Caspar Pfrunder

"He was moved by an intense dislike of cruelty masquerading as moral rectitude". Tony Honoré on H.L.A. Hart

@MattPolProf Trumpism is an authoritarian populism drawing on American populist traditions within a system designed to reign in Caesars and Cromwells (while creating a strong executive within a modernized mixed-government-scheme that has become stronger over time).

@MattPolProf It has long been clear that while there is some truth in the analogy, disanalogy is overall stronger. And the problem is not finding the „true“ definition of fascism, that‘s an ill-conceived quest, but comparing legal systems, governmental practices; to some extent ideologies.

The most widely accepted definition is Griffin's from The Nature of Fascism:fascism is a political ideology whose mythic core is populist palingenetic ultranationalism. Fascists hold that the nation is threatened by decline and decadance and only a strongman can save it...

@mboudry @holland_tom It should also be said that much of it is taken from Larry Siedentop/Diarmaid MacCulloch and merely popularized by Holland; it is not his own novel thesis for the most part.

@mboudry @holland_tom Genealogy is a difficult exercise and hard to execute convincingly. While Holland is onto something, he is not always subtle enough in his distinctions between the conceptual framework within which an idea was first brought about and how it was later reinterpreted and changed.

In his celebrated book Dominion, the British historian @holland_tom argues that virtually all the achievements of the modern world are indebted to a moral revolution wrought by Christianity: human rights, social security, science, gender equality — it’s all supposedly there in the Bible, if you read between the lines. Holland is a brilliant writer and podcaster, and I loved some of his earlier books, but I really hated this one. It’s a long exercise in what I’d call retrorevelation: the annoying habit of religious apologists — mostly Christians — of retroactively claiming credit for all the things they once fought tooth and nail against, or all the things you can find in a gazillion other cultural traditions. The overall argument feels very superficial, attributing all manner of things to Christianity without seriously comparing it to non-Christian cultures and traditions. Yes, many Renaissance and Enlightenment thinkers framed their innovations in Christian terms. But in the suffocating intellectual climate of early modern Europe, Biblical justification was often the only way to make new ideas socially and politically viable, no matter how opportunistic the connection. Besides, early Christians were hardly unique in preaching radical moral ideals like loving your enemy or turning the other cheek. Such counterintuitive ethical systems were common across Axial Age traditions.* And for one thing, despite its lofty ideals, Christians never seriously considered abolishing slavery for more than a millennium and a half, and there is nothing in the Bible that clearly condemns the institution. On the contrary, slaves are repeatedly instructed to obey their masters. Yes, abolitionists invoked Christian justifications, but so did their pro-slavery opponents (with many Bible verses to back them up). As far as I know, the only ancient authors who explicitly opposed slavery on moral grounds were pagans, not Christians — figures like the Greek rhetorician Alcidamas and the poet Philemon in the 4th century BC. And on the “good side” of antiquity, I can find nothing in the Bible that is even remotely as beautiful, uplifting, and humane as De Rerum Natura by Lucretius, who had never heard of Jesus. I’ve long wanted to write a critical review of Dominion, but never got around to it. This excellent piece by @RichardHanania is more or less the review I wish I had written myself — though you’ll need a subscription to read the full piece. As Hanania writes: “[Holland’s] method can just devolve into haphazardly associating general concepts that look similar to one another in the service of a narrative that sounds good.” The book is full of vivid characters and engaging stories, but it becomes increasingly absurd toward the end, when Holland tries to trace virtually everything back to Christianity. Marxism? Basically secularized Christianity: radical equality, concern for the oppressed, redemption of the outcast. Nazism? Holland even suggests that the Nazi desire to “purify” the world echoed Christian ideas of cleansing evil and redeeming humanity. He writes: “Yet Hitler, even as he cast his campaign against them as a matter of public health, would often assimilate it to another narrative: a profoundly Christian one. To be saved, the world had to be cleansed. A people threatened by perdition required redemption.” Needless to say, wokeness is also Christian to the core. It’s been a while since I read his book, so apologies to Tom Holland if I’ve simplified or misrepresented some parts of the argument — perhaps I’ll write a proper review one day. * For the record, I’m not a historian of religion, but this is what Claude had to say about Axial Age religions: “Yes, this is a well-documented observation among historians of religion and philosophy. The Axial Age (roughly 800–200 BCE, a term coined by Karl Jaspers) saw a remarkable convergence across several civilizations, where thinkers independently developed moral and ethical frameworks that challenged conventional human instincts like tribalism, revenge, and self-interest. - Buddhism (5th century BCE) is perhaps the most striking example. The Buddha taught mettā (loving-kindness) toward all beings, including those who harm you. The Dhammapada contains passages urging practitioners to overcome hatred with love and to respond to anger with calm — very close in spirit to ‘love your enemy.’ - Confucianism and Mohism in China offered related ideas. While Confucius was more measured (when asked about repaying injury with kindness, he replied ‘repay injury with justice’), Mozi (5th century BCE) went further with his doctrine of jiān ài (universal or impartial love), arguing that people should care for strangers and even rival states as much as their own — a radically counterintuitive position that was widely debated precisely because it cut against natural partiality. - Jainism developed ahimsa (non-violence) to an extreme degree, extending compassion and non-harm to all living creatures, including insects. This demanded extraordinary self-discipline and restraint even toward those who might threaten you. - Stoicism in Greece taught that all human beings share in a universal rational nature, and that anger and vengeance are failures of reason. Marcus Aurelius (though later than the Axial Age proper) wrote extensively about responding to hostility with understanding rather than retaliation, building on earlier Stoic foundations. - Zoroastrianism emphasized the moral duty to actively choose good over evil, framing ethics as a cosmic struggle that required personal sacrifice and integrity beyond mere self-interest. - The Hebrew prophetic tradition — figures like Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah — challenged their own society with demands for justice toward the poor, the stranger, and the marginalized, often at great personal cost.” richardhanania.com/p/jesus-ancien…

America’s defeat in the Persian Gulf reveals the world to come equator.org/articles/ghost…

@PGrasarevic Gut gesagt!

- Er wurde rechtskräftig verurteilt und hat seine Strafe verbüsst – damit ist die Angelegenheit erledigt. - Seither hat er sich bewährt; seine Rehabilitation ist gelungen. Damit hat er ein gewichtiges persönliches Interesse, dass die Sache nicht gegen seinen Willem öffentlich wird. - Wer ohne Schuld ist, werfe den ersten Stein. - Wenn die persönlichen Konsequenzen die strafrechtlichen Folgen bei Weitem übersteigen, gerät das Prinzip der Verhältnismässigkeit aus dem Gleichgewicht. - Wer – wie SRF – nach einem unbedachten Versprecher in einem wohlwollenden Kontext aktiv gestützt auf das Öffentlichkeitsgesetz einen mittlerweile vier Jahre alten Strafbefehl publik machen will, handelt meines Erachtens unlauter.

Another sign of decline. In 1900 European philosophers read each other and talked to each other in several Euro languages. Now German PhDs need to write in English if they want to be read.

@SamBaudinette There are still Christian Meier, Noam Chomsky. But those are the last of whom I know.

First Habermas, now Kluge. It feels like an era is coming to an end…

Von Alexander Kluge habe ich wunderbar viel gelernt, seine Filme und Interviews waren wirklich inspirierend – sein Element war die Luft. RIP

Suhrkamp teilt mit: Jürgen Habermas im Alter von 96 Jahren gestorben faz.net/aktuell/feuill…

@rub_alfred @StrebelLuca „If states fail to act together to preserve the prohibition on the use of force — the bedrock of the postwar legal order — the toll will be registered in many more lives lost in conflicts that no longer have any guardrails to stop them.“ O. Hathaway, NYT 6.1.26

@casp_pfrun @StrebelLuca Aus diesem Grund, meine ich, ist es meist widersinnig, über solche Fragen einen Streit rechts gegen links und links gegen rechts zu inszenieren.

@rub_alfred @StrebelLuca Versteh ich schon; und rechtsmissbräuchliche Berufung auf‘s Recht ruft gerechte Empörung hervor. Aber wir verkennen dabei regelmässig die dilemmatische, geradezu tragische Struktur der Handlungsoptionen in der Aussenpolitik.

@casp_pfrun @StrebelLuca Daher haben fallbezogene, womöglich rhetorisch moralisierend daherkommende Verweisungen darauf, Völkerrecht sei gebrochen worden, häufig etwas Arbiträres, Willkürliches, Tendenziöses, an der Gerechtigkeit Vorbeilaufendes.

@StrebelLuca @rub_alfred Aber: Völkerrecht ist nicht Diktatorenschild, sondern das Mindestgeländer, damit wir nicht zu Barbaren werden.

@StrebelLuca @rub_alfred isch gerechtfertigt halten, rechtlich kann er es nicht sein. Vielleicht ist es ein guter Tag für Iran, wir hoffen es.

Power Beyond Realpolitik | Anthropologist Scott Atran explains why so-called "realism" in international relations is psychologically unrealistic: people and countries cooperate, accede, or resist according to their moral commitments. quillette.com/p/e7b0e808-3e9…

@ProfNiggli moralische Vokabular die öffentliche Imagination prägt, ist aber historisch kontingent; möglicherweise wäre eine Rückkehr zur früheren Einschätzung von Aggression als wichtigstem zu verhinderndem völkerrechtlichen Verbrechen effektiver in der Verhinderung von Leid.

@ProfNiggli wie Sam Moyn aufgezeigt hat, ist diese Entwicklung jung und hängt mit der Redefinition/dem Aufstieg der Menschenrechtsidee in ihrer heutigen hegemonischen Bedeutung und ihrer neuen Assoziierung zu Brutalitäten und Grausamkeiten seit den 70er Jahren zusammen. Welches rechtlich-..

Ich frage mich, warum Menschen über Dinge reden wollen, die sie nicht verstehen. Das Wenige, wovon wir etwas verstehen, ist doch kompliziert genug. Kaum jemand, der von Völkermord schwafelt, könnte nur schon erklären, was ein Mord ist. Und das ist einfach im Vergleich zum Völkermord.