Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j26amkh wrote

Reply to comment by SanctusSalieri in How the concept: Banality of evil developed by Hanna Arendt can be applied to AI Ethics in order to understand the unintentional behaviour of machines that are intelligent but not conscious. by AndreasRaaskov

I don’t see how any of those are particularly unique fads as far as humanity goes, again we aren’t a stable bunch. It is definitely a modern evolutionary of pretty old supremacist ideas, but supremacy is nothing new and all those are just excuses for it that nazis used to their advantage. Any new idea is still just viewed through the same limited lens any one of us short lived predictable assholes can see it through

3

SanctusSalieri t1_j26d65v wrote

Well, historians get to decide these things and having been one, they would all disagree.

0

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j26hvzb wrote

What makes these extremist views exceptional compared to all the other extreme xenophobic desperate supremacist ideas through all of history, to the point where they couldn’t even be considered much worse but similar but apparently completely unique compared to everything we’ve done naturally up until that point

2

SanctusSalieri t1_j26izz4 wrote

Historians tend to historicize. That means first treating particular events using an empirical method and understanding them on their own merits. Then synthesizing explanations, comparative studies, and so on. They do this because it's the best way to do history. Generally they would avoid the morally loaded and aggrieved tone you're taking. Saying something is peculiar and particular doesn't preclude comparison, and it is not anjudgment of gravity, seriousness, or worthiness of study.

1

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j26kt1d wrote

I don’t see how I’m posing a moral question, and I definitely don’t think I’m asking even a particularly hard or loaded question. You said these events are set apart from history, I asked how because they seem at least on the surface quite typical if very extreme, you said historians decide what’s extreme (which is a non answer and an ad hominem response to be clear), and again I asked the same and your response was to tell me exactly how historians go about categorizing events. If you understand how they go about this and the synthesized explanations and comparative studies that have went into the topic then it shouldn’t be that hard to give me at the least an ELI5 about what exactly separates these things from the other seemingly similar events in history. You said these events are unique and I’m literally just asking why

3

SanctusSalieri t1_j26lv0f wrote

I said the exact opposite of "set apart from history." I offered some of the particular historical conditions that allow us to understand the events. By generalizing between situations as diverse as Nazi Germany and 21st Century Europe or America you misunderstand both -- and misunderstanding the present is quite serious because we might want to do something to change it.

1

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j26mtoy wrote

You didn’t say they were particular you said they were peculiar. As in unique. As in OPs argument (or at least my interpretation of their poor English) was invalid because these events you listed shared nothing in common with current or past events. That’s the problem here I made a pretty general statement and you denied it wholely.

You clearly have a deeper understanding of secular history than the both of us but you aren’t exactly sharing that wisdom if you just name a bunch of ideas and movements related to the period without even slightly pointing out why they unique and not just generational permutations of typical trends which is what I said and what I understand OP to be saying.

I said why are those different and you’ve essentially said “just trust me bro”

Edit: to be fair you also said they were particular but that wasn’t what I took issue with

2

SanctusSalieri t1_j26o2r9 wrote

I explained that history as a profession emphasizes uniqueness due to it being an empirical discipline, and generational permutations of typical trends isn't a thing they do. That's not the same as incommensurability. It's fortunate that history has contingency and particularity, if we like the idea that things could be different than they are. But we don't focus on particularity because it's comforting, but because it's informative.

0

Cruciblelfg123 t1_j26puq9 wrote

Are we in a disciplinary setting here? I can somewhat appreciate why history as a discipline would operate under such conditions because like you said it’s informative, but again it’s seems you’ve applied a pretty narrow group language to a general discussion and used it as an absolute rule.

My point being that fact that history as a study and discipline won’t bother drawing correlation between “typical trends” doesn’t mean there are none, it just means they aren’t worth secular study. Furthermore if you are going to state as fact that there is nothing the same between past acts and modern, and especially when it’s given such a wide berth saying they are “similar but one is clearly more extreme/heinous”, simply stating that historians don’t bother quantifying such a thing isn’t really an argument for it’s not existing

1

SanctusSalieri t1_j26qpbl wrote

I specifically said you can compare, but the comparison made obfuscated both points of reference rather than illuminating anything. I became a historian because I'm convinced it's methodology is the correct one for precisely these kinds of questions.

1