Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[value]

Culture is the parent; philosophy is the 'child'.

Philosophy is a hobby practised by a small minority of humans. It does not have the position or influence that you ascribe to it, IMO. And I am not clear even on whether philosophy *should* have the position and influence you ascribe to it.

That's true. Philosophy as a pursuit for those who have an armchair and lots of quiet time. ... Philosophical questions would be the last things on their minds.

Yes, and in the context of what I said before, the people of Gaza have no time for philosophy, just at the moment...

I disagree profoundly on this matter. People in Gaza are certainly not acting at random for no purpose or meaning. It is philosophy that drives them to perform in certain ways, be it a choice for revenge or a choice for what lays beyond.

In a sense, all is philosophy. Business IS philosophy. To tie your shoes correctly, IS philosophy. Science IS philosophy. All that is a priori to reason and order in the world IS philosophy. And that means that philosophy, not the human endeavour per se, but what it involves intrinsically, is a direct exponent of the source of the Universe.

Jewish philosopher Levinas who wrote a major work on the philosophy of peace (Totality and Infinity) and who was part of the peace movement, wrote the following about the source of the Universe:

"in renouncing intentionality as a guiding thread toward the eidos [formal structure] of the psyche … our analysis will follow sensibility in its pre-natural signification to the maternal, where, in proximity [to what is not itself], signification signifies before it gets bent into perseverance in being in the midst of a Nature. (OBBE: 68, emph. added) "
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/levinas/

That signification, which is 'moral valuing' (the eternal question 'what is good?'), that is the essence of philosophy. Philosophy therefore should be seen rather as the source of the world than as a product of it. Hence my argument that philosophy should be held responsible.

[Pattern-chaser]

In this case, I think the core issue of the conflict is not religious, but nationalistic or geographic

I used to think that. That the issue was two tribes with a claim to the same patch of ground, and it's only an accident that religion is part of the social glue that gives each tribe its identity.

But now I see that as a projection of modern Western assumptions that nationality is identity and religion is a private belief, and race is something that nice people don't judge by.

There was no Israeli identity before 1948. And according to one post further up the thread, there was no Palestinian identity before the 1960s. But Arab and Jew go back millennia. To Isaac and Ishmael the sons of Abraham, if you believe the tradition.

The hate on both sides is closer to racism than we modern Westerners are comfortable with.

Where religion ends and race begins is maybe not clear-cut when it comes to Arabs and Jews. But that mix is what the conflict is about - the "core issue".

You've read of Israel being attacked by 5 Arab armies on day 2 of its existence. Have you really got your head around that ?

Do you believe in the Western model of nation-states ? With a right of self-defence and a duty to abide by whatever treaties they make, until the other side tears it up ? A model that those of any race and religion can work with.

Seems like Israel is prepared to play by those rules. And Hamas isn't.

These are good points, and I see no obvious argument against them. I see little point in quibbling about nation-labels, though. There were people living, long-term, in the area of the Middle East under discussion. That it wasn't called "Palestine" until recent times is not really important, I don't think. Similarly, the land of Israel didn't exist, in its modern sense, until 1948. But there are still indigenous populations there, and I think that's what matters.

I take your point about 'race', as the disputes here date back beyond the time when we had formally-established countries or nations. In those days, people referred to themselves and their groupings as 'races'. Fair enough. But "race" has taken on new meanings since then, and this does lead to some confusion.

In modern times, land was stolen — i.e. ownership was assigned without asking the people who lived there — to form "Israel". Subsequently, the people of that new country used their USA-backed military forces to take a lot more land, and occupy it. The 'Palestinians' unsurprisingly object to this. They weren't exactly happy with the initial formation of Israel, never mind its extension into their lands. Since then, they have been doing what they could to reclaim the occupied land.

Israel plays only by 'rules' that allow it to retain the occupied Palestinian lands. The Palestinians disagree.

[Sy Borg]

Where do we draw the line with stolen lands? Every tribe and every civilisation is built on the bones of those they conquered. All such lines are somewhat arbitrary.

Thus, the lines tend to be drawn politically, not logically. Everyone cares about Ukrainians, Palestinians and Australian Aboriginals (who already get first priority is housing, education, welfare and employment). Yet few talk about the genocide of the Uyghurs. No one cares about the Yemenis. Or the pygmies who are oppressed by the Bantu. Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Mauritania, Mozambique, Niger, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia and Uganda are all currently experiencing some form of terrorist insurgency. Terrible things are happening in many places but that seemingly doesn't matter. Only that which matters to the media matters.

The scale of tragedies is too great, so one must be selective.

The fact is that, when a race is conquered, they can either give up or keep fighting. Some tribes imbue their members with values that do not allow compromise. Some are more pragmatic. It depends on the culture. The Palestinians could not give up and continued to be a threat to Israel long after partition, so Israel logically took over parts of the west bank to create a buffer zone.

If Palestinian freedom fighters disbanded, say, after thirty years of insurgence and struggle (a respectable period of defiance, one would think), then by now Palestine would probably be doing much better than it is. It could not be worse.

Sometimes in life you have to accept your losses and move on. An inability to do that creates self-inflicted injuries, and that is what we have seen for a long time in Palestine - the extreme elements cannot accept the injustices of defeat, unlike more pragmatic indigenous people in other places. The main victims are peaceful Palestinians, who are basically just pawns and cannon fodder.

While the Palestinians' lot is nightmarish, there must be at least a billion or more people today living in a nightmare of sorts. Life on Earth is a tough gig. That's why many have speculated that it might be Hell (I don't think so, but I understand the sentiment).

[Good_Egg]

Israel has a bad case of siege mentality.

But paranoia is healthy if they really are out to get you...

[LuckyR]

Israel has a bad case of siege mentality.

But paranoia is healthy if they really are out to get you...

Ah, but treating others based on one's paranoia can (and did) create the atmosphere where reasonable people will seek to "get you".

[Sy Borg]

Israel has a bad case of siege mentality.

But paranoia is healthy if they really are out to get you...

Ah, but treating others based on one's paranoia can (and did) create the atmosphere where reasonable people will seek to "get you".

The two countries have been doing this same dance for many decades. Muslim extremists never stop, so the war is either for forever or Israel decides to end it.

At this stage, the Palestinians have worn out their welcome with most other Muslim countries, not to mention their ideological differences. For some time it was believed that Muslim's anti-American stance showed how united Muslims were in defending one of their own. Now every single Muslim nation has dropped the Uyghurs like a hot potato lest their new best friend China, won't give them money.

It's darkly amusing to see nation after nation making claims about how exceptional they are but, time and time again, they show that they are just another mob of humans.

[Pattern-chaser]

Judith Butler, who is Jewish, although I didn't realise it, has recently published a thoughtful and insightful consideration of the Israeli-Palestinian situation. I won't offer a link, but if you search the net for it, I'm sure you'll find it easily enough. I found it thought-provoking, and well worth reading. YMMV, of course.

[Good_Egg]

Judith Butler, who is Jewish, although I didn't realise it, has recently published a thoughtful and insightful consideration of the Israeli-Palestinian situation. I won't offer a link, but if you search the net for it, I'm sure you'll find it easily enough. I found it thought-provoking, and well worth reading. YMMV, of course.

You mean the piece in the London Review of Books ?

The position she takes there is ultimately the pacifist one that violence is always bad. That we should condemn violence by either side, and that condemnation does not imply any support or condoning of violence by the other side.

The stumbling block for pacifism is always the notion of self-defence.

Her conclusion - that we should continue to hope for and work for non-violent solutions to the aspirations of all parties involved, even when the possibility of such a solution seems unlikely - sounds good, sounds moral.

But such a hope is an addition to the right of self-defence not a substitute for it. (In something of the same way that mercy is an addition to justice).

To say to a person who is being attacked, "yes, defending yourself violently is permissible, but can give short-term relief at the cost of stoking long-term enmity, so it is wise to keep an eye out for any possibility of an effective non-violent response" seems sound.

To say that anyone is morally obliged to put up with being attacked without hitting back seems mistaken, a confusion of moral duty with "heroic virtue". There is something noble in pacifists choosing that path of heroic virtue for themselves. But not in insisting on it for other people.

The main victims are peaceful Palestinians, who are basically just pawns and cannon fodder.

Am I wrong in thinking that Gaza has some level of democracy ? That these "pawns" voted for Hamas ?

[Sy Borg]

The main victims are peaceful Palestinians, who are basically just pawns and cannon fodder.

Am I wrong in thinking that Gaza has some level of democracy ? That these "pawns" voted for Hamas ?

Where extremism and authoritarianism are involved, it's hard to know whether a person's vote is an act of volition or coercion.

In any given population you normally have two (or more) sides. There will be Palestinian pragmatists who would just like to get on with life who would detest Hamas for their disruptions. They are the main victims.

[Stoppelmann]

The two countries have been doing this same dance for many decades. Muslim extremists never stop, so the war is either for forever or Israel decides to end it.

At this stage, the Palestinians have worn out their welcome with most other Muslim countries, not to mention ideological differences. For some time it was believed that Muslim's anti-American stance how how united Muslims are when one of their own is under attack. Now we have every single Muslim nation drop the Uyghurs like a hot potato lest their new best friend China, won't give them money.

It's darkly amusing to see nation after nation making claims about how exceptional they are but, time and time again, they show that they are just another mob of humans.

I think it is important to understand the perspective of the Arab Jews who, when they moved to the new state of Israel, proposed to coexist with the local population, as they had done for hundreds of years. For this sentiment, they were denounced by the Zionists and had to suffer being second-class Israelis and being told that they were not to be trusted. In fact, I was told by Jews in Morocco that they were fully integrated into the country, and we even visited a Jewish Museum there. In Egypt, our Egyptian guide told me he had no problems with Jews, not at all, but Israelis were another matter.

Last night I had a conversation with an Israeli enthusiast and even he said he saw how the Zionists were the problem. He preferred the two-state solution because nobody could change the fact that the Zionists always attract opposition and will not back down from their plans, and they are supported by the Americans. He saw the only chance in dividing the land and effectively creating two countries. So essentially the whole conflict is caused by the Zionists, and although Hamas (and before them the PLO) are guilty of atrocities, the Zionists are no better. Between them they are creating a conflict that could spread and cause untold suffering and death.

The problem with the Palestinian refugees from Gaza is that Egypt and Lebanon see the Zionists as effectively driving Arabs out of the country in an ethnic cleansing and forcing their countries to absorb populations that overwhelm their resources. It is a complex issue, but in principle they are against ethnic cleansing.

[Sy Borg]

Zionists are a good example of people who believe themselves to be exceptional, and aren't.

[Pattern-chaser]

Am I wrong in thinking that Gaza has some level of democracy ? That these "pawns" voted for Hamas ?

It has been my recent understanding that the people of Gaza were demanding that their Hamas 'government' do something; that their inaction was no longer acceptable to their people. So yes, I agree with your sentiment, and more.

For clarity: I have not fact-checked my belief that the people of Gaza demanded action.

[Pattern-chaser]

Zionists always attract opposition and will not back down from their plans, and they are supported by the Americans.

Yes. I think that is the core of the problem. The extremists of one side of this matter are strongly supported by the most terrible war machine ever assembled by man.

[Good_Egg]

There will be Palestinian pragmatists who would just like to get on with life who would detest Hamas for their disruptions.

Yes - very true. (And similarly peace-intending Israelis).

One of the important questions for philosophy seems to be the relationship between the individual and the collective.

There are individual Gazans who "detest Hamas" and have had no part in bringing about the violence. People with clean hands.

And there are individuals who support Hamas in the full knowledge of
- Hamas policy of launching rocket attacks from the immediate vicinity of schools and hospitals, so that any return fire causes civilian casualties
- Hamas' inability to inflict serious military damage on Israel. The only pathway by which their actions lead to their desired aim is by mobilising international opinion against Israel. So that civilian casualties on "their own side" are an intended part of the strategy - it won't work without them.
These individuals are getting exactly what they voted for, what they chose.

Similarly, there are individuals in Gaza who have had their land taken from them and have been exiled from their home villages. And individuals who have been born and brought up in Gaza and have as individuals no just claim on land anywhere else.

At the individual level, I think we can all recognise this. Where observers differ is how they characterise the Palestinians in Gaza as a collective

Anyone who sees the group as being characterised by the displaced peaceful individuals will see the Palestinians as the wronged party, the victims who deserve our sympathy and support.

Whereas anyone who sees the same group as being characterised by the Gaza-indigenous warmongering individuals who intend civilian casualties will see them as the problem, the immediate cause of the suffering.

You see where I'm coming from ?

Has anyone come across any intellectually-rigorous process for assigning group characteristics that are not shared by all individuals in the group ?

Or are we doomed to over-simplify differently in purely-subjective ways and thereby fail to agree ?

[Stoppelmann]

Has anyone come across any intellectually-rigorous process for assigning group characteristics that are not shared by all individuals in the group ?

Or are we doomed to over-simplify differently in purely-subjective ways and thereby fail to agree ?

Yes, I think we are doomed, because the whole issue is being instrumentalised to weaken the West, and the infighting needs extremists to light the fuse. The support that Palestinians have received in the protests has unfortunately caused a wave of antisemitism against people who might be critical of the Zionist influence. The support for Israel has not differentiated enough, and the Zionist cause is what will always ignite the emotional response, and it is stubbornly supported by America.