Ben- I made several points...which I admit are my own views of course..
1) I felt that someone introducing a topic should, himself, explain
the key points of the issue to the readers of the list, rather than
expecting that readers should either buy his book or read it online. I
think the only expectation of a list devoted to a particular
researcher (in this case, Peirce) is that members should be reasonably
well-read in Peirce. Not everyone has the time - or -desire - to read
the book, but they might well be interested in a discussion.
2) Mysterious is an inexplicable as 'magical' or 'mystical'. All terms
lead to speculation and even, an abandonment of an examination of
pragmatic reasons. I'm quite interested in fascism and have read a
'reasonable' number on it, and on the Third Reich.
3) Ah- Hitler might have made little difference in other times and
circumstances. But, didn't he write that Hitler's National Socialist
Party won...?
"One cannot say that this was the product of conditions--the
conditions were the same for all the parties."
Did the other parties have the same policies, lay the blame the same
way? That is - weren't the times and circumstances highly relevant?
4) And was Hitler's thought 'utterly logical' as Novak claims? I think
we'd need some examples.
5) As for 'abduction' - which is the assertion of a speculative
hypothesis for 'why things are the way they are'....as you say, Ben,
everyone uses it. I agree; every preacher, leader and people over
time has done this. Whether they blamed the gods, or the failure of
the people to sacrifice and pray properly, or the intrusion of
minorities among the population or ....it is a basic characteristic of
the human imagination to speculate 'WHY'. Of course, one must then
prove the validity of this hypothesis - and Peirce's Fixation of
Belief deals with this and the failures to scientifically verify the
hypothesis. If you 'prove' it with 'authority, a priori,
tenacity'..then, your assertion remains rooted in emotional bonds -
and these are extremely powerful, certainly false and devastating in
their results. As we saw in the Third Reich and in Islamic fascism
now. Think of N. Korea. Think of Greece right now, whose people are
convinced that their problems are due to others, not their own fiscal
policies. Think of mobs, which all follow this path; social media are
filled with examples of speculation gone wild.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Benjamin Udell <mailto:bud...@nyc.rr.com>
*To:* peirce-l@list.iupui.edu <mailto:peirce-l@list.iupui.edu>
*Sent:* Thursday, July 09, 2015 9:37 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and Abductive
Logic
Edwina, Ben N., list,
I've been reading the online version of Ben N.'s thesis. I found
that I could not save it to my computer without first opening it
online, and in order to save it computer, one has to move one's
mouse over some buttons in the upper right-hand corner of the view
pane till a little tool tip says "Download". I'm convinced that
visual design of computer programs these days is largely done by
sadists.
Anyway, I've been reading it, it's two PDFs, and I'm half-way
through the second one. It really is very readable, and that
involvement of Hitler does add a certain electric current to the
discussion of abductive inference. It's not a labor to read, and
it's quite interesting. There are a number of technical errors (as
Ben N. warns) evident to a Peirce scholar, but these can be
corrected without damaging the thesis.
In response to Edwina, I'd say that Ben N. does not present
Hitler's rise as having a magical or mystical element, rather a
mysterious element that requires explanation. He makes a case that
many scholars think that there are some very difficult questions
as to who Hitler was and how did he get so far. I'm no historian
and hadn't read a book on Hitler since I was a teenager. So far,
I'd say that the case is not made clear enough to the general
reader that Hitler didn't just get lucky in the sense that some
party had to come out on top or, in the classic formulation,
"somebody has to be the king of France." Ben N. outlines some
argument that luck wasn't such a big part of it, but it's not
clear to me yet. On the other hand, I don't think that Ben N. is
relying on a "Great Men" theory of history - he says that Hitler
might have made very little difference in other times and
circumstances.
Insofar as everybody uses abductive inference, Ben N. perhaps
doesn't bring out clearly enough the difference between Hitler's
use of it and others' use of it, instead he talks about how Hitler
was the first leader to use it. I think I know what Ben N. is
getting at, but I'd phrase it more carefully. Ben N. is saying
that Hitler was the first leader to invite the public to follow a
pattern of abductive inference like in a detective story (Who
Murdered Germany?), and that Hitler relied for credibility on the
justificatory plausibility and complex cohesion of an untested
hypothesis that would take a long time to verify. Well, there's
more to it, which it would be foolish of me to try to summarize.
I'd ask, is Ben N. so sure that Hitler was the first such leader?
Many other regimes have 'explanations' that they give to their
people, sometimes involving the idea of hidden forces behind events.
Anyway, I'm enjoying reading it. One can certainly say that Ben
Novak has made a serious effort, deserving of more attention than
what some rather pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey stuff has received
occasionally on peirce-l.
Best, Ben
On 7/9/2015 7:12 PM, Edwina Taborsky wrote:
Ben, I'm going to disagree with your view that in order to
discuss the basic issue of your book, namely, your attempt to
correlate the rise of Hitler with abductive logic - that it
requires that we either buy your book or read it.
I think that on a Peirce-list, the members ought to have a
reasonable reading knowledge of Peirce's works, but I don't think
that a research topic dealt with by a member requires that
members of this list read that member's work. My view is that it
is incumbent on YOU, to provide members with a reasonably
thorough precis of the salient points of your argument.
With regard to the points you have so far provided, my concern is
that you seem to be trying to imbue Hitler's rise to power with
some 'magical' or mystical element.
For example, you claim that when his party took power, German
politics consisted of 28 parties - why was Hitler's dominant? In
Canada, at the federal level, there are 26 political parties -
and there is nothing particularly magical or surprising that only
three are dominant. There are about 30 minor political parties in
the US. Only two-three are dominant.
Second, my concern is your method of explaining this history. You
seem to be using what is known as the 'Great Man Theory' of
historical analysis, which examines history by focusing on the
charisma or whatever of some singular causal individual. I
consider this a weak analytic frame; I prefer the 'long duree'
framework of the 'Annales' school (eg, Braudel), which considers
infrastructural causality such as the population size, economic
mode, technological capacity, trade relations etc...rather than
individuals.
As for fascism, it is an ideology of the mind, i.e., it is not
rooted in pragmatic reality but in a notion of utopian purity of
the past, such that 'if only we returned to that pure mode',
then, all would be well. It is now rampant in the Al Qaeda (from
the 19th c!) and ISIS of the MENA. There are, I maintain,
population and economic reasons for the refusal of these
populations and governments to deal with the pragmatic problems
of the area and the resultant retreat into fascism.
Same with Germany of the 1930s. And, once an infrastructure is
set up, e,g, National Socialism's Third Reich, it is extremely
difficult to move out of the rhetoric and back down to hard
reality. That requires an external intervention. Certainly,
internally, some tried to stop Hitler -
As for Hitler being logical - what??? I think some examples would
be helpful. His behaviour around Stalingrad was hardly logical.
Is the popularity of various cult figures, of wealthy preachers,
of due to their being logical? Or for some other reason(s)?
What is abductive about Hitler's 'reasoning'?
Again, my view - and I say it is my view - is that the onus for
explanation of a topic is not to have readers buy your book or
read it online, but for you to explain key points to us - and
then, explain why you align it with Peircean theory.
Edwina
----- Original Message -----
*From:* Ben Novak <mailto:trevriz...@gmail.com>
*To:* Stephen Jarosek <mailto:sjaro...@iinet.net.au>
*Cc:* Stephen C. Rose <mailto:stever...@gmail.com> ; Peirce List
<mailto:Peirce-L@list.iupui.edu>
*Sent:* Thursday, July 09, 2015 5:12 PM
*Subject:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] Recently published: Hitler and
Abductive Logic
