- September 25th, 2022, 10:56 am
#423222
Do we ironically value legal provisions, and decisions which put our true heroes at a disadvantage ? I suggest, that we continue to do that, but also keep in mind in which places they currently suffer most.
so i nominate anna politkovskaya, and alexej nawalny.
That philosophy otherwise takes up that bad habit of popular western culture, of inverting morality, by validating, or cultifying, or euphemizing true criminals and evil villains (like hitler, pablo escobar, and marilyn manson), to make that bad habit good, by turning it into a satire, as i understand this thread to the widest degree, is honorable.
That's a critical point, because it helps to publicly impart a true sense and purpose of public philosophy, to cultivate a positive, constructive method.
Such methods, like satire, help to approach the matter of socio-moral distortion.
In german society, the inversion of morality, be it seriously or satirically and ironically, and the compilation of "favourite movie villain" hitlists is unusual, although its being understood usually, as logic under inverted precursors. So, at my place, Nawalny, Douglass, Sokrates and Politkovskaya would not be considered criminals, not even jokingly.
Scott, in your "Does Society need Prisons ?"-Thread, i intend to count the times you put the term "criminal" into direct relation with the term " compassion". I know, its a decent amount of suggestive connections, for a political cause, and i strongly dislike the question, of whether it is good, or necessary, to deal with legal matters under such contradictory terms like "criminals, who have to be treated compassionate", or "favourite criminal", because i strongly like satire.
anyways, not everybody shares my sense of satire.
You argue, that Nawalny ain't history ? I defy you: He's gonna write it !