Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan
Interesting post, but I have one major objection.
Unfortunatelly is not possible anytime to separate the "rational" arguments from "emotional" ones [...] But I agree at some point - the argumentation of a "emotional" assumed position may be as rational as possible
For the first statement of yours, I certainly do not agree. The separation is often not made in interpersonal communication, but as Monia von Wright explains it in the books on the philosophical backgrounds of pedagogics; this shortcoming stems mainly from that the reciever of the arguementation is more bound the the emotional values of the meanings of certain words or speeches then the sender of the inforamtion or the speech.
To make the distiction clear, and what can be the cause of not having this distiction clear, I would like to raise the following examples:
I had a debate with someone who can reamain unnamed on the issue of Hitlers assumed insanity. About the following arguments took place in the discussion:
MN: Do you think Hitler was insane?
X: Yes I do. Certainly I do think that.
MN: Why?
X: Because he tried to holocaust the jews.
MN: I don't think that was ill.
X: Nice opinons you have *irony*. I certainly think it was insane, I mean it was horrible.
MN: Yes, it was horrible, cruel and disguisting, but I do not think it can be called "ill" or "insane". It is simply a matter of what kinds of arguments one raises to do such a thing.
X: Oh well, Hitler thought that he could murder people just because he wanted to do so; that must be insane. That is simply forbidden to do.
Now; lets stop here and make a little analyze of this discussion. First to understand what I really mean in my standpoint, but also to notice that X totally contradicts himself in what he is saying. It is of course always possible that X knows that he contradicts himself but ignores it for some reason, but many people would in this case argue exactly like X without having a clue that they contradict theirselves.
First: Hitler was responsible for the holocaust. Even if there is no written order left, it cannot have occured without that he knew about it. Therefore it is correct to claim that he, as highest ruler, had the responsibility for it,a s he didn't stop it. Just to make that clear.
Now, one cannot actually say that holocausting the jews was insane. One must first remember that although people often speak about things they strongly dislike with labelling it "Insane", it is actually very seldom one can surely tell that something is indeed "insane" or "ill". Also completely sane people can commit deeds that are very grim, like murdering millions of people. it just depends which arguments one raises to do it.
Hitler picked up Darwins concept of mans gradual devalopment from lower spieces. Man had all the time developed in direction into something more advanced (We can with good reason count with intellgence here although Hitler not clearly defines which characteristica which makes the Aryan race supreme). Hitler noted several things; among them that all living organisms tend to develop into more fitted spieces through natural selection, and man into more advanced models through a combination of natural selection and own will.
One can now, as example on how one could possible motivate the holocaust, add the following notices and conclusions: Everything living has an inbuilt blind mechanic will to life, reproduction and continuing life. If you try to kill a little animal, you will clearly see that it runs and screams and in all possible ways try to survive as much as it just can. That is a characteristica that seems to exist in everything living, also in organisms that cause to their physical for hardly can run away, i.e. a tree. Gud created the world say the Bible, where the chapter Genesis describe that Universe was first created, then the stars, then the planets, then Earth. On Earth sea and land was created first, then life; the fishes, then the mammals and finally mankind. If you take the Bible of science as support, you can see a gradual evolution. In addition the Big-Bang theory gives a possibility for a Deism in the meaning of an outher will having caused Big-Bang. As you can't prove either, you can neither exlude either so simply.
If now life develops in a movement in direction to more advanced forms of life, what will be the endresult? A possible idea is the end in a pile of energy solely, which would be equivalent to what caused Big-Bang and rise of Universe...If everything living has this inbuilt blind mechanic will to life, the "God" must likely have had the same characteristica, and then the whole Creation is simply Gods way of creating new Gods. An exciting thought, but not at all new. It figures for example in the program of Gustav Mahlers 3'rd symphony (1888).
One could now suggest that Hitler used this argument (there are also other possible) to spped up a development that should have happened anyway, just much slower. Hitler can then use this kind of arguments to claim that he did something meaningful and good. Now Hitler grounded his arguments on that assumption that the human qualities he wanted to gain were racially bound. This modern genetic science has proved to be wrong as one cannot speak about "human races" (I can do an exkurs on this on eventual interest). But the critical point here is that with the knowledges Hitler had about thiese things, his conclusions (which are consequently logically correct) which lead to the arguments he raised, could have been correct as well as incorrect as the fundament of the arguing is something we cannot check and show objectively to be as one or the other. Therefore it is neither possible to claim that it was "insane".
After having explained so far, would many people, like X in the example above, stubbornly continue argue that Hitler must have been insane, because they have a on forehand im printed perception of what is "insane", much depending on the common misuse of the term. The basic error these people do is that they assume that there is something like an universal human norm for what a behaviour shall be like, and that behaviours that differ too much from this norn (mainly in a negative way), will be left as "insane". But, then one must be conscious about that what is human norm of behaviour can change, and that it through history has changed and varied, is easy to show with hsitorical examples. And if the normal of behaviour which shall tell what is insane, is bound to the culture (what it is), is this norm also possible to change intentionally (at least indeirectly) through changing the culture, the society of the man himself in differnt ways. Then it is theoretically also possibel to steer what shall be classified s "sane" and "insane". And when reaching that point it is then possibel to arbitrary decide who shall be considered appropriate and who shall be not - or draw it to it furtherest extension; who shall live and who shall not. And this was exactly what X said one is not allowed to. Still he has, as I just have showed, through claiming that "insane" is subjective, claimed that it is allowed to do this. Therefore he contradicts himself (as he don't distinguish the rational arguments from the emotional). Of course he has also expressed suppost for exactly that axiom some of the worst massmurders history knows used as basefundament for the argumantatoin they built their societies on.
Finally, I owuld also like to show that it is possible to objectively detect what is insane. Hitler as example again: I do think that Hitler was insane, but for a completely different reason than the holocaust. The reason I see was his incredibly oversized self-indentification with the German people. Hitler said several times, and many heard him say that, that "Ohne mich wird das Deutsche Volk zu Grunde gehen" ("Without me, the German people can no longer exist"). And that was insane, Because it is objectivly possible to show that Hitler here had an imagination about a certain connection in the world which was false (At least the German people* stille xist in a population of 100 millions 57 years after his death). And only an imagination that can clearly be detected as false can be labelled "ill". If an imagination - as in the previous example - cannot surely be detected as true or false, it can neither surely be claimed to be "insane".
* P.S. One disclaimer; What a "people" is, is of course a vauge abstraction. There are now of course both people who think they belong to the "German people" and those who think they do not - with relatively good syncronization - but as "people" is an abstract term that is constructed by humans it cannot be defined more concrete tan this, and that would superficially make my example being misleading. However, if it blurs the facual example or not, it doesn't nullify the objecive detection of "insane" as principle.
I hope this illuminates both that it os possible to separate the "rational" arguments from "emotional" ones, and what the cause can be of ignoring to do so.
P.S. : Excuse me my bad english ...
Please Mr. Ioan, so far your English seems perfectionally functional for a discussion like this one. Be my guest!
Mats Norrman [mats.norrman@home.se]
http://hem.passagen.se/perceval/FC.DE/f-a.html
and the 109 did not have the range or firepower to support the medium bombers. goering was 
Without going into a long argument, I would just have to say "a little of both." So has anyone else here been reading (or had to read) Ian Kershaw's book The Nazi Dictatorship: The Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation? It has this exact title as one of its chapter headings. 
