|
Participant: Vox
Date: 2003-03-05 23:19:24
On the contrary, I believe you may have missed a point regarding "doublethink".
"Holding 2 conflicting ideas in mind simultaneously is one thing, crafting a foreign policy that implements both of those conflicting ideas..." is in fact a valid demonstration of doublethink.
So, take for instance, the case where current US policy would dictate that possession of WMD is a threat to world security but at the same time would allow the US to continue to possess WMD. I gather this is an effective example of what you would call "two faced".
If you agree then I would suggest to you that your contention is mistaken in this case.
The reason is, although the ideas are conflicting on their own, they are perfectly congruous when taken on a higher plane of understanding (enlightened). If we view world disarmament as an ultimate goal then WMD development and possession should be halted in order for the nations who currently have them to reach "equilibrium". Once this equilibrium can be verified to the satisfaction of all, stockpiles of WMD can then be reduced multilaterally. The problem with disarmament is to verify that no one is cheating. When "rogue nations" acquire WMD and do not play by these rules we end up with chaos where the existing abiding nations who have WMD feel they must increase or maintain WMD capability to stay ahead of the rogue states. That is what happened during the cold war. When the USSR capitulated, the US did in fact begin to disarm along with the USSR.
So, in an honourable case, the perception of doublthink does not mean the ideas involved are truly conflicting. A common problem is that many people do not understand the higher order of intentions or perhaps, to suit their selfish motive(s), these people choose to call the case, "two faced", so as to injure the party that is grappling with the complex issues.
Of course, there are also instances when people unscrupulously use doublethink to justify or mask their ulterior motives. Orwell did a good job of demonstrating that. Those examples support your point.
Vox Canadiana
P.S. Actually, on the subject of WMD proliferation, if you would study contemporary French history you will find plenty of evidence that post-WWII de Gaulle pressed the US to give it WMD technology and that it pursued WMD research and development even though they were repeatedly requested not to. I should add that the Germans of that period were particularly annoyed by the French action. You may also recall that in 1985, so as to conduct nuclear tests, the French navy went so far as to blow up the Greenpeace flagship, The Rainbow Warrior, while it was moored in Auckland, killing one person. I do not believe France ever made amends for that crime. To this day, France maintains a credible WMD arsenal, even though its rationale of deterring Soviet aggression is arguably obsolete. Would you then also call France "two-faced"?
Répondre à ce message
|
