Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
One of Many Interesting Political Philosophy Questions Raised by Tom Cruise
After watching the new movie about the plot to kill Hitler, Valkyrie, Bryan Caplan asks: why are people so squeamish about tyrannicide?
I'm amazed that people who don't think twice about killing conscripts (or even civilians) are so reluctant to justify violence against serial killer statesmen. What could be less objectionable than trying to stop mass murder by killing the specific individuals most responsible for it?
If the philosophical case for tyrannicide is so strong, why do so many people - including the members of the 1944 plot against Hitler - have such strong moral qualms against it? My best guess is that (a) there is a high correlation between moral virtue and obedience to authority, and (b) political leaders are very reluctant to support tyrannicide because they're worried about retaliation and/or setting a precedent. But I wonder if that's a little too conspiratorial.
SJE|12.31.08 @ 2:43PM|#
Most of the discussion about why its so bad to kill tyrants seems infused with the "divine right of kings." (i.e. The king gets his position because it is the will of god, and so killing the king is a specific act against gods will.)
EJM|12.31.08 @ 2:47PM|#
On a semi-related note, a recent
Inner City Press item featured this bit of analytical
contrast...
Now, humanitarians are saying that far too little forethought
was given to what would happen if Joseph Kony was not killed in the
assault, what the LRA would do. As the issue of extrajudicial
killing is being raised about Israel's bombing of the houses of
Hamas leaders in Gaza, the UN through envoy Joaquim Chissano, and
its Security Council through a Presidential Statement, have
embraced a military strategy that itself smacked of extrajudicial
killing of the indicted war criminal Joseph Kony.
Elemenope|12.31.08 @ 2:49PM|#
political leaders are very reluctant to support tyrannicide
because they're worried about retaliation and/or setting a
precedent
This is the only reason I've ever really seen seriously advanced,
and it makes sense to me.
|12.31.08 @ 2:51PM|#
It's about fear of retaliation and the resulting chaos. If everyone offed each others leaders, things might get a bit messy in the world. On the other hand, warfare makes things messy, too.
BakedPenguin|12.31.08 @ 2:55PM|#
...there is a high correlation between moral virtue and
obedience to authority...
Right. Because the phrase "we were only following orders!" just
smacks of morality...
Erm|12.31.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Did SJE come here in a time machine? What kind of people is he
talking to? How can we exploit them?
Pro Libertate and LMNOP seem to have it figured out. Not that
complicated, really.
Reinmoose|12.31.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Furthermore, you would think that there are a lot of
aggressive, risk-taking, frustrated guys in law enforcement would
desperately want to correct a few of "the system's
mistakes"
Is the justice system that we frequently credit with unjust
imprisonments of drug offenders or suspected drug offenders or
wrong-door raids maybe a good indicator of sanctioned
vigilanteeism?
creech|12.31.08 @ 3:04PM|#
But von Stauffenberg wasn't acting on a plot that involved
Roosevelt or any other allied leader. The question is "why don't
the oppressed victims of the leader kill him?"
At some point when it is obvious the leader is a vicious killer, he
(or she?) is probably very well protected and one probably would
forfeit one's own life in an unsucessful attempt. This hope - to
survive the leader's depredations - probably accounts for the vast
lack of such assassinations. But maybe those diagnosed with a
terminal illness should step up and do the deed, rather than hoping
some guy with a potential fifty years to live
decides his moral conscience dictates a try.
|12.31.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Has anyone seen the film? I was thinking of going this weekend.
I saw a publicity photo somewhere of the Tom Cruise character's
profile next to the Nazi officer's profile, and the resemblance was
astounding.
Is Caplan so sure that people who don't wish to kill a tyrant WILL
willingly kill others? I'd guess that many people think killing is
wrong, period.
As a cranky libertarian, I naturally also take issue with the
assertion that moral virtue correlates with obedience to a patently
murderous authority.
Kolohe|12.31.08 @ 3:12PM|#
There's also the practical side of this. Killing the sovereign
who's not on the front line with his troops has not been possible
until the development of over the horizon weaponry in the
inter-Word war years - except through the use of spies or traitors.
So there has not been much time to develop 'a law of war' for such
targeting*. And spies and traitors have always operated outside the
'law of war'.
What made the late 20th century precedent of *not* taking out
foreign leaders (at least of powerful countries) was that, in the
cold war paradigm**, it still would be entirely be carried out by
spies and traitors. And so there was a multi-layered MAD that
applied. The first layer, already mentioned, was that you didn't
want to get into a proxy war of assassination and reprisal. And
second layer was the real risk that such a cycle could escalate
into total thermonuclear war.
*although the early precedents were that this was no problem, as
when Yamamoto's plane was deliberately shot down (not technically a
head of state, but pretty far up in the food chain)
**as well as the state of technology for most of its duration.
Voltaire|12.31.08 @ 3:16PM|#
"It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets."
|12.31.08 @ 3:16PM|#
This hope - to survive the leader's depredations - probably
accounts for the vast lack of such assassinations.
Another particularly nasty attribute of the tyrant is his and his
acolyte's willingness to bring great suffering to the friends and
family of a would-be assassin. Erwin Rommel apparently had that
threat hanging over his head and he was not even directly involved
in the plot.
|12.31.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Who's squeamish about killing Hitler?
The reason people are staying away from Tom Cruise movies is
because they don't want any of their money funding that
totalitarian nut-cult he belongs to. If this same movie had starred
anybody else, it would be doing rather better at the box
office.
-jcr
|12.31.08 @ 3:16PM|#
At some point when it is obvious the leader is a vicious
killer, he (or she?) is probably very well protected and one
probably would forfeit one's own life in an unsucessful
attempt.
Bingo. Leaders, especially tyrannical ones, are often very
well protected and virtually impossible to get to. And the smart
ones fill their guards with fiercely loyal people instead of
Sejanus-types.
Also, if you try for a kill and fail, but don't die, you are gonna
hate what remains of your life as you get tortured. Scary stuff
that would deter most people.
You're not just killing a person; you're killing a powerful
person.
|12.31.08 @ 3:18PM|#
Let me just mention, that killing a couple of those depraved
Roman emperors was probably the best thing that the Praetorian
Guard ever did.
-jcr
The Angry Optimist|12.31.08 @ 3:18PM|#
I always assumed that tyrannicide makes people uncomfortable
because of the old Stalin trope about one death v. one million
deaths. Field casualties are remote, but killing one man while he
sleeps seems cold-blooded.
It is still a messed-up way to look at the world.
Travis|12.31.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Has anyone seen the film?
It's not a great film, but it's worth watching once.
Name and Address Withheld|12.31.08 @ 3:23PM|#
My Great-Great Uncle was Erich von Ludendorff, Paul von Hindenburg Chief of Staff and the man directly responsible for 20,000,000 deaths in WWI. Had I been alive then, I'd have killed him myself. And then I'd have made a tasty lunch.
|12.31.08 @ 3:23PM|#
Let me just mention, that killing a couple of those depraved
Roman emperors was probably the best thing that the Praetorian
Guard ever did.
Check out
how many they killed or deserted. Why the fuck would any
Emperor keep them around? Vespasian was smart for reducing them
after Vitellius.
I tell you, the Romans had no problem with tyrannicide, that's for
sure.
Voltaire|12.31.08 @ 3:25PM|#
"The best government is a benevolent tyranny tempered by an occasional assassination."
The Angry Optimist|12.31.08 @ 3:25PM|#
I was always struck by the pronvincialism and love of authority Alighieri exhibited in The Divine Comedy by putting Brutus in Satan's fucking mouth. Brutus is one of my heroes.
|12.31.08 @ 3:37PM|#
I tell you, the Romans had no problem with tyrannicide,
that's for sure.
And neither did most other cultures through most of history. Think
of all the Russian Czars and dictators (including Lenin and, maybe,
Stalin), not to mention English kings and African and Middle
Eastern whatevers, who were directly or indirectly offed by the
next guy who wanted to be in charge.
The problem is, when you do it you have to be prepared to take
over; and not that many people have that much blind ambition.
|12.31.08 @ 3:41PM|#
A question just occurred to me. How many kings would Cromwell
have had to kill to atone for his massacre of the Irish?
-jcr
huh?|12.31.08 @ 3:43PM|#
And neither did most other cultures through most of history.
Think of all the Russian Czars and dictators (including Lenin and,
maybe, Stalin), not to mention English kings and African and Middle
Eastern whatevers, who were directly or indirectly offed by the
next guy who wanted to be in charge.
Like LBJ's offing of JFK?
Sic semper tyrannis
Sic semper Hyannis
|12.31.08 @ 3:46PM|#
Wasn't there a TV movie made in the last 15 years or so about this plot? I remember seeing it, but I can't remember the name.
The Angry Optimist|12.31.08 @ 3:49PM|#
Sic semper tyrannis
Indeed. Or, more American: "Some folks need killin'"/
Nigel Watt|12.31.08 @ 3:51PM|#
I always assumed that tyrannicide makes people uncomfortable because of the old Stalin trope about one death v. one million deaths. Field casualties are remote, but killing one man while he sleeps seems
cold-bloodedawesome.
Assuming said man is Stalin.
Fluffy|12.31.08 @ 3:59PM|#
I agree with those who are making the point that retaliation is
one problem.
I would say that a related, but distinct, problem is the type of
political atmosphere widespread use of assassination as a tool
produces. In that kind of environment paranoia,
conspiracy-mongering, and betrayal rule the day, and this makes it
even harder to clean up the domestic and international political
messes that the presence of tyrants creates. Think Italy during the
middle and late Renaissance or the chaotic periods in Islam's
history.
|12.31.08 @ 4:00PM|#
A good friend of mine is the great grandson of one of the conspirators with von Stauffenberg, whom he (and many others) consider to be one of the few real German heros. He's deeply offended that Tom Cruise & company are making this story into Mission Impossible IV.
Urkobold™|12.31.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Sic semper evello mortem Uranus, OR, FOR THOSE WITH SHORT ATTENTION SPANS, Sic semper Uranus.
thoreau|12.31.08 @ 4:31PM|#
Even if you kill the dictator and you either avoid being killed
or don't mind dying for a good cause, who says that killing the
dictator will fix things? His ruthless second-in-command could take
over. Or the leader of the guerrilla resistance army might turn out
to be just as cruel (or worse?).
Or the country might dissolve into chaos with warring factions
vying for control until ethnic cleansing resolves some of the
territorial disputes and restores the illusion of peace.
Come to think of it, that last scenario actually happened quite
recently in some country, oh, what country was it?
Even if a regime collapses with minimal bloodshed (e.g. the
Soviets) the result might be gangsterism until a strongman restores
order (not too different from what happened in Russia until Putin
consolidated power and the illusion of order).
Anyway, killing the dictator might not fix a damn thing.
|12.31.08 @ 4:38PM|#
How about we just capture tyrants then exile them to the Moon? To a base, I mean. It would be fun to see people like Mugabe and Castro working together to set up a water still. In fact, we should have webcams everywhere, making it a tyrant reality show, too. Which would fund the kidnapping, Earth-Moon transportation, and the Moon base.
|12.31.08 @ 4:48PM|#
There were plenty of people who would have gladly committed tyrannicide in Nazi Germany. Just not the people in power. Duh.
|12.31.08 @ 4:55PM|#
Anyway, killing the dictator might not fix a damn thing.
Indeed. You should definitely just invade and occupy.
The Angry Optimist|12.31.08 @ 5:03PM|#
Did you know HITLER killed political leaders??! HUH!??? Do you want to be just like HITLER???!
|12.31.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Erÿk,
TAO is right. You need some sort of reference to Nazis that isn't
tied to the main point of the thread.
thoreau|12.31.08 @ 5:28PM|#
Eric-
Oh, if an outside party wants to get involved, I'd say that killing
the dictator is less worse than invading and occupying. But if the
question is why more dictators aren't killed from within, I think
the concerns about the aftermath are valid.
Most dictators managed to "make the trains run on time" at some
point early in their rule. Or at least they made the trains run
less tardy than the people they replaced. This is part of the
reason why they have their loyalists, and part of the reason why
even some of their opponents might think twice about coups,
assassinations, etc.
So, for a would-be assassin, the likely outcomes are:
1) You fail at the assassination, you're captured and tortured to
death, and your family is also tortured to death.
2) You succeed at the assassination, but you die of wounds
sustained during the attempt. Your country is either plunged into
chaos or the evil #2 guy simply takes over. (The evil #2 guy might
also kill your family, to deter anybody else thinking of
assassination.)
3) You succeed at the assassination, you survive, and after your
country is either plunged into chaos or left to the not-so-tender
mercies of the evil #2 guy, you and your family flee.
4) You succeed at the assassination, you die, but at least your
country gets better.
5) You succeeed at the country, survive, and see your country
improve.
The last 2 scenarios are rather unlikely, the final one is
particularly unlikely, and all of the other more likely scenarios
are pretty awful.
|12.31.08 @ 5:30PM|#
thoreau,
Which is why the best approach is to have everyone else be involved
in the conspiracy in the first place. Some call it. . .a
revolution.
|12.31.08 @ 5:49PM|#
Oh, if an outside party wants to get involved, I'd say that killing the dictator is less worse than invading and occupying. But if the question is why more dictators aren't killed from within, I think the concerns about the aftermath are valid.
I believe the topic is the former.
thoreau|12.31.08 @ 5:55PM|#
Eric-
Since the catalyst for this thread was a movie about an internal
plot against Hitler, I assumed the topic was home-grown plots
against dictators, not external plots.
|12.31.08 @ 6:01PM|#
After Manassas, with the Disgrace of Columbia available for the taking, why did the greycoats pass up tyrannicide? It would have prevented the great dictator from mass murdering hundres of thousands. Then agian, some of the same tyrants discussed in this thread would have been deprived of the example they so admired.
Elemenope|12.31.08 @ 6:23PM|#
After Manassas, with the Disgrace of Columbia available for
the taking, why did the greycoats pass up tyrannicide? It would
have prevented the great dictator from mass murdering hundres of
thousands. Then agian, some of the same tyrants discussed in this
thread would have been deprived of the example they so
admired.
You know, there is a designated day for this Lincoln-hate, and it's
called his birthday. We even have it off from work/school, so you
can do it all day.
|12.31.08 @ 6:30PM|#
Secession is acceptable. "Seig hi, Mr. Hitler, sir. Um, the rest of Germany just seceded from, um, you. Have a Nazi day!"
|12.31.08 @ 6:37PM|#
Given that Robert Mugabe's birthday is February 21st, I can have twofer that week!
|12.31.08 @ 6:46PM|#
If Bavaria had decided to secede from the Third Reich, after whom do you think Hitler would have modeled his response? Harry Chapin?
MNG|12.31.08 @ 7:01PM|#
Back from my trip. And now that Boston College has blown it and
there is time before the LSU game thought I'd check on H&R. I
also saw Valkyrie a few days ago, so this is an interesting
topic.
I liked Valkyrie, but one thing I did not like was how Cruise
played his character without any conflict on whether he should do
what would seem to us to be plainly necessary and right but what
must have seemed to a German officer to be at least technically
treason and given the values of said officer corps that would be a
very, very hard thing to do. This quote by him illuminates quite a
bit about how he played that role.
But here is my take on this: would be assassins of their own
nation's dictators probably have so many qualms because they are
such decent people and most decent people have trouble killing
anyone, even if that person is a bad person (this explains why
someone like TAO would not be bothered). You see, all the less than
decent folks probably buy into the dictator, the leaders count on
those types. But it takes a decent person to see that his own
leaders and nation are horribly in the wrong and that something
must be done about it. And such people have qualms about killing,
they have trouble thinking that ends justify means.
MNG|12.31.08 @ 7:06PM|#
"He deserves death."
"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And
some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be
too eager to deal out death in judgement."
I think this is how most decent folks think about killing,
period.
I should add of course that somone from another faction that wants
power would have no qualms about killing a leader (or anyone else
probably), and history kind of demonstrates that.
As to Dante and Brutus: of course Dante is a tool (and Brutus is a
favorite of mine too). But regicide was looked down upon by
monarchs because of the example it set, they wanted an aura of
"don't fuck with me, I'm God's chosen" around all that rule. If you
want to see how tricky this was look at Shakepeare's Ricky
II...
The Angry Optimist|12.31.08 @ 7:13PM|#
this explains why someone like TAO would not be
bothered)
Because I am not a decent person? Happy New Year, MNG.
Paul|12.31.08 @ 7:15PM|#
If I were President, I'd never sign anything or any treaty
promising not to assasinate other world leaders.
It's like being reflexively 'antiwar'. Usually, no matter what your
politics are, you can find something, someone, or some nation so
horrible, such an anathema to everything you believe, that you're
willing to make an exception. Better not to say 'never'.
MNg|12.31.08 @ 7:20PM|#
I think your rather certain views about right and wrong and unconcerned attitude towards the killing of others to be indicative of a person who is not decent. Yes.
MNG|12.31.08 @ 7:28PM|#
If Brutus said "Horrible, horrible, but it had to be done" then
he was a decent guy.
If he said "Holy shit that was great, what a fantastic turn of
events that I stabbed that bastard and he's dead now" then I don't
think of that as decent.
MNG|12.31.08 @ 7:40PM|#
I've always thought Dante's work is pretty stupid (I actually
think this about a lot of classics sadly). It's so obvious the guy
was trying to please his patrons, appease the powerful that were
not his patrons, and to settle amazingly petty personal
scores.
It's amazing how silly many classics are. Reading Aristotle is like
eating dry hay. Plato has many laughable ideas (his stuff on
reincarnation, man-boy love, education as "remembering, his "noble
lie" and psuedo-racist stuff). Aquinas is laughable in his
apologetics. Etc.
Hume, Shakespeare, J.S. Mill...other than that an amazing number of
classics strike me as hogwash...
Travis|12.31.08 @ 8:15PM|#
"Even if you kill the dictator and you either avoid being killed
or don't mind dying for a good cause, who says that killing the
dictator will fix things? His ruthless second-in-command could take
over."
That's a good point. When Czar Alexander II was assasinated his son
Alexander III came to power & repealed a lot of the freedoms
his father had enacted.
|12.31.08 @ 8:33PM|#
I'll tie it in to the "invisible hand."
Animals have an urge to climb the pecking order. That means number
53 is more than happy to eliminate 52.
It ties in to the invisible hand because none of us can think
beyond number 52. We just feel compelled to do what is right in
front of us... not many numbers beyond.
By the time we address number 2 doing in number 1, number 1 has
already taken extraordinary precautions against precisely that
eventuality.
But, for sure, as a Southerner, I am definitely of the opinion,
"some people just need killin'"
Ruthless
MNG|12.31.08 @ 8:37PM|#
"But, for sure, as a Southerner, I am definitely of the opinion,
"some people just need killin'""
Yeah, that goes far to explaining one of the South's favorite
institutions:
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingsstate.html
|12.31.08 @ 8:43PM|#
MNG,
Southerners are also especially sensitive to rudeness, and you
are.
Could I get an "Amen"?
|12.31.08 @ 8:45PM|#
Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,
Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,
Drink,Drink,Drink,Drink,
Drink,Drink,Drink,
Well its is New Year's
May auld acquaintance be forgot and never brought to mind!
Happy New Year's
MNG|12.31.08 @ 9:02PM|#
Southerners are sensitive to rudeness because they used to kill
each other over it (duels).
They needed no such excuse to kill dark skinned people, of
course.
Right Wing Realist|12.31.08 @ 9:29PM|#
Because assassination means political chaos, and chaos means people get raped and killed.
|12.31.08 @ 10:13PM|#
One point that has not been raised in the tyranicide debate is
the fact that tyrants - particularly modern tyrants - have huge
propaganda machines which make them into demigods to the majority
of their people. Speer in his memoir mentioned telephone operators
crying at the first (inaccurate) reports of Hitler's death. There
were hysterical outbreaks in Moscow when Stalin died.
It takes a very determined person to go against the prevailing view
and carry out an assassination in that environment, especially if
one is a fundamentally moral person to begin with.
With respect to Marcus Junius Brutus, the reports of his motivation
come from Suetonius and others who were very much opposed to the
Ceasars - in other words, biased sources. The so-called
"Republican" faction in Rome were not interested in liberty - they
were interested in their own personal power. They were a bunch of
aristocratic kleptocrats, using the Roman State for their own
enrichment. Brutus seems to have been a rather suppliant
individual, so he probably would not have held power. Most likely,
Cassius Longinus or one of the more ruthless members of the
Optimates faction would have wound up with a Sulla-like
dictatorship, complete with the proscriptions.
cuernimus|12.31.08 @ 10:57PM|#
Tyrants don't get offed because the people who would want to kill them, don't have access to them. These Nazis wanted to kill Hitler because of a war going poorly and the repercussions of losing, not because of any humanitarian reasons. It benefited them more to kill him than to let him live, so he needed to die. If they controlled all of Europe and were pissing on Stalin's grave, Hitler would of been a national hero.
nobody u no and a big fan of j|1.1.09 @ 1:39AM|#
the persons chattering on this thread sound like they think this
was the first or only attempt on hitler's life.
lots of people using nazi instead of german or soldier.
mng continues the myth that lynching and dueling happened only in
the south.
does nobody bother looking up facts any more? perhaps making up
ones own facts is the new way of the world.
MNG|1.1.09 @ 7:57AM|#
"mng continues the myth that lynching and dueling happened only
in the south.
does nobody bother looking up facts any more?"
Did I say that?
Dueling pretty much died out in the North way before it did in the
South (read historian Edward Ayer's stuff on this). And I posted
the numbers on lynchings which show 1. yes it occurred in the North
but 2. not nearly as much as in the South. That is one of your
beloved facts.
Hey, there is a lot to like about the South, both now and
historically. But there is a lot of nasty peculiarities too. Given
that the South was out of step in a considerable moral way for so
long, and given that they are politically and socially very
different from most of the nation today, one would think it would
behoove Southerners to take a long, deep look inward...
ed|1.1.09 @ 9:28AM|#
political leaders are very reluctant to support tyrannicide
because they're worried about retaliation
Gee, ya' think? Entire towns were wiped off the map when Hitler's
henchmen were attacked. Simply thinking about bumping off
Stalin would get you and every living relative shipped to a frozen
slave-labor camp. If it were easy it would certainly
happen more frequently.
|1.1.09 @ 9:41AM|#
LOoks like a good movie but I refuse to fund anyone who is part
of that Scientology CULT!
Jess
www.privacy.de.tc
Plato|1.1.09 @ 10:16AM|#
I hear--I heard what you were saying. You--you know nothing of my work. How you ever got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing.
MNG|1.1.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Major props for the Annie Hall quote!
Plato was nuts though, check out Karl Popper's discussion in The
Open Society and it's Enemies.
jtuf|1.1.09 @ 12:21PM|#
(b) political leaders are very reluctant to support
tyrannicide because they're worried about retaliation and/or
setting a precedent. But I wonder if that's a little too
conspiratorial.
Consider it a professional courtesy.
|1.1.09 @ 12:57PM|#
And I thought no one would remember that one.
I agree that any philosopher has flaws, but don't be too quick to
discard their thinking entirely. Plato, for instance, has some
interesting insights, and Aristotle still pops up in current,
nonhistorical scholarship today.
What's sad about Aristotle is that we have none of his published
works--just his lecture notes. His reputation also was damaged by
the revolt against Scholasticism, but it was less him and more
people interpreting him that was the problem. Not that he wasn't
wrong about plenty, especially in the natural sciences.
|1.1.09 @ 1:29PM|#
Valkyrie in real life was not about striking a blow
against tyranny, per se; as usual, it's a bit more
complicated...
The men behind the Valkyrie plot were not exactly gallant
Paul Henreid types; mostly they were old-line Prussian aristocrats
who hated Hitler because he upset the old-boy network.
They were hardly adverse to the notion of Germany uber
alles; they just didn't like Hitler and his newfangled
ways.
And yes, I understand that none of this is relevant to the question
of when and whether tyrannicide is justified; just wanna set the
record straight, folks...
Victor Laszlo|1.1.09 @ 1:42PM|#
Yes, I am dashing, aren't I? Let's all sing "La Marseillaise". . .one more time!
MNG|1.1.09 @ 1:47PM|#
Pro L
I love Woody Allen films. Little trivia-I read somewhere that Allen
wanted Fellini to be the person who pops up in that scene, but he
was for some reason unavailable and had to "settle" for
MaCluhan.
"What's sad about Aristotle is that we have none of his published
works--just his lecture notes."
I've heard that's why they read so dryly. I do think its amazing
that someone could construct the works we have from lecture
notes...
And I agree with you that there is a lot of good thought in Plato
and Aristotle, I just think it's side by side with some silly
stuff. And they both should be read to understand the huge
influence they had. I just think we've had many later thinkers that
were better.
Buffy|1.1.09 @ 2:08PM|#
"I've always thought Dante's work is pretty stupid (I actually
think this about a lot of classics sadly). It's so obvious the guy
was trying to please his patrons, appease the powerful that were
not his patrons, and to settle amazingly petty personal
scores.
It's amazing how silly many classics are. Reading Aristotle is like
eating dry hay. Plato has many laughable ideas (his stuff on
reincarnation, man-boy love, education as "remembering, his "noble
lie" and psuedo-racist stuff). Aquinas is laughable in his
apologetics. Etc.
Hume, Shakespeare, J.S. Mill...other than that an amazing number of
classics strike me as hogwash..."
Wow! You're so cool!
Partick Fitzgerald|1.1.09 @ 2:12PM|#
"Plato has many laughable ideas...man-boy love..."
Closet much?
scholastic|1.2.09 @ 3:46AM|#
On tyrannicide, read Juan de Mariana....
Most of the State's mysticism since the time of the Pahraohs and
before has centered on discouraging king-slaying. Of course
primitive tribes had much fewer qualms... germanic elective
kingship, etc...
It takes an unusually clear mind to cut through the bullshit. de
Mariana deserves a lot of praise for that, and for having the
courage to say it out loud.
robc|1.2.09 @ 11:06AM|#
How many kings would Cromwell have had to kill to atone for
his massacre of the Irish?
One.
SJE|1.2.09 @ 5:49PM|#
No, Erm, I didnt come in a time machine. This is an issue that people have actually been talking about for several hundred years before reason blogged about it.
|1.4.09 @ 11:00AM|#
Maybe becoming a murderer to fight a murderer is a philisophical problem? Derrr.
B|1.5.09 @ 6:12PM|#
"After Manassas, with the Disgrace of Columbia available for the
taking, why did the greycoats pass up tyrannicide? It would have
prevented the great dictator from mass murdering hundres of
thousands. Then agian, some of the same tyrants discussed in this
thread would have been deprived of the example they so
admired.'
There is no surer sign of idiocy than a love of the Confederate
States of America. What is even worse is that you are seemingly
comparing Lincoln unfavorably, as you call him the great dictator,
to a group of people who thought it was ok to buy and sell human
beings. If that does not represent the pinnacle of tyranny, I sure
as hell do not know what does. Thank the lord Lincoln was there to
order the slaughter of those backwoods yokels.
|1.7.09 @ 3:36AM|#
Yes I saw the film rated 4.5 of 5,
I'm surprised that there aren't more films
like this about this witches caldron called
Nazi Germany, There were other's that tried
to kill Hitler but he was a Genius in ways,
he built the SS to protect himself and had
extreme security, also any attempt wether
failed or sucess would put your love ones on
meat hooks. As one German you must step
on the head of the serpent to step on the tail
will assure you will be bitten.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245