Hitler

Cyracuz wrote:

setanta wrote:
Your contentions are sufficiently vague as to seem to be worthy of consideration, and sufficiently vague so as not to oblige you to defend a specific position.

And for that I am very happy. I'm way out of my league here when it comes to history it seems.

But what you say is interesting. Do you think that Germany could have started WW2 even if Hitler wasn't there? You seem to credit many other powers at work at the time.

Maybe Hitler was just a pawn...

No, i don't think he was a pawn, but i do think he was not an original thinker or actor--he simply lusted after personal power and exploited the situation to achieve it. Keep in mind that his perceptions were fallible--the Reichstag fire seemed to suggest that a "red scare" could prop up his government, but after the Enabling Act, the NSDAP propagandists found out that the "red scare" wasn't selling well with ordinary Germans--and that was dangerous for their parliamentary position, because they had "sold" that thesis to their right wing coalition partner, and the right wing Catholic party. They quickly settled on the Jews, and that was a winner, not only in Germany, but in many other parts of Europe, too.

But yes, i think that had there been no Hitler, Germany would eventually would have had a charismatic and effective leader would would have exploited German humiliation and resentments. And, yes, i think that Germany would have, sooner or later, gone to war in Europe, probably with Poland, and also probably eventually with France. However, i doubt that Germany would have, immediately, at least, gone to war with the Soviet Union, absent Hitler--without the particular idiocy of Hitler, there is no reason to assume that Germany would have gone to war with the Soviet Union, except defensively. That first winter after the invasion of the Soviet Union was the winter of dawning German discontent. The German people had been happy with Czechoslovakia, had considered the war on Poland justified, and had been ecstatic at the defeat of France and England--but Russia, that made too little sense, and the seemingly invincible German military machine grinding to a halt short of Moscow and Leningrad had a bad effect on morale at home.

So, of course, i cannot know--but i don't think that absent Hitler, you would not necessarily have had a German leader eager to attack the Russians, and that could have made a crucial difference.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Eorl wrote:
I think Cyracuz's point may have been "It's an ill wind that blows nobody good".

It's practically impossible that nothing good came from Nazi Germany. At the least, it's given racism (especially anti-semitism) a very bad name.

Is it apologeticism? Hell no.

Nor would i have accused you of making an apologia. Neither am i accusing Cyracuz of making an apologia. However, that some good may have come out of Germany in the period 1933-1945 is not evidence that the NSDAP were responsible, which is one of the points i was making. Alluding to the understandable revulsion to racism taken to an illogical extreme as some good coming out of Germany does not constitute evidence that Hitler was productive of any good.

This thread does not speak to the issue of whether or not the NSDAP were good for Germany, and, specifically, it makes a breath-taking grammatically lame attempt to separate Hitler from the consequences of the concerted efforts of the NSDAP to implement a program which Hitler had outlined as early as 1923. That is a claim which does not stand up to logic, and any attempt to gild the lily by saying that anything good came out Germany in those 12 years ignores that whatever one can allude to as having been good cannot be said to have been a conscious product of the policies of the NSDAP and their implementation.

Agreed

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

And why should your personal threshold for surprise convince anyone else that you're right?

My personal level of surprise is not important - it was a secondary point I was making. What's important is that in order for one to make a factual conclusion about the presence of free will, it would be helpful to have some sort of evidence. Again, I don't completely reject the idea, but I would certainly be interested to see something in favor of it.

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:

But there is a lot of evidence in favor of the concept of free will.

Please explain.

I did explain. Re-read my post.

You said that "Indeed, nothing explains voluntary actions more clearly, and with fewer assumptions, than the notion that we are free to choose our actions."
And then you said that "Whether that means that there is such a thing as "free will" is debatable".
In the quote above you said "But there is a lot of evidence in favor of the concept of free will".
I was not sure what to think of the contradiction, and I failed to see any evidence in favor of free will, so I asked you to elaborate further.

Yes, in a way it appears that we're free to choose our actions, but they are based on current circumstances, past experience, and our genetics. We choose our actions based on those things/variables, which is not truly "free will".

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:

Then what are our actions determined by?

Us.

How does that fit with "free will"?
I agree, we determine our actions - via the complex blend of countless environmental and genetic variables (and past experiences).

joefromchicago wrote:

Of course you're making a factual assertion about free will. For instance, when you say, "it's all in the genes," what is that but an assertion of a fact?

Yes, our physical and mental features are shaped by our genes (and the environment) - that's a fact. Empathy, happiness, anger, etc, are all chemical processes in our bodies - that's a fact. Therefore, not being fond of Hitler is a chemical process that's invoked by the fact that he killed lots of people (empathy, discomfort, disgust).

However, the thing that's at question is whether there is some amount of "free will" involved as well. I'm not saying that there is no free will... I'm saying that it's very questionable at best - It's just an idea that doesn't have lots of supporting evidence. Please provide some evidence so we can discuss those in more detail.

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
And it doesn't mean that human social constructs like Good and Bad have to be absolute in some way.

I never said it was.

Then good, we can say that due to the lack of evidence and morality being a very subjective concept that is different from culture to culture, absolute morality is therefore very questionable at best.

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
I don't have to. I care just because I do. It's all in the genes...

How do you know that?

I know that empathy and other feeling are chemical processes in the body that were constructed via our genes, and may be strenghtened/weakened via the environment.

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
True, but if that's the case, the more reasonable question would be: Isn't it possible that all societies are wrong (when it comes to absolute morality)?

Yes, of course that could be true.

Then I guess we agree to what I mentioned two quotes above: Absolute morality is very questionable at best and should therefore not be a considered very likely by default.

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
Could it be that everything is subjective and dependent on one's culture, point of view, and situation at hand?

No, that can't be true.

Why not. Based on what criteria?

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
You don't want to take and idea for granted by default. Instead, an idea (especially a bold idea like Objective/Universal Morality) should be considered as very questionable at best, before there's some strong evidence in favor of it.

Why?

A divine being told me that it will punish you if you don't send me $1,000 each week. I don't have any evidence... but I do expect the money starting this week. Don't question the idea/statement.

To answer your question... Based on logic...

Since the human mind is capable of imagining close to an infinite number of things/possibilities, one has to be careful when considering those as fact. Careful research and lots of solid evidence is needed before pronouncing a "positive" statement as fact.

Why stop at "free will"? Why stop at "God"? When it comes to imagination and statements without evidence... ANYTHING goes.

joefromchicago wrote:

c_logic wrote:
Let me rephrase it. Why are you convinced that Good and Bad are absolute? Based on what criteria?

Based on logic. There can be no such thing as subjective or relative morality. Therefore, if there is such a thing as "morality," it must be objective or absolute.

Then the logic you are referring to has to do with language, not logic of proof in favor of Morality (as there is no proof/evidence).
I agree with you, the definition of the word "Morality" may very well have to do with the absolute, but the fact is that there is no evidence in favor of absolute morality. It would be reasonable to say that "Morality" - although meant and referred to in absolute terms - is really subjective in practice.

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

You said that "Indeed, nothing explains voluntary actions more clearly, and with fewer assumptions, than the notion that we are free to choose our actions."
And then you said that "Whether that means that there is such a thing as "free will" is debatable".
In the quote above you said "But there is a lot of evidence in favor of the concept of free will".
I was not sure what to think of the contradiction, and I failed to see any evidence in favor of free will, so I asked you to elaborate further.

It's not a contradiction. There is evidence that supports the existence of free will. Does that establish the existence of free will? I don't think so, but the case is compelling.

c_logic wrote:

Yes, in a way it appears that we're free to choose our actions, but they are based on current circumstances, past experience, and our genetics. We choose our actions based on those things/variables, which is not truly "free will".

How do you know that?

c_logic wrote:

I agree, we determine our actions - via the complex blend of countless environmental and genetic variables (and past experiences).

How do you know that?

c_logic wrote:

Yes, our physical and mental features are shaped by our genes (and the environment) - that's a fact. Empathy, happiness, anger, etc, are all chemical processes in our bodies - that's a fact. Therefore, not being fond of Hitler is a chemical process that's invoked by the fact that he killed lots of people (empathy, discomfort, disgust).

Nonsense.

Empathy, happiness, and anger are not chemical processes, and even a little thought would demonstrate why they aren't. Or, absent that, you can review the strange case of the "sentient corpse."

c_logic wrote:

However, the thing that's at question is whether there is some amount of "free will" involved as well. I'm not saying that there is no free will... I'm saying that it's very questionable at best - It's just an idea that doesn't have lots of supporting evidence. Please provide some evidence so we can discuss those in more detail.

As I said before, the "evidence" for free will is largely logical rather than empirical. Indeed, it is primarily based on a negative proof: nothing else explains human actions better than free will. Certainly your claim that emotions are chemical processes is far more absurd, and involves more unsupportable assumptions, than any claim for the existence of free will.

c_logic wrote:

Then good, we can say that due to the lack of evidence and morality being a very subjective concept that is different from culture to culture, absolute morality is therefore very questionable at best.

Assuming that morality is "a very subjective concept" and then concluding that morality is subjective is the epitome of question begging.

c_logic wrote:

I know that empathy and other feeling are chemical processes in the body that were constructed via our genes, and may be strenghtened/weakened via the environment.

You are quite wrong.

c_logic wrote:

Then I guess we agree to what I mentioned two quotes above: Absolute morality is very questionable at best and should therefore not be a considered very likely by default.

Just because everyone may have differing views of right and wrong no more calls into question the existence of "morality" than does the fact that everyone may believe a falsehood calls into question the notion of "truth."

c_logic wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:
c_logic wrote:
Could it be that everything is subjective and dependent on one's culture, point of view, and situation at hand?

No, that can't be true.

Why not. Based on what criteria?

Based on the logical contradiction inherent in the idea of moral relativism.

c_logic wrote:

A divine being told me that it will punish you if you don't send me $1,000 each week. I don't have any evidence... but I do expect the money starting this week. Don't question the idea/statement.

Hunh?

c_logic wrote:

To answer your question... Based on logic...

Since the human mind is capable of imagining close to an infinite number of things/possibilities, one has to be careful when considering those as fact. Careful research and lots of solid evidence is needed before pronouncing a "positive" statement as fact.

Why stop at "free will"? Why stop at "God"? When it comes to imagination and statements without evidence... ANYTHING goes.

Are you suggesting that your position is based on "logic?"

c_logic wrote:

Then the logic you are referring to has to do with language, not logic of proof in favor of Morality (as there is no proof/evidence).

All logic statements are, ultimately, statements about language. If you're looking for empirical proof of free will, you will find none either for it or against it.

c_logic wrote:

I agree with you, the definition of the word "Morality" may very well have to do with the absolute, but the fact is that there is no evidence in favor of absolute morality. It would be reasonable to say that "Morality" - although meant and referred to in absolute terms - is really subjective in practice.

That makes absolutely no sense.

0 Replies

We're certainly not coming to any sort of consensus...

joefromchicago wrote:

As I said before, the "evidence" for free will is largely logical rather than empirical. Indeed, it is primarily based on a negative proof: nothing else explains human actions better than free will.

Please tell me more about what you mean by that, and we can attempt to have a more constructive debate from there. How does free will explain human actions better than anything else?

0 Replies

Any specie's success depends upon sufficient numbers of individuals within that species completing the reproductive process as to provide continuation of that specie's existence.

From that, by the POV of any species that which simultaneously most effectively and efficiently accomplishes that which is necessary to the survival of that species is moral in the absolute. It is moral for a lion to kill and eat an antelope, for instance, as the act both provides sustenance to the lion and exerts control on the antelope population, a set of circumstances propitious to the overall balance of the ecologic niche occupied by both lion and antelope. For lions to overkill antelopes - remove from their mutual ecologic niche so many antelope as to bring about collapse of the antelope population and consequent disruption of the entire ecologic chain from the microbes dependent on antelope excreta through lions which prey on antelope would be immoral, having broadspread, interconnecting negative impact extending far beyond just the 2 immediately subject species.

Absent contravening environmental circumstance (natural or man-made), nature strives to maintain effective balance; pathogens and antigens, parasites and hosts, predators and prey, microbes and mankind, all play their respective parts, all by doing contribute not just to their own survival - and thus the survival of their species - but to the overall balanced survival of of the species populating the planet's biosphere.

They key principle there is the bit about that which simultaneously most effectively and efficiently accomplishes that which is necessary to the survival of a species; Hitlerian Eugenics, for instance, are not necessary to the survival of any species, thus, in failing per se to satisfy the requirement of necessity, wholly apart from any consideration of effectiveness or efficiency individually or in concert, perforce do they fail to satisfy that which simultaneously most effectively and efficiently accomplishes that which is necessary to the survival of any species.

"Moral Relativism" presents an irresolvable pardox, by logic it is an absolute absurdity. "Free Will", being the capacity to recognize and make choices, entails nothing more nor less than the capacity to to recognize and make choices. Sentience, however, entails the capacity to recognize that choices have consequences beyond the immediate-to-near-term. Critters other than human in general apparently lack that capacity, humans, evidently having that capacity, in far too many cases obviously choose to not exercize that capacity to the benefit of the balanced survival of species.

Their choice ... which, being not simultaneously most effectively and efficiently contributory to that which is necessary to the survival of any species, renders any such choice immoral. To the best of our knowledge unique in such respect among critters of which we are aware, humans can choose between moral and immoral. That is an absolute, and is a hugely important part of what makes us human - we recognize we have free choice, which we excercize constantly, whether or not we choose wisely ("wisely" here equating to "morally"). Our choice, regardless and irrespective of the consequences.

0 Replies

I recall something about Hitler being elected into power.

If so, could you blame the mass of voters?

Or what about Hitler's influences?

Is it that crazy to blame more than one man for such a terrible thing? Surely the holocaust doesn't rest on just one man's shoulders.

Daily there are people around the world with psychotic ideas and daily they are shunned, at most they rise to something of a cult status, but what gave Hitler that power? The people?

0 Replies

The contemporarily existant socio-economic circumstances peculiar to the immediate post WWI times in general and to post-WWI Germany in specific particular enabled Hitler's rise to power - no one thing or condition, but the interrelational concattenation of many were contributory. If anything, Hitler as an individual was but the focus of a personality cult, a cult which through multiple circumstance came to have all but unimaginably disproportionate impact on the affairs of humankind and the consequent process of history. If not Hitler, then very possibly, perhaps even very likely, some one or ones else; the conditions were there. Very much similar conditions pertained to the personality cult of which Stalin was focus, and in many respects Stalin's rise to power was not dissimilar to Hitler's - political opportunism, internecine struggle characterized by ruthlessly bloody quest for power, and a very large, very dissatisfied-with-the-current-state-of-affairs populace all combined to bring about what transpired.

0 Replies

I completely agree, if not Hitler then someone else.

It makes you wonder, what if an era like that will be unfolding in the near future? Is it on our doorstep, what if we as a world are helping create another situation in which the mass of population put or will put someone in power to cause mass murder.

It also makes you wonder, what can we consider guilty, evil or wrong, or perhaps we should blame ourselves more.

Just some incoherent rambling here...

0 Replies

CarbonSystem wrote:

I recall something about Hitler being elected into power.

If so, could you blame the mass of voters?

Or what about Hitler's influences?

Is it that crazy to blame more than one man for such a terrible thing? Surely the holocaust doesn't rest on just one man's shoulders.

Daily there are people around the world with psychotic ideas and daily they are shunned, at most they rise to something of a cult status, but what gave Hitler that power? The people?

I'm going to go get you some exact information here--i'll rely on Wikipedia, but have no doubt the information can be confirmed elsewhere.

0 Replies

c_logic wrote:

Please tell me more about what you mean by that, and we can attempt to have a more constructive debate from there. How does free will explain human actions better than anything else?

Accepting free will at least explains why we think we have free will. Everyone, after all, acts as if they have free will, and their vocabulary reflects that fact -- every language has some word or phrase that means "choice," which would be meaningless if all choices were compelled by some outside force.

In contrast, the absence of free will needs to explain not only what force is compelling us to do what we do, but it also needs to explain why we have been misled into believing that our actions are freely chosen by ourselves. No alternative explanation, however, carries sufficient empirical evidence or logical force to make it preferable to accepting free will, and no explanation has been shown to be sufficiently persuasive to convince us that we should drop the word "choice" from our vocabulary and replace it with "compulsion."

In particular, arguments against free will tend to be logically vacuous. Take, for example, your explanation that all of our actions can be explained by a combination of genes and environment. If I choose to wear a red shirt tomorrow rather than a blue shirt, you would say that my "choice" is actually the consequence of my genes and my environment. If I made the opposite choice, however, you'd say that the result was dictated by the exact same factors.

But the same forces can't lead to contradictory results -- if they do, then we can be confident that those forces weren't the cause of those results. If, for instance, the sun comes up in the morning every time I wave my magic wand, and it also comes up when I don't wave my magic wand, we can be quite sure that waving my magic wand has no effect whatsoever on the sun rising in the morning. Similarly, if my genes and environment dictate that I wear a red shirt tomorrow, and my genes and environment dictate that I wear a blue shirt tomorrow, then we can be pretty sure that my genes and environment are largely immaterial to my decision to wear a red or blue shirt tomorrow.

Skeptics might reply that free will suffers from the same defect, since it also explains those contradictory results. But free will isn't a cause of those results, it's an explanation. Instead, what explains the different results is "choice," and that already allows for different results because it is assumed to be mutable rather than static.

0 Replies

Paul von Hindenburg, a "hero" of the Great War, was the President of the Republic, and functioned as the monarch does in the Westminster Parliament in England. In 1932, Hitler ran against Hindenburg for the office of President, and lost, but still had polled 35% of the vote. The government was lead by Heinrich Brüning, from the Catholic Centre Party, but his support from the right wing DNVP (an acronym for the German National People's Party) was withdrawn. With the failure of the sitting government in the Reichstag in 1932, Hindenburg, who didn't like Heinrich Brüning anyway, called on Franz van Papen, the head of the DNVP, to form a government. Papen called for immediate elections. In the July, 1932 elections, the NSDAP (the "Nazis") took 230 seats in the Reichstag--which was the same 35% that Hitler had polled in his failed attempt at the presidency. This did not give them a majority, but it gave them the largest representation of any single party in the Reichstag. Papen offered Hitler the post of Vice Chancellor, but Hitler was not interested in second fiddle. Hitler forced a vote of no confidence, and 84% of the members voted against Papen's government. The Catholic Centre Party had resented Papen for withdrawing support for Brüning's government, and voted against him.

In the November elections, the NSDAP actually lost seats, but were still the largest single representation in the Reichstag. The Chancellor in German parliamentary government is a very powerful office, far more powerful than the Prime Minister in London, for example. When Bismarck created the German Empire, he was the Chancellor to King Wilhelm of Prussia who had said that he would rather be the King of Prussia than the Emperor of Germany. Bismarck created for himself a powerful executive office which left almost all government appointments in his own hands. That makes the Chancellor capable of distributing political favors on a lavish scale. The Chancellor also had enormous control over government expenditure, another source of what Americans call "pork," and that is crucial in political dickering.

Papen wanted to once again dissolve the Reichstag and call new elections, but Hindenburg was getting fed up, and the army commander, Schleicher, withdrew his support. Papen was replaced by Schleicher, but now Papen did to Schleicher exactly what the Catholics had done to him, and Schleicher's government was paralyzed.

In January, 1933, Hindenburg was forced to swallow his distaste and appoint Hitler to be Chancellor. Papen tried to hamstring Hitler (whom he otherwise supported with the conservative DNVP), but failed. In February, the Reichstag building was set afire, and a Dutch communist was blamed. Hitler succeeded in getting the emergency powers Schleicher had demanded, but had failed to secure, leading to Schleicher's downfall. Left wing parties and the Communists were banned, and their leaders had literally to flee for their lives. Basic civil rights were suspended, and homosexuals were proscribed. The right of habeas corpus was suspended. New elections were called in March, 1933, and this time the NSDAP got 43% of the vote. It is important to remember that no left wing parties were represented in the election, and most left-wing voters simply stayed home, or squandered their votes in a vain attempt to support smaller parties opposed to the NSDAP.

Hilter now had all the power of the office of Chancellor to do political favors to supporters, and all the powers of the emergency decree to punish opponents. Papen caved in, and the DNVP threw their support to Hitler. Hitler now used a little-known provision of Bismarck's imperial governmental structure, and called for the powers of an Enabling Act. This required a two-thirds vote in the Reichstag. Hitler could count on the NSDAP and DNVP, and by careful manipulation, which he had begun well before the vote, he secured the support of the Catholic Centre Party.

The Enabling Act gave the Chancellor (Hitler) the power to legislate without reference to the Reichstag. Hitler had, in less than a year's time, seized absolute power by employing the provisions of the government he was destroying.

So, no, the German people did not willfully vote for the policies that Hitler was to implement well after 1933. Only 35% of the German people had voted either for Hitler personally or for the NSDAP prior to the collapse of Papen's government, and the NSDAP had in fact lost ground in the November, 1932 elections. Even among the supporters of the NSDAP (largely farmers and rural and small town voters, with a large number of Great War veterans), there is no good reason to assume that the electorate were aware of what Hitler intended with the "Final Solution" and the invasion of Russia.

So, although Hitler was certainly a successful cult figure--as the Big Bird has pointed out, not unlike Stalin, and in an age of "cults of personality" in Europe (c.f. Mussolini, Metaxas in Greece, Franco in Spain, Hrothy in Hungary, as well as Hitler and Stalin)--he did not at anytime secure the support of a majority of the German people in a free election.

If there is a lesson in the rise of Hitler to power, it lies in the extent to which the electorate surrenders their power as voters to the leaders of their party. Hitler was a very clever and dangerous gutter politician--but he only came to power because other German politicians were obsessed with cutting one another's throats, and were so involved in their own agendas and vendettas that they did not see the logical conclusion of their in-fighting.

0 Replies

A small correction: von Papen wasn't "the head of the DNVP", he even wasn't a member of that party but without party affiliation.
(He had been a member of the Zentrum, but opt out of that party .... before they could exclude him.

0 Replies

OK, but is it not correct that von Papen commanded the DNVP vote in the Reichstag?

0 Replies

Thanks a lot Setanta, I feel a bit more enlightened now.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

OK, but is it not correct that von Papen commanded the DNVP vote in the Reichstag?

He was supported by the DNVP, that's correct.

0 Replies

timberlandko wrote:

Their choice ... which, being not simultaneously most effectively and efficiently contributory to that which is necessary to the survival of any species, renders any such choice immoral. To the best of our knowledge unique in such respect among critters of which we are aware, humans can choose between moral and immoral. That is an absolute, and is a hugely important part of what makes us human - we recognize we have free choice, which we excercize constantly, whether or not we choose wisely ("wisely" here equating to "morally"). Our choice, regardless and irrespective of the consequences.

I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that non-human animals always act "immorally?" And are you claiming that the morality of an action is judged on whether it contributes to the survival of the species?

0 Replies

Dont you think, well into the 21st century that you should drop your obssession with Adolf Hitler?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

I'm not sure I understand you here. Are you saying that non-human animals always act "immorally?"

No, quite the opposite; the concept of "Morality" is to all evidence a uniquely human construct, it appears only humans have the capacity to recognize and act on moral precepts. As mentioned, that is a signal differentiation between humans and the rest of the planet's biomass.

Quote:

And are you claiming that the morality of an action is judged on whether it contributes to the survival of the species?

No, I am saying that which does not " ... simultaneously most effectively and efficiently contribute to that which is "necessary to the survival of any species renders any such choice immoral."

I can see that statement might benefit from a bit of disambiguation. Perhaps augmenting the word "survival" with the phrase "and overall benefit" and replacing the phrase "any species" with the phrase "the entire community of species" might serve more clearly to convey my intended meaning. Does " ... simultaneously most effectively and efficiently contribute to that which is necessary to the survival and overall benefit of the entire community of species renders any such choice immoral" work better for you?

0 Replies

Funny, This thread has gone from talking about HITLER and wound up talking about free will. I dont believe that eventuality is covered at all in the rules of e- debate.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know