Jihadists and anarchists?

I don't understand a single thing you just said.




So, I finally know what it's like to argue with CCR.
 
Kharn said:
Eheheheeh. Sander, fer God's sake, take a close look at that sentence.
Ehhh.....it was late....or something.....


Wrong, Sander.

Jihadists did not "already have one". Jihadism, an odd term, pretty much equates Islamism AKA "Fundamentalist Islam" AKA "Political Islam". Islamism was not an existing religious structure, rather Said Al Qutb took the Islam and twisted it to his own design. Political Islam has about as much to do with Islam as the KKK did with Christianity. It *is*, in fact, an invented sect
Well, methinks CCR would disagree.
But is Jihadism really that modern? I thought it had existed as a very minor current within Islam before. Although I couldn't actually name any real reason to think that....heh.

Oh, and this would make the one difference between sectists and Jihadists....none? (Well, perhaps except for the one all-powerful leader sexually taking advantage of the sectists)

John said:
I know one or two anarchists (oddly enough, one is in my Poli-Sci class). Both douches. And I've read more about Anarchism then they have I am willing to bet.
Right, so?
Look, anarchism is a number of things, you have the dumb-ass punk-kids who think they're cool when they want society to go down. You have the aggressive, violent anarchists, they're the ones you're talking about.
But you also have the peaceful anarchists, who by and large smoke weed, protest peacefully (at times violently against the police who try to stop them) and grow rasta-hair.
Stuffing every single anarchist and anarchism itself into one corner, because the people in the violent corner are the ones you see most and focus on.
 
Well, methinks CCR would disagree.
Uh, kind of. He has a point, though, see above.

But is Jihadism really that modern? I thought it had existed as a very minor current within Islam before. Although I couldn't actually name any real reason to think that....heh.
Cause it ain't modern, unless one considers gunpowder, the printing press and a constitutional monarchy to be dangerous new contraptions and silly new ideas.

Look, anarchism is a number of things, you have the dumb-ass punk-kids who think they're cool when they want society to go down. You have the aggressive, violent anarchists, they're the ones you're talking about.
You are right. There are a lot of diffirent kinds of anarchists. But to be honest the only ones I really respect are those who do not call themselves anarchists (Tolstoy, Kierkegaard mebbe). As far as I am concerned Bakunin was, well, evil, worse then any criminal.



We say that the most dangerous criminal now is the entirely lawless modern philosopher. Compared to him, burglars and bigamists are essentially moral men; my heart goes out to them. They accept the essential ideal of man; they merely seek it wrongly. Thieves respect property. They merely wish the property to become their property that they may more perfectly respect it. But philosophers dislike property as property; they wish to destroy the very idea of personal possession. Bigamists respect marriage, or they would not go through the highly ceremonial and even ritualistic formality of bigamy. But philosophers despise marriage as marriage. Murderers respect human life; they merely wish to attain a greater fulness of human life in themselves by the sacrifice of what seems to them to be lesser lives. But philosophers hate life itself, their own as much as other people's.

But you also have the peaceful anarchists, who by and large smoke weed, protest peacefully (at times violently against the police who try to stop them) and grow rasta-hair.
No offence, but I don't have much respect for them either.

Stuffing every single anarchist and anarchism itself into one corner, because the people in the violent corner are the ones you see most and focus on.
History is not made by passive majorities but by violent minorities.
 
John Uskglass said:
I'd say Islamofascism; that is, the mix of political Islam with equal parts Soviet and Nazi/Fascist with Anarchist-style terrorism is new. Political Islam is as old as the Caliphate.

Islamofascism is an inherently wrong term because its connotations are incorrect, even if fascism and "Jihadism" share a lot of common factors.

And that depends on your definition of Political Islam. If you mean it to means "Islam as a political movement" it stems back far, if you mean it to be yet another name of Islamism, then it doesn't. Many call Islamism Political Islam because one of the core tenets of Islamism is that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system.

Keep the history of Islamism in mind when you make claims, though. Remember that Islamism was in part founded to make an Islam-friendly competitor to anti-Islam political philosophies like communism.

It all comes back to Maududi, Qutb and the fall of the Ottoman Empire anyway. The methods, terrorism, may be new, but that only barely influences the core philosophy, which is the same

Sander said:
But is Jihadism really that modern? I thought it had existed as a very minor current within Islam before. Although I couldn't actually name any real reason to think that....heh.

"Jihadism" as in "Jihad also means beating up infidels" is an ancient current, sure. There have always been nutjobs on all sides of religion that want to wipe out everyone else.

As a significant political and religious movement it is quite young, though. One can say the whole movement that we now label "Jihadism" didn't solidify until the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

Sander said:
Oh, and this would make the one difference between sectists and Jihadists....none?

Arguably Islamism is a sect in the same sense that Christian cults are sects, yes.

CC said:

I sometimes think Tolstoy has been somewhat unfairly drawn into the clutches of anarachism. I don't think he would have subscribed to the final philosophy of anarchism as it finally developed and even if he did he was a failure as a practical anarchist. I think his own experiences in life were good enough proof of how anarchism doesn't work, really...

Plus he was a pacifist, which kind of sets him apart from the ilk we've been criticising so far.

CC said:

I always have a hard time calling philosophers "evil", just like scientists are rarely "evil", unless the core of the philosophy is that you should kill people. Bakunin's philosophies were "evil" in a sense, but I wouldn't call him worse than any criminal, considering that he believed his thoughts would lead to a better world, not slaughter.

Hell, that bit you posted is just wry and stupid, looks like it was written by a guy that once got kicked in the nuts by a philosopher, or something.

You really hate Bakunin, though, ey?
 
Islamofascism is an inherently wrong term because its connotations are incorrect, even if fascism and "Jihadism" share a lot of common factors.
I'd say they have quite a bit in common; both are more about 'stlye' then any meaningful economic or even social policy, both violent, both reactionary, but anti-capitalist and anti-communist, not a member of the Right or the Left. Also, read Bernard Lewis, the impact Fascism had on Islamofascism is considerable.

Besides, I dislike Islamic Fundementalism just like I dislike Christian Fundementalism as terms, because in certain senses I am more of a Fundementalist Christian then any of the bible belt fundies.

And that depends on your definition of Political Islam. If you mean it to means "Islam as a political movement" it stems back far, if you mean it to be yet another name of Islamism, then it doesn't. Many call Islamism Political Islam because one of the core tenets of Islamism is that Islam is not only a religion but also a political system.
Islamism does have roots in the 1,300 hundred year old history of Political Islam, but Right Wing Islamism (Islamofascism) is new.

It all comes back to Maududi, Qutb and the fall of the Ottoman Empire anyway. The methods, terrorism, may be new, but that only barely influences the core philosophy, which is the same
Yar.

I sometimes think Tolstoy has been somewhat unfairly drawn into the clutches of anarachism. I don't think he would have subscribed to the final philosophy of anarchism as it finally developed and even if he did he was a failure as a practical anarchist. I think his own experiences in life were good enough proof of how anarchism doesn't work, really...
You are entirely right, and I generally refrain from calling people Christan Anarchism, as Christian anti-government, pacifistic movements where 1,800 years old when Anarchism came along.

But I do feel some rare anarchists are not, you know, 'evil'.

Plus he was a pacifist, which kind of sets him apart from the ilk we've been criticising so far.
Yar.

I always have a hard time calling philosophers "evil", just like scientists are rarely "evil", unless the core of the philosophy is that you should kill people. Bakunin's philosophies were "evil" in a sense, but I wouldn't call him worse than any criminal, considering that he believed his thoughts would lead to a better world, not slaughter.
Better world is relative. Pol Pot believed he was creating a better world.

I think if anybody could be considered 'evil', it would probably be Bakunin (along with some of the upper Nazis, Stalin and upper level Maoists).

Hell, that bit you posted is just wry and stupid, looks like it was written by a guy that once got kicked in the nuts by a philosopher, or something.
The guy was a Philosopher, and a better one then most of his contemporaries, in addition to being a better poet, journalist and theologian then basically anyone within 50 years before or after his death. Also funny.

I'd be surprised if you did'nt know who he was by the quote.

You really hate Bakunin, though, ey?
I try not to hate anyone, but I fail in the case of Bakunin. I think he proves one of the main points in the book I quoted more then anyone who ever lived.
 
John Uskglass said:
I'd say they have quite a bit in common

What they have in common is irrelevant. You don't call them anarchists because they share elements of anarchism either. If they're not actually tied together, there's no reason to use the same term for both.

John Uskglass said:
Besides, I dislike Islamic Fundementalism just like I dislike Christian Fundementalism as terms, because in certain senses I am more of a Fundementalist Christian then any of the bible belt fundies.

Fundamentalist as in "going back to the fundaments" never applied as a term to either bible belters or islamists. I don't generally use the term much either.

John Uskglass said:
Islamism does have roots in the 1,300 hundred year old history of Political Islam, but Right Wing Islamism (Islamofascism) is new.

Heh, I'd be curious as to how you define "new"

And I thought you just said Islamofascism isn't left or right?

And I'm curious as to how you split Islamism and "islamofascism"

John Uskglass said:
Better world is relative. Pol Pot believed he was creating a better world.

Yes, but Pol Pot was directly in command of a regime that brought death unto millions, that's a bit different from philosophizing about an ideal world.

John Uskglass said:
I think if anybody could be considered 'evil', it would probably be Bakunin (along with some of the upper Nazis, Stalin and upper level Maoists).

Apart from being an anti-Semite, I fail to see how Bakunin was "evil" as such. His philosophy was not an innocent one, but even though he was a lot more prone to violence than his communist counterpart Marx, the latter's philosophy caused a lot more deaths than Bakunin's. So whu'?

John Uskglass said:
The guy was a Philosopher, and a better one then most of his contemporaries, in addition to being a better poet, journalist and theologian then basically anyone within 50 years before or after his death. Also funny.

I'd be surprised if you did'nt know who he was by the quote.

Counter-quote: "The rich are the scum of the earth in every country."

But I dislike apologists of any ilk, Christian apologists no less than others.
 
Well Max, I sent you a pm but figured I might as well post this here to continue this thread.

Ok, quick response to some of your points.

Are violent anarchists and Jihadists similar? Well they are kind of like apples and oranges- different but similar in some ways. Both are groups that support political change through the use of violence (though admittedly each practices terrorism differently). Both are non-state actors. Both represent political movements in which most of the followers are probably not violent. Both represent fashionable political trends that serve as the ideological undercurrent their their policies.

Are they similar? Anarchism was very popular in much of the world until the movement died out in part due to declining fashion (there are few anarchists these days) and partly through repression- either in liberal societies where they were seen as potential threats to the political order, or in totalitarian fascist and communist states were they were more ruthlessly wiped out. Your jihadist has been growing in the middle east for the past 40 or so years, in part because of failure of socialism in the middle east, in part because of the failure of the west to support democratic movements, and perhaps part of this has to do with decolonization and the lingering problem of Israel.

Still they are political movements of their time, fashionable as a response, that allows individuals some justification in their willingness to exercise violence. These are not nationalist movements per-se, but adhere to a different ideology which unites these groups together.

But at the psychological level, are they similar. Is this really just about ego and conviction? If you remove the political ideology from the person (and you might argue that to do so would remove the person- but there are plenty of people who will do violent things even without ideology), are they alike?

Will they suffer a similar fate? I don't know. Depends on the future of political events in the middle east.

Is it despotism?

Well for me despotism is the use of political violence over dialogue to achieve distributive ends among social groups. Normally we see this in the character of the state where a small class or rulers utilize despotism to assure themselves a larger share of the material gains of society.

But if we can accept that terrorism can come from both non-state and state actors, than why not despotism? Ok, so normally with think of despotism as an adjective for the "despotic king" or that the ruler was a despot, or "he ruled with despotism." Isn't despotism merely the will to use violence to achieve your ends, not through dialogue or reason or discourse, but through coercion? And once you have acheived a monopoly on the use of political violence (an essential element of the Weberian definition of the state- though Weber requires that the violence be 'legitimate') than what distinguishes the violent "successful" terrorist from the ruthless despot? Nothing- as the both represent the pinnacle of the state's ruling class.

Thus terrorism, especially against democratic states, is a form of despotism.

What about non-democratic states, authoritarian/fascist states?

Terrorism is still the use of tactical violence against a target with the intention of terrifying another. When used against the civilians of a state, to coercive them to act in the way that you want and reduce their political will, you have substituted the politics of discourse for that of coercion, and thus your use of violence is despotic.

@ Ratty & Malkavian- stop picking on Aegis. This is not the Order where you may use your power to torment those you do not like for personal reasons. Keep the flaming off the board.
 
welsh said:
@ Ratty & Malkavian- stop picking on Aegis. This is not the Order where you may use your power to torment those you do not like for personal reasons. Keep the flaming off the board.

Yeah, that's what I figured you'd say. God forbid you reprimand me or anyone else without using the phrase "This is not The Order..."
 
Malkavian said:
Yeah, that's what I figured you'd say. God forbid you reprimand me or anyone else without using the phrase "This is not The Order..."

Agreed.

That said, this line of conversation ends here and further posts from involved persons will be vatted. In other words; take it to pm's.
 
What they have in common is irrelevant. You don't call them anarchists because they share elements of anarchism either. If they're not actually tied together, there's no reason to use the same term for both.
You are right.

Fundamentalist as in "going back to the fundaments" never applied as a term to either bible belters or islamists. I don't generally use the term much either.
Wow, we agree on two things in a row. Been a while.

Heh, I'd be curious as to how you define "new"
Post 1453 for religion. For instance, I'd call the Mormons and the Ba'hai 'new' faiths.


And I thought you just said Islamofascism isn't left or right?
What I should have said is that it is not Left Wing, as Left Wing Islamism was pretty popular for a while and was basically religious Communism. But Fascism is, of course, neither a member of the left or the right, even if I did make the mistake of people I consider to be fascsitic 'right wing'.

And I'm curious as to how you split Islamism and "islamofascism"
Islamist=Suleiman the Magnificent
Islamofascist=Abdul Hamid II


Yes, but Pol Pot was directly in command of a regime that brought death unto millions, that's a bit different from philosophizing about an ideal world.
Yes, but he was not personally responsible for them. Both Bakunin and Pol Pot called upon entire sections of society to be 'done away with', Pol Pot was merley more into the details and had actual power.

If Bakunin somehow gained control of, say, Imperial Russia, it's kind of hard to not imagine a place entering a dark age I don't really want to think about.

Apart from being an anti-Semite, I fail to see how Bakunin was "evil" as such. His philosophy was not an innocent one, but even though he was a lot more prone to violence than his communist counterpart Marx, the latter's philosophy caused a lot more deaths than Bakunin's. So whu'?
Marx, for all of his failured, for all of his oversights and for all the deaths that may be attributed to his philosophy, was not a violent man, and at his core his Communist world was inherintly nonviolent. Bakunin's goal was to literally outlaw God and every form of Morality I consider moral.

Marx believed he was creating a better world for the people he considered to be good and not inherintly parasitic, the Proletariant. Bakunin yearned for a world devoid of ethics, and that their only right was to 'obey the rights of nature', which in Bakunin's perverse little mind probably meant death.

Counter-quote: "The rich are the scum of the earth in every country."
Shit man, I live in a community of annoying, narcisistic rich people that would make Bret Easton Ellis vomit with rage. I'm not going to argue with him on that.

But I dislike apologists of any ilk, Christian apologists no less than others.

So you mean you've never engadged in
 
John Uskglass said:
Post 1453 for religion. For instance, I'd call the Mormons and the Ba'hai 'new' faiths.

Then Islamism is new, even if it has "old roots"

Wait...so Sikhism is new too?

John Uskglass said:
What I should have said is that it is not Left Wing, as Left Wing Islamism was pretty popular for a while and was basically religious Communism. But Fascism is, of course, neither a member of the left or the right, even if I did make the mistake of people I consider to be fascsitic 'right wing'.

Fascism not being left or right doesn't mean fascists aren't left or right, it simply means Fascists can be either left or right.

John Uskglass said:
Islamist=Suleiman the Magnificent
Islamofascist=Abdul Hamid II

Calling Suleiman an Islamist is incorrect and a heavy anachronism. Islamism is an actual philosophy and while you could say Suleiman displays Islamist tendencies you can not call him an Islamist anymore than you could call Charlemange a communist. Islamism did *not* exist before the 20th century, referring to anything pre-20th century as Islamist is incorrect usage of the term.

In fact, it's funny because Abdul Hamid II's reign saw the beginning of the birthing of Islamism.

John Uskglass said:
Yes, but he was not personally responsible for them.

Yes he was.

John Uskglass said:
Both Bakunin and Pol Pot called upon entire sections of society to be 'done away with', Pol Pot was merley more into the details and had actual power.

If Bakunin somehow gained control of, say, Imperial Russia, it's kind of hard to not imagine a place entering a dark age I don't really want to think about.

Yes, "if". Bakunin did not and as such he did not engage in "actual crimes", nor do you actually know what would've happened if he had led a nation of any size.

John Uskglass said:
Marx, for all of his failured, for all of his oversights and for all the deaths that may be attributed to his philosophy, was not a violent man, and at his core his Communist world was inherintly nonviolent. Bakunin's goal was to literally outlaw God and every form of Morality I consider moral.

Marx believed he was creating a better world for the people he considered to be good and not inherintly parasitic, the Proletariant. Bakunin yearned for a world devoid of ethics, and that their only right was to 'obey the rights of nature', which in Bakunin's perverse little mind probably meant death.

And you don't see the problem in condemning the philosophy that caused less deaths over condemning the philosophy that caused more deaths? Just because one philosophy just intended more good? I thought you yourself argued just a bit before that good intent can be meaningless, so what is it that makes Bakunin's anarchism more evil than Marx' communism, when both intended the same final result but one actually caused more deaths in its failure to achieve such a result?

John Uskglass said:
Shit man, I live in a community of annoying, narcisistic rich people that would make Bret Easton Ellis vomit with rage. I'm not going to argue with him on that.

You'd have a hard time arguing with him, as he's dead

John Uskglass said:

Don't be asinine. When I say "apologists" I'm obviously not referring to everyone who ever defended anything, I'm referring to the string of theology, philosophy and, more recently, social science that defends and "apologizes for" a religion or belief-structure. I dislike Christian apologists as much as I dislike the Muslim apologism that is currently so popular in anthropology.
 
Then Islamism is new, even if it has "old roots"

Wait...so Sikhism is new too?
We have diffirent defenitions of Islamism. By Islamism I mean Islam in politics; Muhammed was an Islamist, so was Alp Arslan, etc...basically most Islamic rulers before Attaturk.

Calling Suleiman an Islamist is incorrect and a heavy anachronism. Islamism is an actual philosophy and while you could say Suleiman displays Islamist tendencies you can not call him an Islamist anymore than you could call Charlemange a communist. Islamism did *not* exist before the 20th century, referring to anything pre-20th century as Islamist is incorrect usage of the term.
Islamism has been around before either of our great, great, great, great, great grandfathers where alive, Kharn. Expansion of Dar al Islam, unification of the world leading to the apocalpsye and Islam being the bedfellow of politics is as old as Sunni Islam.

In fact, it's funny because Abdul Hamid II's reign saw the beginning of the birthing of Islamism.
I'd say what I call 'Islamofascism'- that is, the beggining of the merging of Western notions of Nationalism, Socialism, Expansionism and even racial theroies start to pool into the formerly nice and playful Islamism.

Yes he was.
Ordering != Death.
Pol Pot ordered the death of millions of people, but he did not kill them. Bakunin also ordered the deaths of millions; the diffirence is that one order had people on the receiving end.

And you don't see the problem in condemning the philosophy that caused less deaths over condemning the philosophy that caused more deaths? Just because one philosophy just intended more good? I thought you yourself argued just a bit before that good intent can be meaningless, so what is it that makes Bakunin's anarchism more evil than Marx' communism, when both intended the same final result but one actually caused more deaths in its failure to achieve such a result?
What I am saying is that on some level I can understand where Marx was coming from. I don't like Communism, and I don't think it's existance really benefitted anyone in the long run, but I can still vaugley understand how Marx thought he could create a better world. Bakunin was diffirent.

You'd have a hard time arguing with him, as he's dead
What was the point of this post? Do you expect me to claim that I'm actually talking to his spirit on a Owiji board or that he's actually a vampire I know very well?

Don't be asinine. When I say "apologists" I'm obviously not referring to everyone who ever defended anything, I'm referring to the string of theology, philosophy and, more recently, social science that defends and "apologizes for" a religion or belief-structure. I dislike Christian apologists as much as I dislike the Muslim apologism that is currently so popular in anthropology.
Defending a personal belief and ethical system that seems to work and defending a region that is FUBAR as a civilization with 'OMFG IT WAS THE WHITIES!' is diffirent, Kharn. Don't be asinine.
 
John Uskglass said:
We have diffirent defenitions of Islamism.

That is simply incorrect. Islamism is a term used to denote something, you can not give it your own preferred meaning. While technically I'm sure Islamism is used to denote other things, Islamism does not "equal" Islam as a political movement.

Wikipedia, for instance:
"Although Islamic states based on Shari'a law have existed since the earliest days of Islam, Islamism refers to modern movements that developed during the twentieth century in reaction to several forces. Following World War I, the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, and the subsequent dissolution of the Caliphate by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (founder of Turkey), some Muslims perceived that Islam was in retreat, and felt that Western ideas were spreading throughout Muslim society, along with the influence of Western nations. During the 1960s, the predominant ideology within the Arab world was pan-Arabism which deemphasized religion and emphasized the creation of a socialist, secular state based on Arab nationalism rather than Islam."

But I base what I know of it on several anthropological or sociological books and papers. From what I've read, Islamism is always steadily defined as the Muslim Political philosophy founded by the Deobandis, Maududi and Qutb.

John Uskglass said:
Pol Pot ordered the death of millions of people, but he did not kill them. Bakunin also ordered the deaths of millions; the diffirence is that one order had people on the receiving end.

It is not.

Pol Pot ordered the deaths of millions knowing full-well this order would be executed.

Bakunin philosophised loosely about the death of millions in a possible future world. He did not know if this would come true and might not even have expected it to.

The difference is pretty essential

John Uskglass said:
What I am saying is that on some level I can understand where Marx was coming from. I don't like Communism, and I don't think it's existance really benefitted anyone in the long run, but I can still vaugley understand how Marx thought he could create a better world. Bakunin was diffirent.

That leaves the point of why one is more evil than the other unadressed, if in your view good intent does not good make.

John Uskglass said:
What was the point of this post? Do you expect me to claim that I'm actually talking to his spirit on a Owiji board or that he's actually a vampire I know very well?

Whoa, there, cowboy.

John Uskglass said:
Defending a personal belief and ethical system that seems to work and defending a region that is FUBAR as a civilization with 'OMFG IT WAS THE WHITIES!' is diffirent, Kharn. Don't be asinine.

I did not say it wasn't different, me having problems with both doesn't mean I have the same problems with both
 
You are right about Islamism then. I generally use it as just Politics+Islam, but I was wrong.

So what's the diffirence between Islamism and what I call Islamofascism in your mind?

It is not.

Pol Pot ordered the deaths of millions knowing full-well this order would be executed.

Bakunin philosophised loosely about the death of millions in a possible future world. He did not know if this would come true and might not even have expected it to.

The difference is pretty essential

I'd say the only diffirence here is power, if we assume (as I assume both of us assume) that Bakunin belived what he preached.


That leaves the point of why one is more evil than the other unadressed, if in your view good intent does not good make.
Because it was not a nessicarily terrible idea in the beggining. There's a diffirence between defending Communism after 100,000,000 deaths and defending Communism in Marx's day.

I did not say it wasn't different, me having problems with both doesn't mean I have the same problems with both
What, exactly, is your problem with them? Does'nt everything need it's Apologists? Where would Liberal Democracy be without people who are able to defend current institutions against new ideas and attacks?
 
Anyway, Kharn, you don't understand what Apologetics really are.

Colloquial usage

Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied to groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists are often characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of "spokesperson" for "apologist" in conversation conveys much the same sense of "partisan presenter with a weighted agenda," with less rhetorical freight.
[edit]

Technical usages

The term apologetics etymologically derives from the Classical Greek word "apologia". In Classical Greek legal system two key technical terms were employed: the prosecution delivered the "kategoria", and the defendant replied with an "apologia". To deliver an "apologia" then meant making a formal speech to reply and rebut the charges. Plato's book The Apology was an account of Socrates' defence in court against his accusers.

This Classical Greek term appears in the Koine (i.e. common) Greek of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul employs the term "apologia" in his trial speech to Festus and Agrippa when he says "I make my defence" (Acts 26:2). A cognate term appears in Paul's letter to the Philippians as he is "defending the gospel" (1:7 & 17), and in 1 Peter 3:15 believers must be ready to give an "answer" for their faith.

The legal nuance of apologetics was reframed in a more specific sense to refer to the study of the defence of a doctrine or belief. In this context it most commonly refers to philosophical reconciliation. Religious apologetics is the effort to show that the preferred faith is not irrational, that believing in it is not against human reason, and that in fact the religion contains values and promotes ways of life more in accord with human nature than other faiths or beliefs.

In the English language the word apology, derived from the Greek word "apologia", but often has been used to refer to a defensive plea for forgiveness for an action that is open to blame. It is occasionally used to refer to a speech or writing that defends the author's position.

From Wiki.
 
John Uskglass said:
You are right about Islamism then. I generally use it as just Politics+Islam, but I was wrong.

So what's the diffirence between Islamism and what I call Islamofascism in your mind?

I'm not sure as to what you call Islamofascism, it's confusing because fascism is areligious and Islamism is not, which means that Islamism does not only dominate the political scene but also dictates how you should live your personal life, which seperates it from fascism clearly.

Which is interesting, because a number of modern-day terrorists aren't actually islamists or at least fail to live proper islamist lives. The terrorists who bombed Madrid, noticeably.

John Uskglass said:
I'd say the only diffirence here is power, if we assume (as I assume both of us assume) that Bakunin belived what he preached.

Yes, if and when, no way to tell, is there?

John Uskglass said:
Because it was not a nessicarily terrible idea in the beggining. There's a diffirence between defending Communism after 100,000,000 deaths and defending Communism in Marx's day.

Again, you argued yourself before that merit can not necessarily be found in good intent but in good actions. If Bakunin's good intent in his philosophy is void by the violent nature of his philosophy in practice, why is this not true for Marx? And why, again, is Marx the lesser evil? Better intent?

John Uskglass said:
What, exactly, is your problem with them? Does'nt everything need it's Apologists? Where would Liberal Democracy be without people who are able to defend current institutions against new ideas and attacks?

(...)

Anyway, Kharn, you don't understand what Apologetics really are.

Yes, I do. Note:

"Religious apologetics is the effort to show that the preferred faith is not irrational, that believing in it is not against human reason, and that in fact the religion contains values and promotes ways of life more in accord with human nature than other faiths or beliefs."

Refers to whatshisface.

And:

"Today the term "apologist" is colloquially applied to groups and individuals systematically promoting causes, justifying orthodoxies or denying certain events, even of crimes. Apologists are often characterized as being deceptive, or "whitewashing" their cause, primarily through omission of negative facts (selective perception) and exaggeration of positive ones, techniques of classical rhetoric. When used in this context, the term often has a pejorative meaning. The neutralized substitution of "spokesperson" for "apologist" in conversation conveys much the same sense of "partisan presenter with a weighted agenda," with less rhetorical freight. "

Refers to anthropologists

Both of which I dislike.
 
I'm not sure as to what you call Islamofascism, it's confusing because fascism is areligious and Islamism is not, which means that Islamism does not only dominate the political scene but also dictates how you should live your personal life, which seperates it from fascism clearly.
Actually, I just learned Christopher Hitchens coined the term, thus I will never, ever use it again. And you are right.

Which is interesting, because a number of modern-day terrorists aren't actually islamists or at least fail to live proper islamist lives. The terrorists who bombed Madrid, noticeably.
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. People who live good Muslim lives would probably not feel the need to go through such extreme measures to ensure their 70something cherries to pop are up in heaven. A lazy, middle class jackass who never worked a day in his life and rarley went to prayer would.

My favorite example of this "fuck it, I'm going to heaven already' mentality is the head 9/11 suicide pilot looking through pornography before 9/11, or a suicide bomber in an Isreali cafe who hit on a waitress, then to impress her showed off the bomb strappet to his chest, then detonated it when everyone started to run away (he ended up killing only himself).

Yes, if and when, no way to tell, is there?
Meh. We are entitled to our hunches and our dislikes in this world.


Again, you argued yourself before that merit can not necessarily be found in good intent but in good actions. If Bakunin's good intent in his philosophy is void by the violent nature of his philosophy in practice, why is this not true for Marx? And why, again, is Marx the lesser evil? Better intent?
Bakuinin's intent was never good IMO Kharn, he wanted an inherintly violent world where all things where bare before the 'natural order' and nothing else. Marx's philosophy was somewhat pacificistic in the end when compared to Bakunin's.

"Religious apologetics is the effort to show that the preferred faith is not irrational, that believing in it is not against human reason, and that in fact the religion contains values and promotes ways of life more in accord with human nature than other faiths or beliefs."
Jesus, you still don't really get it.

Apologetics as practiced by G.K. Chesterton is defence. For instance, Russell's classic (if dangerously moronic) Why I Am Not A Chirstian is an example of Secular Humanist Apologetics. It is ideological defense.

You are confusing the colloquially applied and the real defenition of the word.

Refers to anthropologists
WTF? Seriously, WTF? Not ALL fucking Anthropologists are like that. WTF? Anthropology is the field I dream of getting my Bachelor's in at the UofC.
 
John Uskglass said:
Bakuinin's intent was never good IMO Kharn, he wanted an inherintly violent world where all things where bare before the 'natural order' and nothing else. Marx's philosophy was somewhat pacificistic in the end when compared to Bakunin's.

Bakunin and Marx envisioned the EXACT same long-term goal, the dictatorship of the proletariat, a class-less world without rules and rulers. Both believed this to be an idyllic world. Bakunin wasn't insane, he wasn't preaching a dystopia.

John Uskglass said:
Apologetics as practiced by G.K. Chesterton is defence. For instance, Russell's classic (if dangerously moronic) Why I Am Not A Chirstian is an example of Secular Humanist Apologetics. It is ideological defense.

You are confusing the colloquially applied and the real defenition of the word.

No, I'm not, and your list of definitions is irrelevant.

But ok, granted, G.K. Chesterton is not amongst my ordinary list of disliked Christian Apologists.

As a non-believer m'self, you should be able to see why I wouldn't like the man that said "It's the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense and can't see things as they are.", wouldn't you?

I won't go into the why and the how of why I generally dislike most religious apologetics.

John Uskglass said:
WTF? Seriously, WTF? Not ALL fucking Anthropologists are like that. WTF? Anthropology is the field I dream of getting my Bachelor's in at the UofC.

Well, if you want to waste your uni years, go ahead. Anthropology as a social science is the dregs of social sciences whole. Internationally its base is worse off than those of sociology and history, as its accepted framework is and seems doomed to be one in which a study is good if its presumption is acceptable, whereas it is bad if this is not so. Anthropology suffers from this a lot more than the other sociosciences, hence why it developed the reputation, much earned, for islamoapologism.

The idea of anthropology rocks, sure enough, but it kind of farted when put in practice.
 
Well, obviously Anarchism and Islam and Fascism are the same.

That's why one should be a Bokononist.
 
Wooz said:
Well, obviously Anarchism and Islam and Fascism are the same.

That's why one should be a Bokononist.

Ok, I just got tongue tied about 10 times trying to say that word.

I hate that word, it makes me feel stupid/illiterate.
 
Back
Top