Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 10:45:42 +0800
Subject: Re: Anthony Crifasi's justification for war



On Sunday, March 23, 2003, at 09:16  AM, Anthony Crifasi laid out his 
justifications for war:

> 1. The blatant violation by Hussein of UN resolutions 687 and 1441. 
> (which you have not addressed)
> 2. The actions by Hussein against his own people which surpass what 
> Milosevic did, and "das Man" certainly took care of Milosevic, and 
> without UN approval. (which you have not addressed)
> 3. The direct parallel with another starving tin pot dictatorship that 
> quickly became a starving tin pot nuclear capable dictatorship - North 
> Korea. (which you have not addressed)

Then suggested that will to power is a 'traditional' notion of justice:

> From the perspective of Levinas, that notion of justice is something 
> of an anachronism too, as is your analysis in terms of power. You're 
> projecting some metaphysical meaning of justice onto what I'm saying. 
> What you are saying is perfectly true - of traditional notions of 
> justice.

Followed by the acknowledgement that:

> yes Heidegger is right about this, because the traditional notions of 
> human morality, of rightness, of a good "cause" do unavoidably reduce 
> to the machination to which you refer. But if someone like Levinas can 
> propose an ethics which is PRIOR to subject/object metaphysics, which 
> is PRIOR to the mode of measured ordering, which is PRIOR to the mode 
> of calculation, and which is PRIOR to all traditional deprived notions 
> of morality, rightness, and goodness, then your analysis would not 
> apply. So you want to join Rene and me in reading Ethics and Infinity?
>
> Anthony Crifasi

Are you seriously claiming that you and the US administration have 
surpassed metaphysics and entered a post-Heideggerrean epoch of 
morality beyond will to power? You are laughable sometimes Anthony, and 
your logical retreats are superficial in the extreme and boxing you 
into an absurdity.

I can't see how your justifications for war based on the legalities of 
UN resolutions and the need to suppress 'untrustworthy' states are 
anything other than simple conservative arguments for the use of 
violence. Especially since the US administration does not recognise the 
authority of the UN or the jurisdiction of any international court, it 
recognises only its own authority, which is the authority of the US 
president, and it has the power to assert this authority no matter what 
you or I think about justice. Where is the Levinasian ethics here?

Traditional notions of justice are guaranteed by an authority such as 
god or a belief in the inviolability of human rights. Heidegger points 
out that these are nothing more than an assertion of will to power, and 
all major power elites now explicitly guarantee their own justice and 
truth without recourse to these traditional notions except where 
propaganda and the control of public opinion is concerned. It is a 
simple statement of fact that the the US administration has declared a 
global war on terror with the intent to realign the geopolitical order 
for this next century, and without regard to notions of justice or 
morality except where global and especially domestic public opinion is 
concerned. It recognises no authority apart from its own, it is 
enforcing that authority at the moment without regard to anyone except 
its domestic constituency, and this enforcement will change the 
geopolitical order into the next century. It's called a 'war on terror' 
and the battle for Baghdad is just the second campaign in a publicly 
stated US war plan that encompasses Iran and North Korea.

Your puerile justifications for this realignment are meaningless cos 
they have no power to justify anything. But they can influence public 
opinion, and in the end it is US public opinion that will judge George 
W. Bush and his Republican war at the next election. Your 
justifications are not philosophical, they are Gerede. But this is 
where I see Levinas' notion of morality coming into play because world 
public opinion does have an influence on US domestic opinion, and if 
'we' care for the other 'they' will argue for world peace, the 
equitable distribution of wealth and an end to all suffering (deep 
ecology anyone?). This is the stuff of Levinasian ethics and all you 
are doing is parroting the dominant propaganda. The US administration 
does not need your help in this matter, it controls a vast corporate 
media machine that is doing the job quite well already, at least in the 
US market and while the body bags and burnt babies are kept to a 
manageable PR level.

Regards,

Malcolm



     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---