[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

00555: Re: [epistemology] Auschwitz

From: Antonio Rossin <rossin(at)tin.it>
Date: Sat, 28 Jan 2006 17:14:16 +0100
Subject: Re: [epistemology] Auschwitz

At 15:00 +0100 28-01-2006, Georges Metanomski wrote:
================================================
At the 50'th anniversary of the liberation of
Auschwitz I wrote down my impressions and grew a
habit to post them at subsequent anniversaries.
You'll find them in attachment.
Georges.
================================================


AUSCHWITZ

The 50'th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz
has been marked by numerous celebrations and
manifestations, whose main purpose was to learn from
Auschwitz experience in order to make its repetition
impossible.  Therefore I am asking myself:
what have I learnt?

With respect to all I have seen, heard and red, the
answer seems clear: nothing. I heard people cry and
I have cried with them; I saw people mourn and I have
mourned with them; I have been faced with unspeakable
atrocities and I was shocked and distressed.
But I have learnt nothing.

Knowledge, indeed, does not consist of emotions, nor
of particular events failing to fall into a logical
structure. I still ignore, under which conditions new
Auschwitz's may be set up, or avoided.  More, I do
not know at all, what should be understood under the
"Auschwitz-to-be-avoided". Surely not the specific
KZ-Auschwitz, in whose place there is no new Nazi_KZ
to fear.

When I wish to say something reasonable about birds,
I start with the zoological definition, with the
"birds-principle". I am not obliged to accept this
definition and I may call it in question. One thing I
cannot do: say anything reasonable about an undefined
concept. When zoology still lacked the definition of
birds, somebody proposing to talk about them had
to supply his own definition.

As, to the best of my knowledge, there exists no
"Auschwitz-logy" nor a general "Auschwitz-Principle",
I would like to suggest one:

AUSCHWITZ IS FOUNDED UPON ABSOLUTE PROPOSITIONS IN HUMAN DOMAIN,

indeed upon their absurdity, which admits any
arbitrary interpretation and discrimination.

Physics admits exclusively relative propositions.
When we say that a stone is heavy, we imply a relation
to the earth: we know that it would be quite light on
the moon, that in the cosmic space its weight would
totally disappear.

In the human/social domain absolute propositions are
equally absurd, but we lack an authority, a humanistic
Galileo, or Einstein, to enforce this truth.
Somebody proposing a physical theory based upon
absolute propositions would simply make himself
ridiculous. Doing it in the human/social he would
have all chances to found an Ideology, a Religion,
an Empire. An Ideology, a Religion, un Empire which
would be based upon the Auschwitz-Principle,
whose laws, principles and virtues would
necessarily point towards an Auschwitz.

I realize that I imply with these words a whole
philosophic system, a "Humanistic Relativism"
without being able to justify here its principles.
An interested reader may find their discussion
in the study:
RELATIVISTIC DIALECTICS

I shall present here an example which shows the
nonsense of the absolute classification criterion
"Jew" and of the absolute proposition:
"This man is a Jew".

From the race point of view it is an obvious nonsense,
as nobody has ever observed a "Jewish" gene.

One may certainly have a Jewish culture, speak jiddish,

hebrew or ladino and tell Jewish jokes. However, culture
is clearly a relativistic concept. Nazis may have used
it as an indicator, but never as an essential, absolute
criterion of discrimination. A large part of Jews
murdered in Auschwitz had little or nothing to do with
the Jewish culture. Some were Catholic priests, some
have heard for the first time from the Nazis or from
the blackmailers that they were Jews.

The criterion of Jewish religion is equally absurd.
According to the Jewish law is Jew who has a Jewish
mother, or who has been converted by a Jewish rabbin.
However, in order to be sure that my mother is Jewish,
I have to ascertain that she had herself a Jewish
mother, or had been converted by a Jewish rabbin.
The same holds of course for the converting rabbin.
A clear case of a vicious circle.

Consequently, the absolute concept "Jew" is empty and,
as such, may get any arbitrary meaning. Heidrich
understood it perfectly when he declared:
"Wer Jude ist, entscheide ich" - "It's me who decides
who is a Jew".

If we want to avoid Auschwitz in the future, we must
abolish situations in which a human being may classify
and discriminate other ones upon absolute, arbitrary
criteria. In other words, we must extend the
Relativistic Reason over the human/social domain and
may admit only relative, demonstrable propositions
in this domain as well. This calls, of course,
in question nearly all established ideological
and political structures, which are based upon
absolute principles.

We live in an Auschwitz-friendly world and if we
want to avoid Auschwitz in the future, we have
to call in question its essential principles.

But do we want it really?


It seems to me, Georges, it is just yourself -- for one -- who
doesn't want it really, since you seem to address all the people
all over the world as if  they were ready and bound to follow
"relative propositions" as soon as they are told any .

Really, "we" know that "absolute propositions" do not exist.
It is the people, whom a proposition is addressed to, who can
assume it as either absolute or relative, according with one's
individual understanding framework, or brain structure.

For this simplest reason, any one's attempt to replace the
world's inventory of  the pretended "absolute" propositions
with other propositions being presented as "relative" -- like
yours-- is doomed to fail, to the extent that the addressed
people keep on assuming the relative propositions they are
told, or read somewhere, to be "absolute".

Take care,

antonio

[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]