What is terrorism?

Thanks, kennethamy. Here's my responses to your questions and comments.

Kennethamy:"I really don't know what it means to say that whatever we know is relative and not absolute, so I'll just pass on that."

Dewey: Perhaps, since this is a philosophy forum, you would like to have an idea as to what philosophical relativity is. John Mill explains it this way:

"Our whole knowledge of mind and of matter is relative, conditioned-relatively conditioned. Of things absolutely or in themselves, be they external, be they internal, we know nothing, or know them only as incognisable; and become aware of their incomprehensible existence, only as this is indirectly and accidentally revealed to us, through certain qualities related to our faculties of knowledge, and which qualities, again, we cannot think as unconditioned, irrelative, existent in and of themselves. "


kennethamy: "The pathetic excuse that the poor terrorist has to resort to terror because he is so-well, poor, does not move me. It sounds too much like the rapist who excuses his rape of a child because he cannot get any woman to have sex with him."

Dewey: I don't see much equation in that comparison. The one seeks the essential to life - food and shelter. The other does not. And, incidentally, I looked for but could not find factual evidence to support your causation for rape.


Kennethamy: "It is really not an excuse to do something evil because you cannot accomplish what you want in any other way. It is surprising, even shocking, that people would give this kind of thing a serious hearing."

Dewey: To relieve the surprise and shock, I suggest you give more consideration to that term "evil". Ask yourself if you are applying it objectively. Spinoza, one of the myriad of philosophers in agreement in this regard, reminds us that "evil" indicates nothing positive in things considered in themselves. As Hamlet puts it: "There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so." The answer here might be to think less subjectively and more objectively.


Kennethamy: "I don't know what good means we could give the terrorist to accomplish his goal of murdering people who do not conform to his beliefs. Do you?"

Dewey: No, I don't. Anyhow it's irrelevant. (I abslutely refuse to believe you ask this question to find a good means of murdering all the terrorists.)


I apologise if I have underestimated your understanding of the matters discussed above. But a little reminding can't hurt.

How about this?

The degree to which a person is a terrorist is directly proportional to the percentage of the global population that this person considers expendable as collateral damage.

I'm not sure if I like that definition myself but I'm going to throw it out there anyway.

I'm attempting to provide some objective measure so we can get away from the terrorist/freedom-fighter relativity thing.

But there is no terrorist-freedom fighter "relativity thing" to get away from, since those notions are not on the same plain. Terrorism is a means, and freedom is an end. So someone can be both a terrorist and a freedom fighter. And many are. It is also important to note that the issue of collateral damage is not nearly so important as the fact that there is no collateral damage in the case of terrorism. The damage they do is not collateral. It is intentional. So, your view is mistaken on two counts.

That's a good point. I did not actually mean "collateral damage". I used the wrong words. Let me try again.

The degree to which a person is a terrorist is directly proportional to the percentage of the global population that this person considers expendable as a means to his/her end.

Is that any better?

And riddle me this kennethamy what if freedom-fighting is the means and terrorism is the end? Zing! Oh yes score is all tied up eleven to elephant.

How about this?

The degree to which a person is a terrorist is directly proportional to the percentage of the global population that this person considers expendable as collateral damage.

I'm not sure if I like that definition myself but I'm going to throw it out there anyway.

I'm attempting to provide some objective measure so we can get away from the terrorist/freedom-fighter relativity thing.

we can face up to the fact that everything we know is relative and nothing is absolute.

Hi Deckard,

Your idea is interesting and a good try, but from my perspective it doesn't work.

You referred to "relativity". There is a relativity thing here, I think.

The ends that each of us has do not fit nicely into some overall assembly of constant, uniform purposefulness. Our ends often conflict with one another. We seek this end today and another end tomorrow. It all depends on the stimuli that happen to be working on us at the time. Right now, writing this post I'm targeted toward one of my noble humanitarian ends. Tomorrow, I will probably revert to one of my many ignoble self-serving pursuits - or maybe some stimulus will come along and point me in a better direction. It's all relative.

The average terrorist is no different. He seeks to kill today but is susceptible to stimuli pointing him in a better direction tomorrow. The stimuli we have been giving him, the Bush-type assurances that, yes, he is very evil, haven't worked. It's time for us to provide the right stimuli.

I would argue that it is a matter of pragmatism. Do you claim that it is squalor that drives the terrorist to kill himself for a cause? You might say that the squalor makes him more susceptible to propaganda that stems from those at the top. How would you propose we eliminate the message? I have my qualms about how realistic the "hearts and minds" campaign is. To quash terrorism we have to quash the ideology, if we cannot quash the ideology we have to quash those who pose a deadly threat. So far I have not seen a realistic proposal for quashing the ideology, and it seems like it is a problem that will only be washed away by time. Hence, we quash the immediate threat.

That sentence is self refuting...consider the statement "It is a fact that nothing is absolute" which carries, in this context, the same meaning as: "It is a fact that nothing is a fact". If it is true, then it is false, because if it is true, then it is a fact, so the sentence is necessarily false.

I think this is what kennethamy was commenting on (or not, who knows).

How about this?

The degree to which a person is a terrorist is directly proportional to the percentage of the global population that this person considers expendable as collateral damage.

I'm not sure if I like that definition myself but I'm going to throw it out there anyway.

I'm attempting to provide some objective measure so we can get away from the terrorist/freedom-fighter relativity thing.