Australian Politics Forum

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11226
Gender: male

Re: foundations
Reply #885 - Mar 26^th, 2024 at 2:50pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 12:51pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 11:39am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 11:23am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 11:11am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 11:06am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Mar 25^th, 2024 at 7:59pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 25^th, 2024 at 7:52pm:

Is it that government who rules or is it the people as sovereign?

Parliament is sovereign.

Correct - as opposed to Graps' "the people" in the "worst form of government "(Churchill)

"Except for the alternatives".

Why did you leave out my posited alternative?

I was quoting Churchill more fully.

I know that: he, like you - being comfortable conservatives - had/have no vision beyond "the worst form of government".

Sad.

I'm a comfortable centrist.

Back to top

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 43633
Gender: male

Re: foundations
Reply #886 - Mar 26^th, 2024 at 2:54pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 10:57am:

btw can you explain how the mighty British navy was defeated by the upstart yanks, just 7 years after Trafalgar?

Man’s mind cannot grasp the causes of events in their completeness, but the desire to find those causes is implanted in man’s soul. And without considering the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, he snatches at the first approximation to a cause that seems to him intelligible and says: “This is the cause!” In historical events (where the actions of men are the subject of observation) the first and most primitive approximation to present itself was the will of the gods and, after that, the will of those who stood in the most prominent position—the heroes of history. But we need only penetrate to the essence of any historic event—which lies in the activity of the general mass of men who take part in it—to be convinced that the will of the historic hero does not control the actions of the mass but is itself continually controlled. It may seem to be a matter of indifference whether we understand the meaning of historical events this way or that; yet there is the same difference between a man who says that the people of the West moved on the East because Napoleon wished it and a man who says that this happened because it had to happen, as there is between those who declared that the earth was stationary and that the planets moved round it and those who admitted that they did not know what upheld the earth, but knew there were laws directing its movement and that of the other planets. There is, and can be, no cause of an historical event except the one cause of all causes. But there are laws directing events, and some of these laws are known to us while we are conscious of others we cannot comprehend. The discovery of these laws is only possible when we have quite abandoned the attempt to find the cause in the will of some one man, just as the discovery of the laws of the motion of the planets was possible only when men abandoned the conception of the fixity of the earth.

The historians consider that, next to the battle of Borodinó and the occupation of Moscow by the enemy and its destruction by fire, the most important episode of the war of 1812 was the movement of the Russian army from the Ryazána to the Kalúga road and to the Tarútino camp—the so-called flank march across the Krásnaya Pakhrá River. They ascribe the glory of that achievement of genius to different men and dispute as to whom the honor is due. Even foreign historians, including the French, acknowledge the genius of the Russian commanders when they speak of that flank march. But it is hard to understand why military writers, and following them others, consider this flank march to be the profound conception of some one man who saved Russia and destroyed Napoleon. In the first place it is hard to understand where the profundity and genius of this movement lay, for not much mental effort was needed to see that the best position for an army when it is not being attacked is where there are most provisions; and even a dull boy of thirteen could have guessed that the best position for an army after its retreat from Moscow in 1812 was on the Kalúga road. So it is impossible to understand by what reasoning the historians reach the conclusion that this maneuver was a profound one. And it is even more difficult to understand just why they think that this maneuver was calculated to save Russia and destroy the French; for this flank march, had it been preceded, accompanied, or followed by other circumstances, might have proved ruinous to the Russians and salutary for the French. If the position of the Russian army really began to improve from the time of that march, it does not at all follow that the march was the cause of it.
Tolstoy, War and Peace, book 13.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 43633
Gender: male

Re: foundations
Reply #887 - Mar 26^th, 2024 at 3:01pm

If we assume as the historians do that great men lead humanity to the attainment of certain ends—the greatness of Russia or of France, the balance of power in Europe, the diffusion of the ideas of the Revolution, general progress, or anything else—then it is impossible to explain the facts of history without introducing the conceptions of chance and genius.

If the aim of the European wars at the beginning of the nineteenth century had been the aggrandizement of Russia, that aim might have been accomplished without all the preceding wars and without the invasion. If the aim was the aggrandizement of France, that might have been attained without the Revolution and without the Empire. If the aim was the dissemination of ideas, the printing press could have accomplished that much better than warfare. If the aim was the progress of civilization, it is easy to see that there are other ways of diffusing civilization more expedient than by the destruction of wealth and of human lives.

Why did it happen in this and not in some other way?

Because it happened so! “Chance created the situation; genius utilized it,” says history.

But what is chance? What is genius?

The words chance and genius do not denote any really existing thing and therefore cannot be defined. Those words only denote a certain stage of understanding of phenomena. I do not know why a certain event occurs; I think that I cannot know it; so I do not try to know it and I talk about chance. I see a force producing effects beyond the scope of ordinary human agencies; I do not understand why this occurs and I talk of genius.

To a herd of rams, the ram the herdsman drives each evening into a special enclosure to feed and that becomes twice as fat as the others must seem to be a genius. And it must appear an astonishing conjunction of genius with a whole series of extraordinary chances that this ram, who instead of getting into the general fold every evening goes into a special enclosure where there are oats—that this very ram, swelling with fat, is killed for meat.

But the rams need only cease to suppose that all that happens to them happens solely for the attainment of their sheepish aims; they need only admit that what happens to them may also have purposes beyond their ken, and they will at once perceive a unity and coherence in what happened to the ram that was fattened. Even if they do not know for what purpose they are fattened, they will at least know that all that happened to the ram did not happen accidentally, and will no longer need the conceptions of chance or genius.

Only by renouncing our claim to discern a purpose immediately intelligible to us, and admitting the ultimate purpose to be beyond our ken, may we discern the sequence of experiences in the lives of historic characters and perceive the cause of the effect they produce (incommensurable with ordinary human capabilities), and then the words chance and genius become superfluous.

We need only confess that we do not know the purpose of the European convulsions and that we know only the facts—that is, the murders, first in France, then in Italy, in Africa, in Prussia, in Austria, in Spain, and in Russia—and that the movements from the west to the east and from the east to the west form the essence and purpose of these events, and not only shall we have no need to see exceptional ability and genius in Napoleon and Alexander, but we shall be unable to consider them to be anything but like other men, and we shall not be obliged to have recourse to chance for an explanation of those small events which made these people what they were, but it will be clear that all those small events were inevitable.

By discarding a claim to knowledge of the ultimate purpose, we shall clearly perceive that just as one cannot imagine a blossom or seed for any single plant better suited to it than those it produces, so it is impossible to imagine any two people more completely adapted down to the smallest detail for the purpose they had to fulfill, than Napoleon and Alexander with all their antecedents.
Epilogue, ch. II.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11226
Gender: male

Re: foundations
Reply #888 - Mar 26^th, 2024 at 3:12pm

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 1:03pm:

Quote:

The British won almost every battle fought against the Continental Army. But, like Putin today, the British grossly underestimated the will of the enemy to fight a guerilla war to the last man.

That, and the almost god-like respect that the rebels had for Washington, who proved to be one of the greatest leaders in world history.

Nah....Hamas think they are warriors for Allah; delusions of power don't help; the Brits could have easily destroyed the yanks by properly provisioning their forces (including the navy) in America, if they hadn't been expending resources in fighting Napoleon, head of the most powerful army in Europe which could only be defeated by an allied army of several nations.

Britain had to ship its resources across an ocean to fight Washington's Continental Army - that was the greatest part of the cost.

The soldiers in Washington's army revered him like a god.

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11226 Gender:	Re: foundations Reply #889 - Mar 26^th, 2024 at 3:13pm .
Back to top	IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12113
Gender: male

Re: foundations
Reply #890 - Mar 26^th, 2024 at 3:33pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 2:44pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 1:03pm:

Quote:

Cost.

Indeed

(as explained by mr google):

https://www.usni.org/magazines/naval-history-magazine/2008/august/british-view-n...
......

Turns out the Brit's North American naval station was starved of funds because Britain was still engaged in fighting Napoleon, in continental Europe.

The War of Independence was fought from 1775-1783

Ok, as I already said, I mistakenly referred to the 1812 war, instead of the late 18th century revolutionary war:

google

"The other (US) war hawks spoke of the struggle with Britain (in 1812) as a second war of independence".

Quote:

The French Revolution didn't happen until 1789, Napoleon only took power in 1799, and the British did not declare war on France until 1803.

Correct. I mentioned Napoleon because I mistakenly thought the US-UK 'war of independence' was fought in 1812, after the UK defeated Napoleon's navy at Trafalgar.

Quote:

So, Napoleon wasn't on the scene during the American Revolution - Even Mr Google agrees.

And so did I, as noted above. And mr google also told us why Britain lost what US war hawks called the "2nd war of independence" (fought in 1812), despite the fact Britain had defeated a much more powerful Napoleon at Trafalgar in 1805, compared with the piddling US navy in 1812.

Quote:

Or do you still have your tits tangled in the spokes of the War of 1812?

Explained above.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 26^th, 2024 at 3:39pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12113
Gender: male

Re: foundations
Reply #891 - Mar 26^th, 2024 at 3:36pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 2:50pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 12:51pm:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 11:39am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 11:23am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 11:11am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 11:06am:

MeisterEckhart wrote on Mar 25^th, 2024 at 7:59pm:

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Mar 25^th, 2024 at 7:52pm:

Is it that government who rules or is it the people as sovereign?

Parliament is sovereign.

Correct - as opposed to Graps' "the people" in the "worst form of government "(Churchill)

"Except for the alternatives".

Why did you leave out my posited alternative?

I was quoting Churchill more fully.

I know that: he, like you - being comfortable conservatives - had/have no vision beyond "the worst form of government".

Sad.

I'm a comfortable centrist.

The worst kind - the mainstream "centre" is deluded by mainstream neoclassical economists.

It's why the maoinstream centre - Labor and Liberal - primary vote is falling, and why Biden might lose to Trump.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 27^th, 2024 at 2:45pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12113
Gender: male

Re: foundations
Reply #892 - Mar 26^th, 2024 at 3:51pm

Frank wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 3:01pm:

If we assume as the historians do that great men lead humanity to the attainment of certain ends—the greatness of Russia or of France, the balance of power in Europe, the diffusion of the ideas of the Revolution, general progress, or anything else—then it is impossible to explain the facts of history without introducing the conceptions of chance and genius.

If the aim of the European wars at the beginning of the nineteenth century had been the aggrandizement of Russia, that aim might have been accomplished without all the preceding wars and without the invasion. If the aim was the aggrandizement of France, that might have been attained without the Revolution and without the Empire. If the aim was the dissemination of ideas, the printing press could have accomplished that much better than warfare. If the aim was the progress of civilization, it is easy to see that there are other ways of diffusing civilization more expedient than by the destruction of wealth and of human lives.

Why did it happen in this and not in some other way?

Because it happened so! “Chance created the situation; genius utilized it,” says history.

But what is chance? What is genius?

The words chance and genius do not denote any really existing thing and therefore cannot be defined. Those words only denote a certain stage of understanding of phenomena. I do not know why a certain event occurs; I think that I cannot know it; so I do not try to know it and I talk about chance. I see a force producing effects beyond the scope of ordinary human agencies; I do not understand why this occurs and I talk of genius.

To a herd of rams, the ram the herdsman drives each evening into a special enclosure to feed and that becomes twice as fat as the others must seem to be a genius. And it must appear an astonishing conjunction of genius with a whole series of extraordinary chances that this ram, who instead of getting into the general fold every evening goes into a special enclosure where there are oats—that this very ram, swelling with fat, is killed for meat.

But the rams need only cease to suppose that all that happens to them happens solely for the attainment of their sheepish aims; they need only admit that what happens to them may also have purposes beyond their ken, and they will at once perceive a unity and coherence in what happened to the ram that was fattened. Even if they do not know for what purpose they are fattened, they will at least know that all that happened to the ram did not happen accidentally, and will no longer need the conceptions of chance or genius.

Only by renouncing our claim to discern a purpose immediately intelligible to us, and admitting the ultimate purpose to be beyond our ken, may we discern the sequence of experiences in the lives of historic characters and perceive the cause of the effect they produce (incommensurable with ordinary human capabilities), and then the words chance and genius become superfluous.

We need only confess that we do not know the purpose of the European convulsions and that we know only the facts—that is, the murders, first in France, then in Italy, in Africa, in Prussia, in Austria, in Spain, and in Russia—and that the movements from the west to the east and from the east to the west form the essence and purpose of these events, and not only shall we have no need to see exceptional ability and genius in Napoleon and Alexander, but we shall be unable to consider them to be anything but like other men, and we shall not be obliged to have recourse to chance for an explanation of those small events which made these people what they were, but it will be clear that all those small events were inevitable.

By discarding a claim to knowledge of the ultimate purpose, we shall clearly perceive that just as one cannot imagine a blossom or seed for any single plant better suited to it than those it produces, so it is impossible to imagine any two people more completely adapted down to the smallest detail for the purpose they had to fulfill, than Napoleon and Alexander with all their antecedents.
Epilogue, ch. II.

Great writing from Tolstoy.

But - post Freud, we can see some errors creeping in:

"We need only confess that we do not know the purpose of the European convulsions and that we know only the facts"

The "purpose" of the convulsions?

What about the causes - found in the hearts of men?

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11226 Gender:	Re: foundations Reply #893 - Mar 26^th, 2024 at 5:39pm thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 3:33pm: Quote: Or do you still have your tits tangled in the spokes of the War of 1812? Explained above. Phew!
Back to top	IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 43633
Gender: male

Re: foundations
Reply #894 - Mar 26^th, 2024 at 8:04pm

Quote:

Great writing from Tolstoy.

But - post Freud, we can see some errors creeping in:

"We need only confess that we do not know the purpose of the European convulsions and that we know only the facts"

The "purpose" of the convulsions?

What about the causes - found in the hearts of men?

What about them, '40 million deaths as admin error' ***wit?

What about post Freud?

You tilt your ignorant, incomprehending bean as if you knew what you wanted to say. But you dont . You are an ignorant, callous, stupid prick who would oversee mass murder in the name of CCP common prosperity. You would murder people for Chinese ideology.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12113
Gender: male

Re: foundations
Reply #895 - Mar 27^th, 2024 at 3:00pm

Frank wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 8:04pm:

Quote:

Great writing from Tolstoy.

But - post Freud, we can see some errors creeping in:

"We need only confess that we do not know the purpose of the European convulsions and that we know only the facts"

The "purpose" of the convulsions?

What about the causes - found in the hearts of men?

What about them, '40 million deaths as admin error' ***wit?

Some classic 'whataboutism' from Frank, who is frothing at the mouth because Mao didn't know how to manage change from oppressive serfdom to well-being of the proletariat.

A bit different to why Napoleon wanted to rule Europe.

Quote:

What about post Freud?

I'm referencing the naturally competitive, self-interested ego and id....to explain why men go to war.

Tolstoy seemed to look to the purpose of war - ie to make Napoleon and his subjects great, in a power grab in Europe.

But what was driving Napoleon?

(sigh.... spelling things out for the ideologically blind, my burden...)

Back to top

IP Logged

MeisterEckhart Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11226 Gender:	Re: foundations Reply #896 - Mar 27^th, 2024 at 5:51pm thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 27^th, 2024 at 3:00pm: (sigh.... spelling things out for the ideologically blind, my burden...) Spelling things out for the goggly incompetent ain't no night at the Passalacqua, either.
Back to top	IP Logged

Frank Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 43633 Gender:	Re: foundations Reply #897 - Mar 27^th, 2024 at 6:24pm thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 3:36pm: It's why the maoinstream centre Thank you, Sigmund. Chinese spell checker at work...
Back to top	Estragon: I can’t go on like this. Vladimir: That’s what you think. IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12113
Gender: male

Re: foundations
Reply #898 - Mar 28^th, 2024 at 4:21pm

MeisterEckhart wrote on Mar 27^th, 2024 at 5:51pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 27^th, 2024 at 3:00pm:

(sigh.... spelling things out for the ideologically blind, my burden...)

Spelling things out for the goggly incompetent ain't no night at the Passalacqua, either.

Can't debate the point?
Frank proved incapable of joining the dots between the causes of war and men's ego/id-affected thinking (in Freudian terms).

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics 

Posts: 12113
Gender: male

Re: foundations
Reply #899 - Mar 28^th, 2024 at 4:24pm

Frank wrote on Mar 27^th, 2024 at 6:24pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on Mar 26^th, 2024 at 3:36pm:

It's why the maoinstream centre

Thank you, Sigmund.

Chinese spell checker at work...

This site wouldn't permit corrections...it appears to be working properly today.

But we know you can't think.

Have a shot at explaining the causes of war, rather than the "purposes" (as per Tolstoy).

Back to top

IP Logged