"History" is a modern concept designed to apprehend human development through time. To say that "history" does this or that, "history" justifies this or that, does seem to be a species of reification. "History" does nothing; it is human subjects who act.
I am not sure, however, if the absolutist non-violence of the type advocated by Ian is an example of reification. It seems to me to be more a metaphysical stance, a pre-given [extra-historical] moral imperative. This is not necessarily reification; it depends upon how Ian would justify that stance, and up to this point, that is not entirely clear to me. At best as I understand it, he seems to be saying that since there is no absolute moral certainty about when it might be right to take another life, we are therefore prohibited from doing so. The question that is begged there is why human life has that special status, since virtually all human action, and just the taking of another human life, operates in a world where there is no absolute moral certainty.
Leo Casey United Federation of Teachers 260 Park Avenue South New York, New York 10010-7272 (212-598-6869)
Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has, and it never will. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. -- Frederick Douglass --
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20010513/25c9222c/attachment.htm>