genetics: I dare to say that in human history, there has never been so much research into genetics. The entire DNA of millions of people has been entirely sequenced. How much more research do you want? You can nowadays deliver a tissue sample of yourself to a lab, and they'll tell you what part of the world your ancestors came from. This technology exists already. What studies are cut off, exactly?

 

Your research might be transparent, but do the citizens care enough to pay attention? For sure, in the US they do not! I have gotten the impression Europeans pay more attention to politics than US citizens. Perhaps that is because the size of the US makes politics a bit overwhelming. People hear don't know what the federal government is funding, unless it is in their backyard, or they have some special interest involved in the research. Liberal education, lead people to believe they needed to knowledgeable in all things, but even more so than in Germany, education for technology has specialized everyone, and the political ramifications of this are huge. I would bet the average citizen does not know what the Abstracts are. We are limited to an interest in our own lives, and when it comes to politics, that again is a personal matter, as most of know nothing about life outside our own experience of it. Tocqueville was very right about this problem, when he wrote "Democracy in America" in 1830. Until Bush, the invasion of Iraq and the economy going belly up, most people just voted their party ticket without thinking. Republican neocon's hit the Republican party hard, kind of like Protestantism busting up the church. The point is, we really don't pay a lot of attention to anything that is not in our face and does not personally effect us.

 

I agree with you. More than that, I think the initial reference at all (not by you, but by the broadcast) to Nazi germany is fallacious and misleading to begin with.

 

What I was answering was the rest of your post, which I think was a bit of a leap on your part regarding Nietche and the supposed dismissal of other philosophers. I don't think this comes any remotely close to bringing anything remotely close to the situation that led to Nazi germany, so I don't think that our propensity towards science is what saves us.

 

We're not there, and that's not getting us there. There might be other things that might, at some point, under some circumstances, get societies towards this stage -- and we need to be diligent in making sure we spot those cases and warn so they don't come.

 

I just don't think what you put forth after correcting the broadcast was it.

 

I agreed with where you STARTED, I disagreed with what you ENDED with.

 

(I'l answer the rest a bit later, not ignoring your post, I'm just running late to a meeting)

 

~mooey

 

 

Thank goodness! Yes, the public broadcasting philosophy show made a mistake.

 

I owe you a million thank you's because your questions are firming up the issues in my mind, and this is what I have wanted all along.

 

My concern about Nietzsche comes from Charles Sarolea's 1912 book "The Anglo-German". Sarolea writes a chapter on following Caesar verses following Christ. Caesar is about state power. Christianity is about love, forgiveness, charity, etc., etc.. Nietzsche is, the will to power, and he strongly opposes Christianity as something that makes humans weak, and something that leads them to work against their self interest. I will say this is a limited idea of self interest, and the classical philosophers and concept of God, makes this clear.

 

Now my dear Mooeypoo, this gets very complicated, so perhaps you can understand how important your questions to helping me get all this in the right order, after many years of contemplating it. Christianity without education for democracy is not the same thing. Education for democracy is literacy in the Greek and Rome classics and education for citizenship, leadership, the higher order thinking skills, that gives a person a different understanding of God. My thread "Why God" failed because these principles are not understood, and I realized the discussion about God I hoped to have, could not happen without discussion of education and the higher thinking skills, and I can understand why this seen as derailing the thread, but can you see how this understanding is important to discussions about God? To clarify what Nietzsche has to do with this, is kind of like explaining what is wrong with Freud's culturally limited understanding of women. Following the 30 years war, Prussia took control of Germany, centralized education and focused it on technology for military and industrial purpose, leaving moral to the church. Now we have several materialistic philosophers and developing science that moves from believing science will reveal God, to science shouldn't even get involved with God question, and Nietzsche's popularity under the Prussians who lived for a love of military might. Chew my nails, is this explanation getting better or worse?

 

Democracy begins with a concept of logos and a philosophy examining the Laws of Nature, and trying to understand God (logos) by learning from nature and inferring something about God. Logos is reason, the controlling force of the universe, and even the gods are subject to reason, the Laws of Nature. See? There is nothing supernatural about this God. This is not revealed religion with gods and angels telling humans how to live. There is not mythology that goes with this understanding of God. Actually it is what killed the power of Greek and Roman mythology, which was the religion of the day. Socrates is order to drink hemlock for causing youth to question the truth of the gods. He accepted the value of having gods, but asked people to be more careful about the stories of the gods that they tell, because a adulterous god, Zeus, is not a good god. It is the same problem we have with the God of Abraham. If you give people a false god, sooner or later the people will realize a problem with the god. The god of Cicero and Thomas Jefferson and classical philosophy is unknown. It is logos, the reason of all things, universal truth.

 

Too many words, sorry- it matters if we live for God or live for Caesar. Jesus said, "you don't know what power is". Jesus is the work of Greeks, the master mythology writers. If you believe Caesar represents power, or Hitler, or Bush doing the will of God, etc...., you are not getting logos, the real power. Democracy is about understanding logos and rule by reason. Back to Nietzsche, and all the modern philosophers, they are working with a Christian definition of God. How hard is it to argue this is not a true god? They had knowledge of the classics, but still allowed Christianity to define God! The problem for me is if we let Jews, Christians, Muslims define God, we get a false God and start bashing each others beliefs, and do not carry on what the Athenians began. Democracy is potentially the path to resolving all human problems, more so than science without God, because it includes human nature and concepts of morality, it is humanism and politics. Democracy is reason, logos, the cause of all things, science, and human relationships. Reality is about more than matter. We can make bombs, or use our resources to advance civilization by educating the people for this purpose. Caesar or Christ?

Bottom line, it matters which philosophers you think are important.

 

What leads us to be like Germany is education for technology for military and industrial purpose, and leaving moral training to the church, and changing the philosophers. How we teach our young to use their minds is different. We stopped transmitting the culture that made us the democracy we defended in two world wars. Only when democracy is defended in the classroom, is it defended. Our children are learning the technological skills of reading, but not the meaning of all those words which are dependent on understanding the culture, such as logos is not a Christian word, but a word from Greek philosophy. Our Statue of Liberty, Lady of Justice and Spirit of America, are the three aspects of Athena, Athens patron goddess of liberty, justice and defense. There is a mural of the Roman gods who make democracy strong, in the Capital Building of the US. Our democracy is tied to the gods. Christians successfully killed our knowledge of this, because they opposed those pagan gods, however, Liberal education transmitted this knowledge but in disguise form. When we replaced liberal education with education for technology, we stopped educating for democracy and we are in deep trouble! This is what we defended our democracy against. Tooooo many words, sorry.

Edited August 7, 2012 by Athena

[mooeypoo]

Oh my goodness sake. If I could take you to the U of O library we could look at the Abtracts, you know what they are right? If not hear is a wikipedia explanation http://en.wikipedia....ding_of_science

I think the point was that since the claim was quite bombastic (that scientific research is politically skewed) and generalized, the evidence for it was needed. I don't think showing funding is enough, though, honestly, especially since many endeavors of research ended up going against the companies' "desires" or "motives". I do agree that all research should be scrutinized -- including the funding sources and the potential bias of the people who run it -- but the point of the scientific method is that if it's done right (fully double blinded, fully repeatable, established with independently verifiable evidence, etc) is that it is meant to erase potential biases.

 

Now when Reagan took office research on poverty is completely replaced with research on welfare fraud. It is such a complete change in research that we know it wasn't truly scientific, but research done for a purpose.

Maybe (I don't know this case so I can't judge this particular case) but you can tell it wasn't truly scientific not for the source of funding alone. If it wasn't scientific, it was because it didn't follow the scientific method and it (hopefully?) was exposed as such under some peer review.

 

I don't think the generalized statement that 'most' scientific research is politically skewed is true, and I don't think that wikipedia article (and/or sources of funding on their own) prove this point.

 

Thank goodness! Yes, the public broadcasting philosophy show made a mistake.

 

I owe you a million thank you's because your questions are firming up the issues in my mind, and this is what I have wanted all along.

I think it's fair to say, at least in my opinion, that while we do need to keep being diligent to prevent any occurence of anything remotely close to Nazi germany, we should also still be weary of bringing it up as a comparison too quickly. The comparison itself brings out more emotional outrage than rational thought, so it should be used when appropriate. And I think in that broadcast, it wasn't.

 

It served more as fear mongering and bombastic emotional claims rather than something we really need to act on.

 

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to fix things that might be unjust in the way that universities teach or anything like that, but to go on and compare it to Nazi germany was a big nono in my book on the part of that Broadcast.

 

My concern about Nietzsche comes from Charles Sarolea's 1912 book "The Anglo-German". Sarolea writes a chapter on following Caesar verses following Christ. Caesar is about state power. Christianity is about love, forgiveness, charity, etc., etc.. Nietzsche is, the will to power, and he strongly opposes Christianity as something that makes humans weak, and something that leads them to work against their self interest. I will say this is a limited idea of self interest, and the classical philosophers and concept of God, makes this clear.

 

There are a lot of philosophers that make a lot of claims that we, today, consider unjust or maybe even dangerous if they were literally followed. For that matter, Hobbes' theory of a ruthless all-powerful rather oppressive ruler supports dictatorship, and I (to say the least) am highly against it. I would guess I'm not alone.

 

However, when we study Hobbes, we don't necessarily say that his theory is absolutely correct or should be absolutely followed; we study the elements that led him to conclude his theoretical parts, and we analyze the parts that might reflect on what could be considered human nature. We can also analyze what elements could work well in a society and what couldn't or shouldn't.

 

It's not "black and white" type of "he was right" and "he was wrong". We study philosophy to learn the different theories in context and compare them to whatever political situation we believe in. That's why a lot of people love Machiavelli (which I don't, by the way, but I seem to be in the minority). Most of the people who claim to have Machiavelli on their bed table don't usually go out and kill their rivals or use his literal suggestions. They use it as a source of theoretical points about some part of human nature that could be taken figuratively, or inspire people to use it PROPERLY within context.

 

So, I don't think your concern with specific things Nietzche said is warranted. There's a reason why, in philosophy, you study more than one theory, and you usually also study the background information about that person. You want to know not only what they say, but what led them to conclude whatever they said, and you want to be able to do it in proper context and reach whatever conclusions based on their text.

 

Some you may agree with, some you may disagree with, but the mere fact they got you *thinking* about those points can be extremely valuable to the development of a better political theory or social theory of conduct. Those are things that are worth knowing and learning about, regardless of how "good" a person was or how valid their points are to our present.

 

Another example: I personally like Socrates, I think he's a cool dude albeit very annoying in his methodology of argument. I love the way he reaches certain conclusions -- but I love it because I know of the time he lived in. His way of concluding the equality of women, for instance (limited as it may be) was brilliant, not because of the way he did it (because I disagree with some of his premises) but because in HIS time it was absolutely revolutionary. And yet these are still processes and claims that we may use today, some of them at least.

 

So I think that your fear of a particular philosopher, in my opinion, is unwarranted. And that's also why I think your leap to fear that we may be at risk of getting close to resembling Nazi germany is even more unwarranted, if it's based on these reasons.

 

 

You see what I mean?

 

Now my dear Mooeypoo, this gets very complicated, so perhaps you can understand how important your questions to helping me get all this in the right order, after many years of contemplating it. Christianity without education for democracy is not the same thing. Education for democracy is literacy in the Greek and Rome classics and education for citizenship, leadership, the higher order thinking skills, that gives a person a different understanding of God. My thread "Why God" failed because these principles are not understood, and I realized the discussion about God I hoped to have, could not happen without discussion of education and the higher thinking skills, and I can understand why this seen as derailing the thread, but can you see how this understanding is important to discussions about God? To clarify what Nietzsche has to do with this, is kind of like explaining what is wrong with Freud's culturally limited understanding of women. Following the 30 years war, Prussia took control of Germany, centralized education and focused it on technology for military and industrial purpose, leaving moral to the church. Now we have several materialistic philosophers and developing science that moves from believing science will reveal God, to science shouldn't even get involved with God question, and Nietzsche's popularity under the Prussians who lived for a love of military might. Chew my nails, is this explanation getting better or worse?

 

I think the problem here is that you see God as something very natural in this process, which is perfectly okay, but you have to understand that not everyone do. I, for instance, don't think God has any place in this discussion because I don't believe any sort of God exists -- and if God does exist, I don't see this god as any form of influencial being on our personal lives. I see this piece as irrelevant, then. I'm not the only one , and that might be the reason why people took the arguments to a different direction than what you intended.

 

It's not that I don't respect your belief in that, it's just that I don't see the argument this way at all because of a different belief (or a nonexistent belief?) in such a God as you describe. It's like we speak two different languages in this particular case.... does this make sense?

 

Democracy begins with a concept of logos and a philosophy examining the Laws of Nature, and trying to understand God (logos) by learning from nature and inferring something about God. Logos is reason, the controlling force of the universe, and even the gods are subject to reason, the Laws of Nature. See? There is nothing supernatural about this God.

It doesnt' matter whether god is supernatural or not, I don't see the same analysis as you. For me, the entire issue of god (whatever form it, she, he or they) may take is utterly irrelevant and is a red herring. The only thing that comes out of this mention is to move the argument in a different way -- that of belief, or religion, or emotion -- even if you don't mean to.

 

This might also be why I may misunderstand your point here. Can you explain it again without using God, if you say that God is not supernatural? I am not entirely sure I understand the relevancy then...?

 

 

This is not revealed religion with gods and angels telling humans how to live. There is not mythology that goes with this understanding of God. Actually it is what killed the power of Greek and Roman mythology, which was the religion of the day. Socrates is order to drink hemlock for causing youth to question the truth of the gods. He accepted the value of having gods, but asked people to be more careful about the stories of the gods that they tell, because a adulterous god, Zeus, is not a good god. It is the same problem we have with the God of Abraham. If you give people a false god, sooner or later the people will realize a problem with the god. The god of Cicero and Thomas Jefferson and classical philosophy is unknown. It is logos, the reason of all things, universal truth.

 

Right. But wht if I don't believe in a universal truth (which I do not, for the most part) ? Do you see where our misunderstanding seems to stem from?

 

 

 

Bottom line, it matters which philosophers you think are important.

Of course it does, but it doesn't necessarily mean you agree with their literal points. Read above about my point with Machiavelli, as an example.

 

Second, even if it does mean you agree with their literal points, I don't think it's enough to show that such agreement with Nietzche is sufficient to show resemblence to Nazi germany.

 

Third, *most* philosophy classes (especially the basic ones in undergrad) are about analysis of views *in context*. They are interpreted many times based on people's individual beliefs.

 

The biggest and best example for that -- especially in context of Nietzche -- is his influence on such a wide variety of completely different groups. Check out this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influence_and_reception_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche

 

Nietzche seemed to have influence over fascism, anarchism, nazism, and even psychoanalysis. And even Zionism! Zionism, which is the absolute opposite (if nothing else) of Nazism that tried to eradicate it. How would you explain such a vast range of influence if the only meaning one can get from Nietzche is the one leading to Nazism?

 

I think you're oversimplifying the influence and forgetting that these things are usually read in the context of the time and society they were written in, and interpreted further after analysis.

 

That's why I think your logic in this conclusion is flawed.

 

~mooey

[swansont]

I think the point was that since the claim was quite bombastic (that scientific research is politically skewed) and generalized, the evidence for it was needed.

 

And not only that, but that the research that is being suppressed covers up some racial "inconvenient truths".

 

(And beyond that, I'll be a good Beaver and decline the invitation to go to the U of O library. I know what an abstract is. They do teach that at OSU.)

[Athena]

Also the book "Will to power" has now been recognized not to be written by him (published 1901 and then again 1906) but by his sister (who liberally used and abused his material). The link between Nietzsche's actual philosophy and Hitler's are tenuous, to say the least.

 

He was, just to give an example, critical of antisemitism. Regarding morals he had quite a complicated stance, from what I remember. He was a proponent of individualism (quite in contrast to Hitler and they way he utilized group dynamics). Also, from what I remember he rejected absolute moral norms and saw them as a human constructs. But there is much more to it and quite a bit is open to interpretation. But unless we used the distorted version of his sister and ignore the bulk of his genuine work, there is really little to discuss his work of philosophy in relation with Hitler and national socialism (except to add that he was also quite anti-socialist and was at least somewhat critical of nationalism, too.).

Note that national socialism (and facism) are opposed to individualism and liberalism.

 

 

I think Mooey answered the part about Hitler's abuse of science quite well and have not anything to add there. Except maybe that in some cases he did not need to twist science. In the olden days there were far less standards in the non-rigorous areas of science (and many disciplines did not really exist in an established form). With so much junk around it was relatively easy to mine the parts that fits into your ideology. In fact, it is a good example what could happen if one politicizes science in order to make propaganda, rather than to seek the truth (and how dangerous extrapolations from half-truths can be).

 

And from a historic viewpoint I think it is worthy to point out that the eugenics movement started in the US before it was implemented in Nazi Germany (and served to some extent as inspiration). Wiki

 

 

Those are excellent criticism.

 

Note that many thought fascism was the solution to our economic problems, and we rejected Deming's model for democratic industry, while Franklin shifted us to fascism, more government control of privately own industry, and adopted Germany's social social programs for Social Security and Worker's Compensation.

 

My main objection to replacing liberal education with education for technology is the shift from training for independent thinking and moral judgment, to "group think" and leaving moral training to the church. Remember before this switch in education, the US was a leader in science and technology. That is, liberal education made the US a leader. Education for technology was modeled after German education for technology for military reasons. Education for technology rapidly advances military technology, which is important as we entered war, and again when the USSR not only had a nuclear bomb, but with Sputnik proved the ability to deliver the bomb. However, this education for the New World Order, left moral training to the church and this is devastating to democracy and liberty, and is bringing us to a police state, while our prisons and jail are bankrupting us, and mass murders keep popping up. People doing anything at all, without good moral judgment is not a good idea, and leaving training for moral judgment to the church is a very bad idea. Can we connect this thread with the Texas Republican agenda for 2012? Intellectually there is a connection. Texas does not have a good record when it comes to racial relationship, and is known for the "good old boy" tradition.

 

Maybe it was Nietzsche's sister to wrote "Will to Power", that does not change the impact of this book. Maybe the book should come with a warning that his sister wrote it?

 

Yes, the eugenics movement started in the US, and a US author also wrote a "Will to Power" book. There are many parallels between the US and Germany, and this has something to do with why I open these topics. The one thing that the US separated from Germany, was a culture transmitted through liberal education. That is education for independent thinking and good moral judgment. It is education for civic and political leadership, and it is different from the hierarchy of military order. Germany was a Christian Republic, although Prussia used military order to organize it and we adopted this model of bureaucracy during the Roosevelt years. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT PRUSSIA CENTRALIZED GERMANY'S EDUCATION AND DESTROY GERMANY HEROES, AND ALMOST MADE A GOD OF EFFICIENCY. When the US adopted Germany's model of education for technology, it did the same. Destroying national heroes and praising efficiency is about political take over. The US was a leader in the sciences and technology before education for technology, and the US culture was always driven by a will to power. The change in education is has cultural and political ramifications, and the Bush family loved calling this the New World Order.

 

And not only that, but that the research that is being suppressed covers up some racial "inconvenient truths".

 

(And beyond that, I'll be a good Beaver and decline the invitation to go to the U of O library. I know what an abstract is. They do teach that at OSU.)

 

Oh my god, I am not sure what mean, but one possible interpretation is very funny.

 

Not checking out the documents in the library because you are a Beaver, is also funny.

 

It is wonderful to start my day with laughter.

 

I think the point was that since the claim was quite bombastic (that scientific research is politically skewed) and generalized, the evidence for it was needed. I don't think showing funding is enough, though, honestly, especially since many endeavors of research ended up going against the companies' "desires" or "motives". I do agree that all research should be scrutinized -- including the funding sources and the potential bias of the people who run it -- but the point of the scientific method is that if it's done right (fully double blinded, fully repeatable, established with independently verifiable evidence, etc) is that it is meant to erase potential biases.

 

 

Maybe (I don't know this case so I can't judge this particular case) but you can tell it wasn't truly scientific not for the source of funding alone. If it wasn't scientific, it was because it didn't follow the scientific method and it (hopefully?) was exposed as such under some peer review.

 

I don't think the generalized statement that 'most' scientific research is politically skewed is true, and I don't think that wikipedia article (and/or sources of funding on their own) prove this point.

 

 

I think it's fair to say, at least in my opinion, that while we do need to keep being diligent to prevent any occurence of anything remotely close to Nazi germany, we should also still be weary of bringing it up as a comparison too quickly. The comparison itself brings out more emotional outrage than rational thought, so it should be used when appropriate. And I think in that broadcast, it wasn't.

 

It served more as fear mongering and bombastic emotional claims rather than something we really need to act on.

 

That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to fix things that might be unjust in the way that universities teach or anything like that, but to go on and compare it to Nazi germany was a big nono in my book on the part of that Broadcast.

 

 

 

There are a lot of philosophers that make a lot of claims that we, today, consider unjust or maybe even dangerous if they were literally followed. For that matter, Hobbes' theory of a ruthless all-powerful rather oppressive ruler supports dictatorship, and I (to say the least) am highly against it. I would guess I'm not alone.

 

However, when we study Hobbes, we don't necessarily say that his theory is absolutely correct or should be absolutely followed; we study the elements that led him to conclude his theoretical parts, and we analyze the parts that might reflect on what could be considered human nature. We can also analyze what elements could work well in a society and what couldn't or shouldn't.

 

It's not "black and white" type of "he was right" and "he was wrong". We study philosophy to learn the different theories in context and compare them to whatever political situation we believe in. That's why a lot of people love Machiavelli (which I don't, by the way, but I seem to be in the minority). Most of the people who claim to have Machiavelli on their bed table don't usually go out and kill their rivals or use his literal suggestions. They use it as a source of theoretical points about some part of human nature that could be taken figuratively, or inspire people to use it PROPERLY within context.

 

So, I don't think your concern with specific things Nietzche said is warranted. There's a reason why, in philosophy, you study more than one theory, and you usually also study the background information about that person. You want to know not only what they say, but what led them to conclude whatever they said, and you want to be able to do it in proper context and reach whatever conclusions based on their text.

 

Some you may agree with, some you may disagree with, but the mere fact they got you *thinking* about those points can be extremely valuable to the development of a better political theory or social theory of conduct. Those are things that are worth knowing and learning about, regardless of how "good" a person was or how valid their points are to our present.

 

Another example: I personally like Socrates, I think he's a cool dude albeit very annoying in his methodology of argument. I love the way he reaches certain conclusions -- but I love it because I know of the time he lived in. His way of concluding the equality of women, for instance (limited as it may be) was brilliant, not because of the way he did it (because I disagree with some of his premises) but because in HIS time it was absolutely revolutionary. And yet these are still processes and claims that we may use today, some of them at least.

 

So I think that your fear of a particular philosopher, in my opinion, is unwarranted. And that's also why I think your leap to fear that we may be at risk of getting close to resembling Nazi germany is even more unwarranted, if it's based on these reasons.

 

 

You see what I mean?

 

 

 

I think the problem here is that you see God as something very natural in this process, which is perfectly okay, but you have to understand that not everyone do. I, for instance, don't think God has any place in this discussion because I don't believe any sort of God exists -- and if God does exist, I don't see this god as any form of influencial being on our personal lives. I see this piece as irrelevant, then. I'm not the only one , and that might be the reason why people took the arguments to a different direction than what you intended.

 

It's not that I don't respect your belief in that, it's just that I don't see the argument this way at all because of a different belief (or a nonexistent belief?) in such a God as you describe. It's like we speak two different languages in this particular case.... does this make sense?

 

 

It doesnt' matter whether god is supernatural or not, I don't see the same analysis as you. For me, the entire issue of god (whatever form it, she, he or they) may take is utterly irrelevant and is a red herring. The only thing that comes out of this mention is to move the argument in a different way -- that of belief, or religion, or emotion -- even if you don't mean to.

 

This might also be why I may misunderstand your point here. Can you explain it again without using God, if you say that God is not supernatural? I am not entirely sure I understand the relevancy then...?

 

 

 

Right. But wht if I don't believe in a universal truth (which I do not, for the most part) ? Do you see where our misunderstanding seems to stem from?

 

 

 

Of course it does, but it doesn't necessarily mean you agree with their literal points. Read above about my point with Machiavelli, as an example.

 

Second, even if it does mean you agree with their literal points, I don't think it's enough to show that such agreement with Nietzche is sufficient to show resemblence to Nazi germany.

 

Third, *most* philosophy classes (especially the basic ones in undergrad) are about analysis of views *in context*. They are interpreted many times based on people's individual beliefs.

 

The biggest and best example for that -- especially in context of Nietzche -- is his influence on such a wide variety of completely different groups. Check out this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia....drich_Nietzsche

 

Nietzche seemed to have influence over fascism, anarchism, nazism, and even psychoanalysis. And even Zionism! Zionism, which is the absolute opposite (if nothing else) of Nazism that tried to eradicate it. How would you explain such a vast range of influence if the only meaning one can get from Nietzche is the one leading to Nazism?

 

I think you're oversimplifying the influence and forgetting that these things are usually read in the context of the time and society they were written in, and interpreted further after analysis.

 

That's why I think your logic in this conclusion is flawed.

 

~mooey

 

Yours is the post I most wanted to read, and I am out of time. Hang in there. I will pay attention to the details as soon as possible.

But if you could join at the U of O library, we could look at the documents created during the Eisenhower years. If people would get the New World Order and Eisenhower's explanation of the Military Industrial Complex, are one and the same, things would go much better. During the Eisenhower years, government created new connections with research and media. Will you elect someone to visit with me and examine the documents, and come back to report to you? I will provide housing and meals, and throw in $20 for transportation. Obviously you all are not trusting me, so give me someone you do trust.

[mooeypoo]

Sorry, it might be my being a foreigner, but what's U of O and how do I get there...?

[CharonY]

University of Oregon? University of Ohio? University of Ottawa? Typo in UFO?

[Athena]

Sorry, it might be my being a foreigner, but what's U of O and how do I get there...?

 

Whoops, talk about small town thinking, of course the whole world knows what U of O stands for. As CharonY pointed out, I goofed by thinking of only one meaning. For me there is only one U of O. The University of Oregon. That is where the Knight library is and within the Knight library are year books, the Abstracts from the beginning of making these books. Perhaps when dinosaurs still walked the earth. And also a document department, where all the old government documents can be found. This is where I began my research on the 1958 National Defense Education Act, that was to last 4 years, but instead became a permanent change in public education. While there, I began checking other books for the year 1958 and I was blown away by what I found. Like a letter from Eisenhower praising the Germans for their contribution to democracy peaked my curiosity. Then there was stuff about government making new connections with the media and research. Exactly what Reagan needed to convince us our economic troubles were because of those poor folks, not industrial and banking decisions. At the time, I didn't know what I would find. I am not even sure I had even heard about the Military Industrial Complex. I was being curious, and I don't think the information meant much to me, except to know about the 1958 Education Act.

[Athena]

Personally Athena, I think your comments about Hitler, science, education and the US comparisons are valid for discussion - they don't go "full Godwin" because (if I read you right) you are actually examining US parallels in aspects of policy and philosophy, not condemning US policies as paralleling Nazi Germany to poison the well.

 

I really can't get into the more detailed aspects of German philosophical influences because I am quite out of my depth, but I am tempted to say in a general sense that you may be too focused on key details with the one case (Germany) and its impact on American culture: I would like to argue it's a far more common symptom of simply being in the shadow of one's own success - it plagued Rome and Athens long before America or Germany were cursed with a distracting level of success.

 

It may sound quaint but "Success can be the biggest distraction to the activity of being successful" and the US has been very successful. We've had to try and make sense of it, explain it (often simplistically but still in good faith), and more recently ask why it feels like our long advantageous position is slipping away.

 

This is even true in town halls, co-ops, businesses, political parties, government departments and even advocacy groups. Upon becoming successful, the emerging sense of identity of the successful group becomes central to manage, and especially when the identity becomes contested by partisan bickering, can even steal the show to such a degree that the capacity for success becomes nonviable.

 

To apply this to Rome just prior to the Caesar and the Rubicon; it wasn't that the Empire failed to continue to produce educated people... Cicero made many great speeches in that era, but it was how political positions (senators, tribunes, praetors, consuls, etc) became little more than a way for powerful people to out maneuver each other, instead of producing necessary rulings and decisions to ensure the Republic's stability.

 

In other words it was successful as long as the people in those positions got them with the intention of achieving personal success through successful execution of the office for the Greater Glory of Rome - when politicians started to identify with power blocks and used those positions to fight partisan battles almost exclusively, it was an inevitable decline after that. More and more of the Republic's checks and balances were either gutted or twisted to "save" the Republic from opposing political opponents... on both sides, leading to the state of atrophy and popular discontent and the growing reliance on executive power to get critical decisions made.

 

I think we are in a similar state today, in that political parties have such a strong sense of identity they elevate themselves beyond their actual roles. Instead of two parties working out how to draft meaningful legislation through a combination of critical constructive rivalry and good old fashioned compromise, both are far too distracted by the "meta partisan battle" and all the various ways the entire system can be gamed. Instead of political strategies that are liable to appeal to voters as realistic solutions, we get political strategies that attempt to stack the Supreme Court, or beat the "magic numbers" in the Senate and House for control - with no plans on what to really do with that control other than "not have to compromise with the opponents anymore" as the end all be all.

 

Our Republic was not founded on "Winner takes all" partisan unilateralism. We used to meet in the House and Senate so opposing political viewpoints could be argued, discussed and refined and contribute to proposed solutions - now partisans hold closed meetings beforehand so they can tell the other side they already made up their minds. This makes it easier for individuals to protect, defend, and expand whatever they "identify" as their power-base to "do the peoples work" but they never actually get any of it done because cut-throat partisan rivalry is a full time job, and partisan threats are always immediate and unavoidable.

 

Even our news has succumbed to this affect - they aren't all politically partisan, but they are so self conscious about ratings and ad revenues (the self-identity issue) they've mostly replaced in depth reporting for sensationalism and hyperbole.

 

I believe these are the factors that have led us to our current incapacity for real legislative progress, and that has contributed greatly to our current sense of "being in our own former shadows."

 

 

To tie this into Germany and the US - I don't know if this was the state of affairs when Hitler gave up on art school, but Germany was definitely in its own former shadow with many seemingly intractable political problems at that time. The danger in this scenario is eventually citizens get tired of suffering under the partisan-induced stagnancy, and begin to see the straight forward granting of extended executive power as the only means to break the impasse - especially when played on by a trusted charismatic leader who originally only promises to restore the proper state of affairs but gains great aspirations as power becomes consolidated.

 

The US is not there yet. We are still thankfully far too partisan to trust any one leader, but I am willing to bet that many Obama supporters and many Romney supporters have very little faith in either candidate overcoming our current partisan gridlock and would consider "some" additional executive power as the only way anything will get done. Many liberals (myself included at times) often fault Obama for not using executive orders to break impasses more often.

 

It's less that German philosophies have impacted our culture for the worse, but more than we're suffering the common pitfalls of success and stagnation which holds many historical parallels, all of which are worth avoiding if at all possible.

 

Yes, I am comparing Germany with the US because I knew we adopted German education for technology. Everything I know begins with a study of the history of education. My grandmother defended democracy in the classroom and in response to loosing her, I wanted to know what that meant. What was the meaning of her life? At first I expected to buy only one old school text and find the set of American values that every child was taught. I now have to an extra room for my library. Many of these books, as early as 1899, speak of German education. The purpose of German education was advancing technology for military and industrial purpose and they had a relationship with industry very different ours, for military reasons. We are talking Star Trek Klayons verses Captain Kirk and his crew. In fact I believe Klayon language was an imitation of German?

 

Also we know Germany through a study of the fall of Rome. They became the Holy Roman Empire and did a pretty good job ruling a vast area. These are Romanized barbarians. That is, they carry Rome's elements of civilization. Now in a history forum there is a discussion about what happened to the Prussians. That is too much information for here, but following the 30 Years conflict that devastated Germany the Prussians took control of Germany, and this is information we really should pay attention to, because from here the Prussians did to Germany what was done to the US following the second world war. I am talking about what Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex, and what Hitler and Bush called the New World Order.

 

I would love to get into the fall of Rome and if the US is falling, but that is not the subject of this thread. The subject is actually about science and morality. The PBS philosophy program, wrongly said Hitler's Germany was reliant on science. This is wrong, because education for technology actually encourages superstition. Let me immediately say, I don't know when the US became a science and industrial leader, but in my head are stories of building a railroad, and steam ships, telephone, radio, TV, and IBM ruled in computer technology, all before the US replaced liberal education with education for technology. I am not attacking science and technology, but the change in education that encourages superstition, competitiveness, is amoral, and does a piss poor job of transitioning youth to adults. The pursuit of happiness does mean self indulgence, as so many people seem to think it means today. We have had major cultural change, and this is not the democracy we defended in two world wars. Perhaps Romans could have screamed about the same decline we seem to be experiencing? Cicero, the Roman statesman known for defending Rome's democracy, wrote much about duty to the state, and about self indulgence. And God knows there is a whole lot to say about the moral decline of Rome, and how defending Rome stopped being a citizen duty, and that their soldiers were paid, boy oh boy, we certainly are as Rome falling in many ways. But lets get back to education for technology being amoral and encouraging superstition.

 

Why does education for technology encourage superstition? Hitler opposed reason, and promised his people magic, and they loved him. Because education for technology is not education for science. All technician needs to know is a set of skills to do the job. Think military. What does a military want? Does a military want independent thinkers who constantly operate on moral considerations, question authority as though they are the final authority, not the person over them, and believe it is their civic duty to keep their country on a moral path, or would it prefer people with technological skills, trained to be obedient and follow orders? What I keep saying about God and liberty is tied to this question. It is education for technology and leaving moral education to the church, that unleashed the horrors of Germany. This mentality goes with the model for bureaucracy that we have adopted. These great organizations completely crush individual liberty and power. We have apathy and are experiencing atrophy because we have educated for this. HERE IS THE REAL KICKER. ATHENS MADE THE SAME EDUCATION MISTAKE WHEN IT BEGAN EXPANDING. This subject is much deeper than many realize.

 

I think the point was that since the claim was quite bombastic (that scientific research is politically skewed) and generalized, the evidence for it was needed. I don't think showing funding is enough, though, honestly, especially since many endeavors of research ended up going against the companies' "desires" or "motives". I do agree that all research should be scrutinized -- including the funding sources and the potential bias of the people who run it -- but the point of the scientific method is that if it's done right (fully double blinded, fully repeatable, established with independently verifiable evidence, etc) is that it is meant to erase potential biases.

 

Why do you think the US is opposed to Iran having nuclear power plants? How about because these were developed and built in the US not because of energy crisis but a nuclear crisis. The USSR had nuclear capabilities and Sputnik proved it could deliver the bombs. Nuclear energy plants were needed to produce whatever it is that is used in nuclear bombs. We soon had surplus of nuclear bombs and then had to deal with radio active waste, and my father who was paid to manage that waste, said we are not doing a good job of it, so he quit his job on moral grounds.

 

My father went on to work for NASA. Who can deny NASA was about the nuclear race with the USSR and is directly related to military goals, such as spying and delivering weapons? Really?

 

The US has military bases around the world. We can't keep our children in inner city slums safe and well educated, but we can keep the world safe.

 

Long before education for technology, IBM was a leader in computers. My mother was a key punch operator before I was born and I am an old lady. It wasn't that long ago when my utility bill was on a key punch card. Because of this thread, I have been asking about who lead the world in science and industry and I am getting names of every country except the US. What the heck?! I used to argue that other countries were first in the developing many things, but now I am arguing that the US government got involved with developing technology for military reasons, and I am shock that is even necessary. Hello out there, nuclear power plants were about making nuclear bombs, and the Internet comes out of government funded research for military purpose, and NASA has gone far beyond getting a man to the moon.

 

Maybe (I don't know this case so I can't judge this particular case) but you can tell it wasn't truly scientific not for the source of funding alone. If it wasn't scientific, it was because it didn't follow the scientific method and it (hopefully?) was exposed as such under some peer review.

 

I don't think the generalized statement that 'most' scientific research is politically skewed is true, and I don't think that wikipedia article (and/or sources of funding on their own) prove this point.

 

Child is here, must run.., but think of research and advertizing research into what makes us remember and hook us into buying a product. Add this to it is the government research that developed LSD and put it on the streets. Think about German psychology and things like Behaviorism. Think military and government funding. What we are talking about here is not as innocent as people seem to want to believe. Oh, remember Bush and the invasion of Iraq, you know "Shock and Ave", "Power and Glory". And whoops, Iraq didn't have a nuclear weapon. Add this to Reagan and the transfer of wealth following research and the media reporting welfare fraud.

 

Eisenhower was telling us something when he said to be aware of the Military Industrial Complex, his administration put things in order, including the new connection between research and the media, and if we do not compare ourselves with Germany, we are fools who will be able to see what is happening.

Edited August 9, 2012 by Athena

[Athena]

The comparisons between Germany and the US are simple.

 

1. The US adopted the German model of bureaucracy. This is how government is organized and the change took us from living under laws to living under government policies. It took us from individual judgment to policy decisions. I am afraid people are clueless about how this shifted power from the individual to the state, and that they don't care about something of which they are not aware. They just don't think about it. Then argue there is no comparison?

 

2. The US stopped transmitting its culture when it adopted the German model of education for technology.

 

William James wrote in 1899, "If we reflect upon the various ideals of education that are prevalent in the different countries, we see that what they all aim at is to organize capacities for conduct."

 

Liberal education is about liberating the mind, and teaching citizenship, preparing youth for adulthood, good moral judgment and independent thinking. Education for technology leaves all that to the church and parents, and prepares youth for a technological society with unknown values. This means reliance on laws and law enforcement for social order, rather than the education of a child.

 

This is important to this thread, because the philosophy show was arguing science is amoral, and could lead to something like Hitler's Germany. That is true with education for technology. It was not true with liberal education. That is because education for technology is amoral and liberal education is very much about morality.

Mooeypoo, Anyone studying science is studying universal truths. This was determined in ancient Athens, when it was a determined a triangle on earth would be a triangle any place in the universe, because it is not a triangle if it is not a triangle. Your argument that you do not believe in universal truths, is like Christians arguing that scientist sometimes get it wrong, therefore we should be believe in the bible before believing in science. If your understanding of science came out of the education we had, you would know it goes with morality, and there would not be a fear of science manifesting what Germany had.

Edited August 10, 2012 by Athena