(no subject)

[fpb]

Anyone who thinks that I was too harsh about Jonah Goldberg's repulsive and politically motivated rewriting of my own country's history ought to read today's Thomas Sowell column, where it is taken entirely at its own valuation and highly recommended as summer reading for the children of conservatives. This unhistorical, culturally imperialistic propaganda, that distorts my country's and my continent's history in the service of provincial American concerns, is going to enter the bloodstream of a whole American party, If it has not already done so. This will increase further the mutual incomprehension between USA and Europe, because you cannot stand on your two hind legs and inform anyone who knows anything of continental history - France, Italy, Germany, etc. - that Nazism and Fascism were "left wing". This sort of rubbish, especially if spoken with the arrogance of Goldberg and Sowell, will increase European contempt for American viewpoints and culture. Do we really need this sort of trash further complicating our already difficult relationship, and all for the sake of a few Republican votes in the next election?

Comments

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And you answer by refusing to deal with the history I described. This is not only sickening, it is clear evidence of obstinacy. In the same day in which you totally misused the word "idealist" (which is a technical term in philosophy and does not mean what you took it to mean), this shows that your grip of established political and philosophical categories is shaky at best. AT the very least, this does not make you the right man to complain about anyone's usage of political and philosophical terminology. Right: one last attempt to try and drag this discussion out of the quicksand, and if it does not work I will draw the necessary conclusions.

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

"In the same day in which you totally misused the word "idealist" (which is a technical term in philosophy and does not mean what you took it to mean) , this shows that your grip of established political and philosophical categories is shaky at best. At the very least, this does not make you the right man to complain about anyone's usage of political and philosophical terminology..."

If you are talking about the same essay I think you are talking about, I not only defined how I was using the term, but acknowledged that it was not the technical philosophical definition, which I also gave; and I carefully distinguished the two. My use of the term was perfectly proper in that context, since I took the care to both define it and to distinguish it from the way the word is normally meant.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding or misreading.

At this point, please forgive me if I must speak bluntly. Please stop treating every discussion where we disagree as a personal attack, and please stop belittling me.

Neither your anger nor your condescension nor your expressions of outraged honor nor your puffery about your greater wisdom and learning have any logical relevance to this discussion, or any other. They accomplish nothing. I am neither cowed nor offended by your bluster.

Where I err, please correct me. Where I am ignorance, please instruct me. I would welcome it. But merely scoffing and sneering adds nothing of value to the discussion.

Ad Hominem is an informal logical error; an irrelevance. If I misuse a technical term in one discussion, it does not necessarily follow that I misuse all technical terms; nor does it follow that all your uses of technical terms are correct or are unambiguous; nor does it necessarily follow that I am barred from making any criticism of someone else's use or misuse of a term; nor does it mean that I am not allowed to question someone's use of a term that I do not understand.

You know the rules of elementary logic. Don't bring up such an illogical point again.

You know I respect you, even when we disagree. Return me the same courtesy, I beg you.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Do not start with an ad hominem attack. It is bad form and bad argument. I admit that mine was not admirable, but it only came at a moment of exasperation where I felt that you were not listening to anything I said. Rhetoric about bluster and all that is simply that - bluster. It does nothing to improve your argument or Mr.Goldberg's. And I claimed nothing more than that no Italian alive or dead would consider the matter in any other light than I consider it. The gross mistakes you made in your account of Fascism - such as missing the small matter of its being protected by the King and the army - certainly do not argue in favour of your knowledge, but the fact that you felt I bragged of something - give me one concrete instance where I bragged of anything, rather than simply pointing out that you were wrong in point of fact - only shows that, as the Italian proverb says, the tongue has this gift of hitting the point where the tooth hurts.

[johncwright.livejournal.com]

"I admit that mine was not admirable, but it only came at a moment of
exasperation where I felt that you were not listening to anything I said."

I accept your apology and forgive you. Let us be friends.