5 ms·

Is right? The text goes on to say: > After World War I, Mann, who was living in Munich, had good reason to alter his sentiments as he watched Hitler’s alarming

Is right? The text goes on to say: > After World War I, Mann, who was living in Munich, had good reason to alter his sentiments as he watched Hitler’s alarming rise [..] He did not attack the Third Reich publicly until February 1936, when he denounced German anti-Semitism in an open letter in the Neue Züricher Zeitung, stating that the barbaric campaign Hitler’s paladins were waging was “aimed, essentially, not at the Jews at all, or not at them exclusively. It is aimed at Europe and at the real spirit of Germany.” The abstract categories we put people in have neither intentions nor characters, only individuals do. So to ascribe a character or intentions to groups always seemed pointless to me, like horoscopes or wine reviews. Maybe it's useful if you have the space for one ad, and want to decide which one might be "the most appealing to Germans". But it seems like an oxymoron when talking about loving democracy, which cannot even be thought without the plurality of actual individuals.

coldtea 7y ago
>The text goes on to say Doesn't go on to say that authoritarianism is unbecoming to "the real spirit of Germany". Just that antisemitism is. >The abstract categories we put people in have neither intentions nor characters, only individuals do. So to ascribe a character or intentions to groups always seemed pointless to me, like horoscopes or wine reviews. Well, you can't predict what an individual molecule would do, motion wise, but you can statistically predict the behavior of a collection of lots of molecules and find it has certain characteristics, the same holds true for whole populations. In fact, those shared characteristics, tendencies, etc., we call "culture". Most people follow their culture, like fish swim in water. But even the fewer who dislike their country's culture, they are still nonetheless shaped by it in many degrees (and usually only dislike certain aspects, whereas their dislikes are also typical manifestations within the culture: e.g. how coastal americans might dislike 'flyover' norms, and vice versa). So, yeah, populations have intentions and characters, just like individuals do. And just like in individuals those are fuzzy, but still useful. Since individuals have "intentions nor characters" it would be absurd for collections of individuals not to exhibit "intentions nor characters" too, of a certain type shaped by their shared historical experiences, politics, education, enmities, culture, economy, pop culture and so on.
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  > Well, you can't predict what an individual molecule would do, motion wise, but you can statistically predict the behavior of a collection of lots of molecules and find it has certain characteristics, the same holds true for whole populations. Saying "this material will float in water" is of an entirely different order than statements like "Germans don't love democracy and hate themselves". > In fact, those shared characteristics, tendencies, etc., we call "culture" What does "loving democracy" mean? What does "hating themselves" mean here, precisely? We can't talk about shared characteristics without even being clear about the characteristic. > So, yeah, populations have intentions and characters, just like individuals do. If 10 people all want ice cream, that's 10 people wanting ice cream individually, not "the group wanting ice cream". We can say this is as a shorthand, as long as it's understood that in reality, it refers to the actual people. > And just like in individuals those are fuzzy, but still useful. For what? Can you show me a use for ascribing these characteristics to Germans?
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Saying "this material will float in water" is of an entirely different order than statements like "Germans don't love democracy and hate themselves". And yet, many individual observers have said just so over a great period of time. And not just prejudiced foreigners, but germans themselves (like Mann and tons of others, from Nietzsche to Schmitt). Then one could also see the empirical evidence, prevalent notions at various times, and so on... It's not like what a population/country tends to do is opaque. History is recording just that. >What does "loving democracy" mean? A lot of things, including being observed fighting for democracy (or the inverse), historically producing more autocratic regimes, a country's most celebrated philosophy/literature/poetry tending to prefer e.g. elitism or a strong state, the degree of individualistic and democratic ideas in people (as measured e.g. by polling), and so on. >If 10 people all want ice cream, that's 10 people wanting ice cream individually, not "the group wanting ice cream". We can say this is as a shorthand, as long as it's understood that in reality, it refers to the actual people. Well, if we want to predict how popular ice cream will be in a country, the potential for an ice cream market there, and so on, we can just use the shorthand. Whether this or that individual person in the large group hates ice cream is irrelevant, if the group tends to love it (e.g. US and, say, pizza). There's also the fact that with cultural matters (and heck, even with food matters), if many people want ice cream, they influence others people to want it to, create a favorable environment for the sale of ice cream, it influences policy and laws, and so on. So, "that's 10 people wanting X individually" misses the big picture of group dynamics. For large numbers of N, N people wanting X individually is different than "a person wants X" times N. In other words, the aggregate is greater than the sum of its parts. >Can you show me a use for ascribing these characteristics to Germans? As a crude example, a great use for ascribing specific characteristics to Germans would be when determining whether to start a beer business in Germany or in Dubai. Where would you go? Or how about considering credit attitudes (Germans abhor credit and debt, and pay almost everything with cash/debit). One good consideration when establishing a credit card company there and relevant to many other economic ventures... https://www.dw.com/en/times-change-but-german-obsession-with-cash-endures/a-43718626 https://www.dw.com/en/times-change-but-german-obsession-with... https://qz.com/262595/why-germans-pay-cash-for-almost-everything/ https://qz.com/262595/why-germans-pay-cash-for-almost-everyt... That was a trivial example. The same concerns can have profound impact, e.g. in foreign policy. An outright (expressed) concern of the diplomats that created the ECC (later EU) was the containment of Germany. They didn't think Germany was just "some individuals that happened to act in an individual manner as to cause a world war twice", and that once they were old/dead nothing could be said of Germany as a danger (as new, entirely unique individuals replaced them), but saw it as a culture with a tendency to dominate other the rest: "The German question produced the Europe of today, as well as the transatlantic relationship of the past seven-plus decades. (...) Americans and Europeans established NATO after World War II at least as much to settle the German problem as to meet the Soviet challenge, a fact now forgotten by today’s realists—to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down,” as Lord Ismay, the alliance’s first secretary-general, put it. This was also the purpose of the series of integrative European institutions, beginning with the European Steel and Coal Community, that eventually became the European Union. As the diplomat George Kennan put it, some form of European unification was “the only conceivable solution for the problem of Germany’s relation to the rest of Europe,” https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/germany/2019-04-02/new-german-question https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/germany/2019-04-02/n...

coldtea 7y ago

>The text goes on to say Doesn't go on to say that authoritarianism is unbecoming to "the real spirit of Germany". Just that antisemitism is. >The abstract categories we put people in have neither intentions nor characters, only individuals do. So to ascribe a character or intentions to groups always seemed pointless to me, like horoscopes or wine reviews. Well, you can't predict what an individual molecule would do, motion wise, but you can statistically predict the behavior of a collection of lots of molecules and find it has certain characteristics, the same holds true for whole populations. In fact, those shared characteristics, tendencies, etc., we call "culture". Most people follow their culture, like fish swim in water. But even the fewer who dislike their country's culture, they are still nonetheless shaped by it in many degrees (and usually only dislike certain aspects, whereas their dislikes are also typical manifestations within the culture: e.g. how coastal americans might dislike 'flyover' norms, and vice versa). So, yeah, populations have intentions and characters, just like individuals do. And just like in individuals those are fuzzy, but still useful. Since individuals have "intentions nor characters" it would be absurd for collections of individuals not to exhibit "intentions nor characters" too, of a certain type shaped by their shared historical experiences, politics, education, enmities, culture, economy, pop culture and so on.

PavlovsCat 7y ago
> Well, you can't predict what an individual molecule would do, motion wise, but you can statistically predict the behavior of a collection of lots of molecules and find it has certain characteristics, the same holds true for whole populations. Saying "this material will float in water" is of an entirely different order than statements like "Germans don't love democracy and hate themselves". > In fact, those shared characteristics, tendencies, etc., we call "culture" What does "loving democracy" mean? What does "hating themselves" mean here, precisely? We can't talk about shared characteristics without even being clear about the characteristic. > So, yeah, populations have intentions and characters, just like individuals do. If 10 people all want ice cream, that's 10 people wanting ice cream individually, not "the group wanting ice cream". We can say this is as a shorthand, as long as it's understood that in reality, it refers to the actual people. > And just like in individuals those are fuzzy, but still useful. For what? Can you show me a use for ascribing these characteristics to Germans?
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Saying "this material will float in water" is of an entirely different order than statements like "Germans don't love democracy and hate themselves". And yet, many individual observers have said just so over a great period of time. And not just prejudiced foreigners, but germans themselves (like Mann and tons of others, from Nietzsche to Schmitt). Then one could also see the empirical evidence, prevalent notions at various times, and so on... It's not like what a population/country tends to do is opaque. History is recording just that. >What does "loving democracy" mean? A lot of things, including being observed fighting for democracy (or the inverse), historically producing more autocratic regimes, a country's most celebrated philosophy/literature/poetry tending to prefer e.g. elitism or a strong state, the degree of individualistic and democratic ideas in people (as measured e.g. by polling), and so on. >If 10 people all want ice cream, that's 10 people wanting ice cream individually, not "the group wanting ice cream". We can say this is as a shorthand, as long as it's understood that in reality, it refers to the actual people. Well, if we want to predict how popular ice cream will be in a country, the potential for an ice cream market there, and so on, we can just use the shorthand. Whether this or that individual person in the large group hates ice cream is irrelevant, if the group tends to love it (e.g. US and, say, pizza). There's also the fact that with cultural matters (and heck, even with food matters), if many people want ice cream, they influence others people to want it to, create a favorable environment for the sale of ice cream, it influences policy and laws, and so on. So, "that's 10 people wanting X individually" misses the big picture of group dynamics. For large numbers of N, N people wanting X individually is different than "a person wants X" times N. In other words, the aggregate is greater than the sum of its parts. >Can you show me a use for ascribing these characteristics to Germans? As a crude example, a great use for ascribing specific characteristics to Germans would be when determining whether to start a beer business in Germany or in Dubai. Where would you go? Or how about considering credit attitudes (Germans abhor credit and debt, and pay almost everything with cash/debit). One good consideration when establishing a credit card company there and relevant to many other economic ventures... https://www.dw.com/en/times-change-but-german-obsession-with-cash-endures/a-43718626 https://www.dw.com/en/times-change-but-german-obsession-with... https://qz.com/262595/why-germans-pay-cash-for-almost-everything/ https://qz.com/262595/why-germans-pay-cash-for-almost-everyt... That was a trivial example. The same concerns can have profound impact, e.g. in foreign policy. An outright (expressed) concern of the diplomats that created the ECC (later EU) was the containment of Germany. They didn't think Germany was just "some individuals that happened to act in an individual manner as to cause a world war twice", and that once they were old/dead nothing could be said of Germany as a danger (as new, entirely unique individuals replaced them), but saw it as a culture with a tendency to dominate other the rest: "The German question produced the Europe of today, as well as the transatlantic relationship of the past seven-plus decades. (...) Americans and Europeans established NATO after World War II at least as much to settle the German problem as to meet the Soviet challenge, a fact now forgotten by today’s realists—to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down,” as Lord Ismay, the alliance’s first secretary-general, put it. This was also the purpose of the series of integrative European institutions, beginning with the European Steel and Coal Community, that eventually became the European Union. As the diplomat George Kennan put it, some form of European unification was “the only conceivable solution for the problem of Germany’s relation to the rest of Europe,” https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/germany/2019-04-02/new-german-question https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/germany/2019-04-02/n...