Have you seen "Baraka"? When it shows people living like sardines, and chicken being put on conveyor belts having their beaks singed off.. how equal do things have to be so they can be compared? Yes, the Nazis were clearly different in their hatred and their torture. Yet when I see chicken in darkness and tiny cages, I do get a similar vibe, that is, some of what appals me about concentration camps, is also present there. Sentient beings suffering in cages for the supposed benefit of others. One is apathic, the other hateful, one is towards animals, the other towards humans ( = the animal we most closely identify with), but otherwise..?
Take this statement for example:
"[..] if one is in touch with one's own unconscious reality, I think one would have to admit that in all of us there is a piece of Eichmann, and if you ask why, on what basis do I say this, then I would ask you wether you have lost your appetite when you read that in India people were starving, or wether you have gone on eating. As soon as you have not lost your appetite, when you knew other people were starving, then your heart has hardened, and in principle, you have done the same which Eichmann did."
Absolutely, if you read about starving people and don't stop eating, that must be much the same as planning and executing a racially motivated campaign of genocide!
I don't think it's offensive. I think it's ridiculous, and no, not the same in principle at all.
Except that both you and he say in principle it is the same as what Eichmann did, and I disagree, vehemently, because it's ridiculous to compare the actions of Eichmann to whether or not someone loses their appetite when they hear of hunger in the world.
One is deliberate genocide, the other is an arbitrary demand that you lose your appetite in sympathy.
--edit-- What I do find offensive is your childish posting of links to the wikipedia page on analogies.
There is little difference there, stopping eating would be a natural consequence of losing your appetite.
No, it is the difference between eating with joy and eating because you're hungry, and also the difference between getting the point and completely missing it.
it's ridiculous to compare the actions of Eichmann to whether or not someone loses their appetite when they hear of hunger in the world
Are you even familiar with Eichmann? Your statements ("deliberate Genocide") make it clear you're simply not getting the point Fromm is making. Eichmann "just" followed his orders, he lacked empathy, but he didn't so much care about genocide as about being a good bureaucrat. To go from "Eichmann" to "Nazi" and from there to any aspect of the Nazis you equate them with, instead of going by what Fromm means in context, is such a waste of time. You're offended over your own strawman.
If you heat something by 0.5 degrees celsius, or 500000000 degrees, is the same, "in principle". Of course, one is hardly noticeable, while the other explodes the solar system or something... that's why analogies are hard to follow sometimes. If there wasn't something you could point to and claim "Preposterous! There is a difference!", there would be no way to make an analogy in the first place.
What I do find offensive is your childish posting of links to the wikipedia page on analogies.
Childish? You said he said it's "the same", so I felt it was warranted.
> No, it is the difference between eating with joy and eating because you're hungry, and also the difference between getting the point and completely missing it.
So whether you eat on with no appetite or stop eating is the difference between whether you're as bad as a genocidal nazi or not?
The distinction is trivial and beside the point.
> Are you even familiar with Eichmann? Your statements ("deliberate Genocide") make it clear you're simply not getting the point Fromm is making. Eichmann "just" followed his orders, he lacked empathy, but he didn't so much care about genocide as about being a good bureaucrat. To go from "Eichmann" to "Nazi" and from there to any aspect of the Nazis you equate them with, instead of going by what Fromm means in context, is such a waste of time. You're offended over your own strawman.
Eichmann was directly involved in shipping tens or hundreds of thousands of Jewish people to Auschwitz. I'm not sure what's not Nazi or genocidal about that. Either way I didn't say I was offended, I said the comparison was hyperbolic to the point of the ridiculous.
> If you heat something by 0.5 degrees celsius, or 500000000 degrees, is the same, "in principle".
You have not demonstrated that keeping your appetite and committing genocide start from the same principle, which you would need to do for your analogy to hold here. It's not a simple matter of degree. The first is a demand that someone show empathy in a specific way, which may or may not hold for all people. The second is one of the worst crimes against humanity we can think of. There is a difference in nature, motivation and scale here, not simply scale.
> Of course, one is hardly noticeable, while the other explodes the solar system or something... that's why analogies are hard to follow sometimes.
The analogy isn't hard to follow, it's nonsense.
> If there wasn't something you could point to and claim "Preposterous! There is a difference!", there would be no way to make an analogy in the first place.
But I can point to all parts of it, and say none of it is anything like what you're trying to compare it to.
> Childish? You said he said it's "the same", so I felt it was warranted.
No, I said "much the same", not "the same". If we're going to play this game then maybe you should work on your reading comprehension before you decide to be condescending.
Eichmann was directly involved in shipping tens or hundreds of thousands of Jewish people to Auschwitz. I'm not sure what's not Nazi or genocidal about that.
He would have shipped tens of hundreds of refugees out of Germany if he had happened to be a bureaucrat for the allies and if that had been his job. But where did I say that's not genocidal or Nazi? I said that's not the point of why Fromm is making the comparison - lack of empathy is. He doesn't mean if we don't loose our appetite when others starve, we grow round glasses and and clothes from the 40s, and many other things. He doesn't mean we will start putting people in box cars. To ridicule my supposed lack of reading comprehension considering this whole string of completely useless attacks on strawmen, is kinda rich.
I don't know if you clicked the link, but he goes on to say:
I don't think, that if we are really in touch with the inner reality of ourselves, that there is any crime, or perhaps any virtue, which we cannot discover in ourselves. We shut ourselves [off] from the awareness of our inner reality, we project the evil to our opponents and enemies, and believe that the good is in ourselves; indidivually, nationally, and group-wise in general.
Your reaction that Eichmann is completely beyond the pale of any comparison is kinda fitting.
It's not a simple matter of degree. The first is a demand that someone show empathy in a specific way, which may or may not hold for all people. The second is one of the worst crimes against humanity we can think of.
The second is also "not showing empathy in a specific way". And no, I do not want to play games.
There is a difference in nature, motivation and scale here, not simply scale.
I acknowledged that before. But that doesn't change the fact that it consists of many aspects, one of them lack of empathy.
> He would have shipped tens of hundreds of refugees out of Germany if he had happened to be a bureaucrat for the allies and if that had been his job.
1. So he said. Others thought differently - "When considering the sentence, the judges concluded that he had not merely been following orders, but believed in the Nazi cause wholeheartedly and had been a key perpetrator of the genocide."
2. Somewhat irrelevant. He committed genocide, if he hadn't had the opportunity he may not have done. So what?
> But where did I say that's not genocidal or Nazi?
> "Your statements ("deliberate Genocide") make it clear you're simply not getting the point Fromm is making."
>> "To go from "Eichmann" to "Nazi" and from there to any aspect of the Nazis you equate them with, instead of going by what Fromm means in context, is such a waste of time."
You're saying it's not right to say he was a Nazi, and not right to go from there to calling him genocidal simply because of that. I'm not calling him genocidal because of that, I'm doing it because of his actions.
And to be very clear, I understand entirely the point Fromm is making (lack of empathy is the root of Eichmann's actions and if you don't lose your appetite when reading about hunger you lack empathy, this puts you on the same spectrum as Eichmann). I understand and I disagree, vehemently.
To really hammer this home, your very first post about Fromm quoted - "As soon as you have not lost your appetite, when you knew other people were starving, then your heart has hardened, and in principle, you have done the same which Eichmann did." Eichmann organised and supervised genocide. This is not simple lack of empathy, and neither does keeping your appetite demonstrate a total lack of empathy. The argument is wrong at both ends.
> I said that's not the point of why Fromm is making the comparison - lack of empathy is.
And if you think lack of empathy was all Eichmann had going then you're pretty delusional, IMHO.
> He doesn't mean if we don't loose our appetite when others starve, we grow round glasses and and clothes from the 40s, and many other things. He doesn't mean we will start putting people in box cars.
Then why make the comparison? It's hyperbolic in the extreme and basically a Godwin violation.
> To ridicule my supposed lack of reading comprehension considering this whole string of completely useless attacks on strawmen, is kinda rich.
You misread something and childishly posted a link to the definition of analogy as if I might never have heard of it. I'm sorry I shot back at you, I hope you didn't find it too offensive.
> Your reaction that Eichmann is completely beyond the pale of any comparison is kinda fitting.
No, not really. Eichmann's crime is substantially different from a simple lack of empathy, as I've said many times now, he was actively involved in some of the worst evil we know of. It may well be that many/all people are capable of this level of evil. However that still doesn't mean that failing to respond in a simplistic, set way to an empathic situation is anything like organising the deaths of hundreds of thousands of jewish people. It's not the same principle, it's not the same root to the action, and I fundamentally disagree that a lack of empathy and a set of orders was the driver behind Eichmann's actions. And yes, I am familiar with Milgram.
> The second is also "not showing empathy in a specific way". And no, I do not want to play games.
It's a lot more than that.
> I acknowledged that before. But that doesn't change the fact that it consists of many aspects, one of them lack of empathy.
But if that's only one aspect, the analogy is about as useful as saying "You know who else had a moustache like that?" as happens on fark.com, except here you seem to want to be taken seriously whereas over there everyone knows it's a joke.
Comments
Have you seen "Baraka"? When it shows people living like sardines, and chicken being put on conveyor belts having their beaks singed off.. how equal do things have to be so they can be compared? Yes, the Nazis were clearly different in their hatred and their torture. Yet when I see chicken in darkness and tiny cages, I do get a similar vibe, that is, some of what appals me about concentration camps, is also present there. Sentient beings suffering in cages for the supposed benefit of others. One is apathic, the other hateful, one is towards animals, the other towards humans ( = the animal we most closely identify with), but otherwise..?
Take this statement for example:
"[..] if one is in touch with one's own unconscious reality, I think one would have to admit that in all of us there is a piece of Eichmann, and if you ask why, on what basis do I say this, then I would ask you wether you have lost your appetite when you read that in India people were starving, or wether you have gone on eating. As soon as you have not lost your appetite, when you knew other people were starving, then your heart has hardened, and in principle, you have done the same which Eichmann did."
-- Erich Fromm ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psVNR51ctdc&t=33m28s )
Do you find this offensive too, or do you agree he has a point? I think the key concept here and elsewhere is "in principle".
What marvellous hyperbole!
Absolutely, if you read about starving people and don't stop eating, that must be much the same as planning and executing a racially motivated campaign of genocide!
I don't think it's offensive. I think it's ridiculous, and no, not the same in principle at all.
What is ridiculous is what arrives on your end, not what is originally sent out.
He said "lost your appetite".
This might be new for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy
There is little difference there. Stopping eating would be a natural consequence of losing your appetite.
Except that both you and he say in principle it is the same as what Eichmann did, and I disagree, vehemently, because it's ridiculous to compare the actions of Eichmann to whether or not someone loses their appetite when they hear of hunger in the world.
One is deliberate genocide, the other is an arbitrary demand that you lose your appetite in sympathy.
--edit-- What I do find offensive is your childish posting of links to the wikipedia page on analogies.
No, it is the difference between eating with joy and eating because you're hungry, and also the difference between getting the point and completely missing it.
Are you even familiar with Eichmann? Your statements ("deliberate Genocide") make it clear you're simply not getting the point Fromm is making. Eichmann "just" followed his orders, he lacked empathy, but he didn't so much care about genocide as about being a good bureaucrat. To go from "Eichmann" to "Nazi" and from there to any aspect of the Nazis you equate them with, instead of going by what Fromm means in context, is such a waste of time. You're offended over your own strawman.
If you heat something by 0.5 degrees celsius, or 500000000 degrees, is the same, "in principle". Of course, one is hardly noticeable, while the other explodes the solar system or something... that's why analogies are hard to follow sometimes. If there wasn't something you could point to and claim "Preposterous! There is a difference!", there would be no way to make an analogy in the first place.
Childish? You said he said it's "the same", so I felt it was warranted.
So whether you eat on with no appetite or stop eating is the difference between whether you're as bad as a genocidal nazi or not?
The distinction is trivial and beside the point.
Eichmann was directly involved in shipping tens or hundreds of thousands of Jewish people to Auschwitz. I'm not sure what's not Nazi or genocidal about that. Either way I didn't say I was offended, I said the comparison was hyperbolic to the point of the ridiculous.
You have not demonstrated that keeping your appetite and committing genocide start from the same principle, which you would need to do for your analogy to hold here. It's not a simple matter of degree. The first is a demand that someone show empathy in a specific way, which may or may not hold for all people. The second is one of the worst crimes against humanity we can think of. There is a difference in nature, motivation and scale here, not simply scale.
The analogy isn't hard to follow, it's nonsense.
But I can point to all parts of it, and say none of it is anything like what you're trying to compare it to.
No, I said "much the same", not "the same". If we're going to play this game then maybe you should work on your reading comprehension before you decide to be condescending.
He would have shipped tens of hundreds of refugees out of Germany if he had happened to be a bureaucrat for the allies and if that had been his job. But where did I say that's not genocidal or Nazi? I said that's not the point of why Fromm is making the comparison - lack of empathy is. He doesn't mean if we don't loose our appetite when others starve, we grow round glasses and and clothes from the 40s, and many other things. He doesn't mean we will start putting people in box cars. To ridicule my supposed lack of reading comprehension considering this whole string of completely useless attacks on strawmen, is kinda rich.
I don't know if you clicked the link, but he goes on to say:
I don't think, that if we are really in touch with the inner reality of ourselves, that there is any crime, or perhaps any virtue, which we cannot discover in ourselves. We shut ourselves [off] from the awareness of our inner reality, we project the evil to our opponents and enemies, and believe that the good is in ourselves; indidivually, nationally, and group-wise in general.
Your reaction that Eichmann is completely beyond the pale of any comparison is kinda fitting.
The second is also "not showing empathy in a specific way". And no, I do not want to play games.
I acknowledged that before. But that doesn't change the fact that it consists of many aspects, one of them lack of empathy.
1. So he said. Others thought differently - "When considering the sentence, the judges concluded that he had not merely been following orders, but believed in the Nazi cause wholeheartedly and had been a key perpetrator of the genocide."
2. Somewhat irrelevant. He committed genocide, if he hadn't had the opportunity he may not have done. So what?
You're saying it's not right to say he was a Nazi, and not right to go from there to calling him genocidal simply because of that. I'm not calling him genocidal because of that, I'm doing it because of his actions.
And to be very clear, I understand entirely the point Fromm is making (lack of empathy is the root of Eichmann's actions and if you don't lose your appetite when reading about hunger you lack empathy, this puts you on the same spectrum as Eichmann). I understand and I disagree, vehemently.
To really hammer this home, your very first post about Fromm quoted - "As soon as you have not lost your appetite, when you knew other people were starving, then your heart has hardened, and in principle, you have done the same which Eichmann did." Eichmann organised and supervised genocide. This is not simple lack of empathy, and neither does keeping your appetite demonstrate a total lack of empathy. The argument is wrong at both ends.
And if you think lack of empathy was all Eichmann had going then you're pretty delusional, IMHO.
Then why make the comparison? It's hyperbolic in the extreme and basically a Godwin violation.
You misread something and childishly posted a link to the definition of analogy as if I might never have heard of it. I'm sorry I shot back at you, I hope you didn't find it too offensive.
No, not really. Eichmann's crime is substantially different from a simple lack of empathy, as I've said many times now, he was actively involved in some of the worst evil we know of. It may well be that many/all people are capable of this level of evil. However that still doesn't mean that failing to respond in a simplistic, set way to an empathic situation is anything like organising the deaths of hundreds of thousands of jewish people. It's not the same principle, it's not the same root to the action, and I fundamentally disagree that a lack of empathy and a set of orders was the driver behind Eichmann's actions. And yes, I am familiar with Milgram.
It's a lot more than that.
But if that's only one aspect, the analogy is about as useful as saying "You know who else had a moustache like that?" as happens on fark.com, except here you seem to want to be taken seriously whereas over there everyone knows it's a joke.