The thing is , the modern world is based on this conscious rejection of the past, this rupture from the ancient world and tradition. the growth of historical consciousness posits that truth is ‘in the making’.
Process is the key word here. Eventually, this culminates in a view that there isn’t even a telelogical truth..the process itself is everything…some might say that the will itself is everything (whether it is demonic or saintly). That this resonates deeply with late capitalism is no surprise. Capitaism itself is premised on the idea of the destruction of limits..what Marx would call the ‘limited perfection’ of the ancient world. (Roberto Calasso’s Ruin of Kasch is excellent on this)

I agree with much of what you say. Nazism , fascism are words that are used loosely: islamofascists,etc. But again, when we talk of Bush and the ’state of exception’ there are very sinister parallels (J.Raban wrote a very interesting piece on this in the Independent on sep 11 this year). Gitmo and the idea that the exectuive decides or interprets the law has been as some as a very dangerous move .

All in all, I am guilty of over-generalizations as it seemed to be an underlying assumption throughout this discussion. Civilization, be it West or East (or somewhere in between), past or current, cannot be perfect, nor, do I believe, does much really change in the moral sense. Those with power and authority will continue to use and abuse it, and each society will have its avante-garde and cultural heroes.

My view of fasicsm, as an over-generalization, is that it is a repackaging of totalitarianism - and this was pretty much admitted by its leaders (thus the Nazi and Italian Fasicst obsession with the past). As you pointed out, its specific methods were made possible by the surrounding culture. As I am sure that you know, I, in no way, deny the reality or imminence of fascism in our own society. The problem, however, is that we have given a scary label to it, demonized it in such a way that even if it stared us in the face, we would not accept its reality: the reason that I cringe when people call Bush and Co. “Nazis”.

I’ve got to say, though, that i think you’re caricaturing the medieval period in terms of witchcraft and bad things. Just as someone might caricature western civilisation by looking at the wars of the 20th century, missing out on the blues, soul, literature, films, science and so many other things.

I don’t want to prolong this debate as I’m sure you’re busy with other stuff. But i really think that looking at fascism in terms of the middle ages is just anachronistic. I think we have to look at power more carefully. the type of power -biopolitics-that we saw in the 20th century only really becomes a possibility when technology and the economy has reached a certain stage. Before, as foucault says, power was more ‘extractive’ (or what he calls subtraction).

the key thiongs is this: irt was “state racism” (Foucault’s ‘76 lectures).
i.e we have to look at the role of state power , its institutions, its rhetoric, ideologies, stratgeies and son. Saying that it is a remannt of the “irrational” middle ages is , of course, comforting but , ultimately, a defence mechanism for those who do not want to see how deeply intertwined faascism is with modernity. Those who want to put all blame on religion don’t like such difficulties (I’m no saying you Brad, just making a general point)

I think we are in agreeance that progression is more or less a myth, but I found myself in a spiral trying not to romanticize the past - which I think I sometimes feel like you are arguing.

The reason I stated fascism and totalitarianism as a “remnant of the middle ages” is that in all my study of Germany, Italy, and Japan during the 1930s, there is not much to differentiate their actions than those of the Roman Catholic authorities, the many feudal kingdoms, nor even the British empire. Yes, motivations (ie. religious vigor vs. nationalism) differ, but the outcome and actions rarely change.

This, however, is getting a little more political than my first intent. What I had initially meant by the whole “western civilization” thing was not so much to do with “western civilization” but with how we behave then compared to now. We may not behave much different, but I do not live in fear of having my wife accused of witchcraft, tortured, convicted, and hanged if I was to die tomorrow after having an argument.

ANYWAY - I think rhetoric and confused argumentation has gotten both of us arguing something that we probably have similar beliefs.

Sure, annihilation has to be condemned-just as the fanatcism of muslims past and present does. I don’t think that is the question. All I’m suggesting is the idea that the claim to absolute truth by the Church has been disastrous is far too one-sided (in my opinion) and neglects the undoubted contribution it has made to humanity in terms of piety , faith, and art, culture and thought. No-one is saying negate the negative aspects. If I implied that then I apologise for not making myself clearer.

Fascism and totalitarianism as a “remnant” of the midle ages. What? come on Brad, this is pushing it. No-one can deny , of course, the historical continuity of anti-semitic feelings (N.Cohn, for example) but I think we have to honestly square up to the idea that these were *modern * phenomenon, however uncomfortable that may be.

could I suggest: Trevarso’s Nazi violence; Z.Bauman; Bettelheim’s informed heart; R. Burleigh’s third reich where he talks about how Nazism would n’t have been possible without the ’sacralization’ of blood and soil’ in the 19th century (nationalism) and Agamben’s Homo Sacer where he talks about the camps being the modern expression of biopolitics.

the point about condemned building is : who deems it ‘condemned’, who says it is unsafe and is it better having an “unsafe” building, a flawed shelter , than none at all?

If the bridge is falling apart then maybe repair would have been better. Anyway, it’s too late for that. No point looking back.

Yes, I feel I am caught arguing something when in fact I’m a strong supporter of secular , leftists parties and am against the type of right-wing attitudes and support for the landed gentry/capitalists that the Church, mullahs have often espoused! Irony of ironies!

We cannot say what could have happened without the Catholic church because that would be a universe I am unfamiliar with. What I can say is what happened - the annihilation of any religious tradition in its path and the gross suppression of people under its rule. Every empire has its greatest, as you are to keen to point out, but I am afraid that I cannot negate the atrocities of Roman Catholic rule because of some positive aspects.

“Condemned Building” - a term used to describe an unsafe building due for demolition to protect those who might be harmed by entering it.
No one has the right to condemn - yet who doesn’t?

You seem quick to dismiss the brutality of the European middle ages and point out its remnants - facism, totalitariasm. I speak of Western Civilization through the eyes of a liberal, the flawed, but positive, works of J.S. Mill and thousands of others. Utopian? Maybe - maybe the result of liberalism is fascism - maybe this is our human nature. This is all political theory I do not know nor really care much for.

In the end, I seem to be trapped arguing for something I am not a part of. I occasionally write papers (such as this series) because I need to - that is academic life. I think that we have now crossed over from my academic to my personal, which are two quite different things. My beliefs about history remain the same - but how I live is based on my idea of faith, without justification and without condemnation. Such is the reason I do not attempt to convert others, for I know not the truth, only how to live in peace with my own lack of knowledge.

One thing I need to clarify - I did not mean to destroy bridges and leave them there. I was only pointing out that if the bridge is falling apart, it is no longer safe.

Isn’t the moral majority Protestant?
Is n’t the current crop of evangelical fundamentalists Protestant (I’m not trying to turn this into a slanging match, but just saying that fanatacism continues in many guises)

As for the Catholic contribution to humanity you have to be joking, right? Let us put to one side the Cathedrals, music, and art -all of which would hardly have been possible without the Church (see George Steiner: Real Presences). Just in terms of thought it is hard to imagine the West developing without Scholasticism. Would Dante, Bach, Chartres have been possible?

and what is one to say of Augustine, Aquinas, anselm, Duns Scotus and so many others?

Okay, which western civilisation are you talking about? the one that produced the trenches, the bomb, the gulags, Auschwitz? the one that to this very day supports tyrants and dictators all over the world, whose unfettered capitalism and materialism is a form of barbarism. Western civilisation that is bringing freedom to Iraq, Palestine?

“condemned building”??

“he who would play the angel ends up playing the Beast.”

Who has the right to “condemn” ?

In the end, this desire to be without bridges is a version of the desire to be God..to see sub specie aeternitatis. (you must have a look at Fergus Kerr’s book, theology after wittgenstein, if you get the time).

Keep well,

K.

I feel that at time philosophical ‘harshness’ is justified in light of the damage done to and by faith traditions towards themselves and others - the traditional Catholic claim to its ‘absolute truth’ as proven to be disastrous for both humanity and its own system - the Church had its chance on absolutism for a millenia and it was not exactly a time that Western civilization envies (for the right reasons). Destroying bridges - maybe - but only because they are deterioated and dangerously unsafe. Think of it as a controlled demolition of a condemned building

I stand by my claim of denial and faith, as irreverent or harsh as it may be - I have seen too much destruction by the self-proclaimed ‘moral majority’ born from justified absolutism and lack of critical thought.

if your partner says : do you love me then you know you’re in trouble. Must we be sceptical of everything? Then let’s be sceptical of that thought itself…

wittgenstein: there is a point at which explanations come to a limit. And shall we forget the meaning of the ontological argument?

So, yes, they certainly are crtical of claims about divinity (or, to be more accurate, about a particular understanding of divinity) but acceptance or the lack of scepticism is certainly not the same as credulity to everything!

‘Blessed are those who have not seen but believed’.

Blessed?

I’m with you when you say ‘healthy’ ..it certainly *can* lead to a greater sort of faith..who could deny this. Humans would not be superior to angels if that were not the case. But -I’m sorry Brad, I have to take the side of my Catholic friends here- the result of everyone questioning tradition and authority for themselves has meant many falling by the wayside….: auden: protestantism: the search for the truth, Catholicism: the possession of it.

don’t you think you’re being too harsh on other people? denial? False?you may be right, but I don’t think so. Why do you want to destroy so many bridges ..just to say that a few are strong swimmers?
Gently, Brad.

Here’s a joke (please don’t mind it.. i feel we are friends now, no?)

A catholic tells a Protestant that they’ve found the remains of Christ and that miraculous discovery will silence the atheists once and for all.
Protestant: oh, so he *did* exist then….
:)

Salaams,

K.