| I'm sorry but it is very hard to understand what you said when the arguments against my various points are, in order: > we should give up old paradigms that don't work Why and how don't they work? > Eco should come up with good, convincing arguments Why are they not good? Why not explain how they don't convince you? > The problem is that the way he does it is rather unconvincing Again, how is it not convincing you? Elaborate... > Can it even help us determine which of those things are fascist and which are not? He does provide a very simple way to do exactly that. Why not argue against such a method, instead of implying it be a stupid method through countless examples, but never explaining how it would not work in such scenarios? This seems like such a destructive way to approach conversation. I can agree rhetorically on some points, but you are just pushing for the impossibility of effectively describing anything intangible. I apologize if I am misinterpreting your arguments, but as I think I've shown there's very little of it around for me to meaningfully engage with it.. |
If you tell me exactly how the Socrates’s dialogue with Meno is relevant to this question, I will explain to you what's the problems with that particular argument.
> Why are they not good? Why not explain how they don't convince you?
I've already tried to explain by example. Let's look at Umberto Eco's own words,
> But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.
I want to emphasize "many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism". And as he notes before that quote, "fascism had no quintessence". How can that convince that ur-fascism Eco talks about is a real phenomenon worth studying and not a mish-mash boogeyman like postmodern queer neo-marxism?
> He does provide a very simple way to do exactly that.
He doesn't. There is no operational definition. He says that a fascist movement may or may not have some of that properties. And moreover, he says that non-fascist movements may or may not have those properties too. So what are the criteria?
> Why not argue against such a method, instead of implying it be a stupid method through countless examples, but never explaining how it would not work in such scenarios?
The examples show why it doesn't work. Again, you have a bunch of properties that apply to a set of things. And then you claim that those things don't have any quintessential properties that they all share. Ok, so is this kind of things a useful grouping? Why should we even care about it? How can I explain that it wouldn't work? Well, maybe it would, but the onus of proving such weird things is on Eco.
> This seems like such a destructive way to approach conversation. I can agree rhetorically on some points, but you are just pushing for the impossibility of effectively describing anything intangible.
People use vague and ambiguous language all the time. But when whether you should be punched and outlawed depends on a mere definition, it is very advisable for the speech to be as precise as possible.