http://www.forbes.com/home/economy/2006/10/16/demographics-income-population-biz_cx_tvr_1017median.html

According to Hitler, the “correct road” would have been the third: “a strengthening of [German] continental power by gaining new soil in Europe”.  The most controversial aspect of this policy, however, is the following, “This policy, to be sure, could only have been carried out…with so abnormal an emphasis on the military implements of power that for forty or fifty years cultural tasks would have been forced into the background.  This would have been quite justifiable” (612).

Only after several decades of military domination, Hitler elaborates, would it be possible to again focus on “cultural matters.”

In essence, Hitler is arguing that the German government should have concentrated all its resources on defending the country’s “political freedom and independence,” while ignoring pressing cultural issues.  Unfortunately, Hitler fails to define what these “cultural matters” are, and what the implications of ignoring them would be.

Hitler’s argument methodology can be simplified to that of a clever politician’s—he knows that the Reich’s chosen policy was unpopular (based on it’s relative failure), so he sets forth the extreme alternative.  The German people, eager for change, embrace his ideal of foreign policy…but seem to neglect the consequences this will have on their lives.  No worries, however, for Hitler casually acknowledges that military conquest will stifle culture.  Certainly, he says, a “golden age” of culture will erupt after the 50 years of a military focus… An astute politician, Hitler played to the general sentiment, expounded a radical idea, then allayed fears of repressed culture by suggesting an imminent golden age.

The biggest problem is of Hitler’s prioritizing.  He states, “no sacrifice can be too great for the securing of political freedom.”  No sacrifice?  Not even denying the German people their culture for almost half a century, in the name of a conquest-like independence which may not have directly affected any of their lives?  Apparently Hitler truly believed that the German people would maintain their support for 40 or 50 years of a militaristic foreign policy, in anticipation of a return to culture later…but how would this have been realistically possible?  A leader can only stay in power for as long as he is a)popular, b)kept in by force, or c)under the law, and choices B and C (at the time before WWII) did not apply to Germany.  Did Hitler expect a leader to remain popular for this long?  Not to mention that his generalization, “no sacrifice” is quite a statement.

The applications to TOK here touch on History and ethics, perception and reason.  

In this chapter, Hitler is discussing the roles of “weak and uncertain men” in fighting for their country. He explains his initial belief that a war—in this case, a war fought to retain the existence of the German state—should be fought solely by people who enlist voluntarily. This “voluntary loyalty,” he says, “has always determined the best men in their actions.” In effect, those who enlist to fight for Germany are the “men,” while those who sit back and let others fight for them, and those who “set [their] own life higher than that of the totality” are the weak “boys.” This statement, however, transitions into one of Hitler’s truly harsh beliefs. In referring to the men unwilling to die for the German state, Hitler writes, “Such a spineless weakling can only be deterred from giving in to his cowardice by the application of the hardest penalty.”

But let me pause. As I read this, I expected the next sentence to advocate the use of force and/or torture to coerce unwilling men into serving in the German military. At the very least, I expected perhaps the seizure of property or something along those lines. Instead, Hitler very clearly states that the consequence of being unwilling to prepare for the battlefield is indeed the hardest penalty: death.

What?! Those who aren’t willing to fight should be killed? Wouldn’t that mean, then, that they would be unable to fight?—killing them certainly isn’t a way to persuade them to take up arms…a dead man isn’t too good with a gun, as any person can tell you. But let me get to my TOK point, which deals with reason. According to Hitler, weak men have a choice to make: safe prison, or the dangerous battlefield, and they choose prison—putting their individual safety above the cause. Hitler’s response, however, is not one of reason, but rather, one of force. If he can’t persuade them to fight for the same cause that he believes in, then they deserve to die (not a very good method of persuasion). RECALL: This is an indirect argument from force, a logical fallacy. While I can agree with Hitler in that a voluntary military would be a more effective military, the choice presented to those not willing to serve in the military is not really a choice at all. In the end, the volunteers will be fighting and the detractors will be dead! Surely, this would artificially inflate the popularity for the cause, and possibly send the German state down an unwise path.

Bottom line: Hitler’s argument from force doesn’t hold reasonable water—fortunately the relevant Articles of War prevented the German state from doing this.

To clarify, the eugenics Hitler refers to is mostly accomplished through genocide (note: the Holocaust) and through “negative eugenics”—meaning defective people being prevented from having offspring.  Hitler writes:

The demand that defective people be prevented from propagating equally defective offspring is a demand of clearest reason and, if systematically executed, represents the most humane act of mankind. It will spare millions of unfortunate undeserved sufferings, and consequently will lead to a rising improvement of health as a whole.

From today’s perspective, the mass-sterilization techniques used by Hitler’s Nazi’s can be considered unethical.  But eugenics brings up a heated contemporary debate on ethics nevertheless.   On one side, eugenicists believe that “cleaning” the human race will make everyone more “equal,” in order to create a more egalitarian society.  They also believe that the nation will not be plagued with programs for people with disabilities and other genetic defects, allowing resources that would otherwise have been spent here to be used more productively.  On the other side, critics of eugenics show that there are many problems with labeling certain factors as “genetic defects”, and that people have a right to reproduce.  In all fairness, however, the sides are not entirely exclusive, and take into consideration many additional factors.  The issue Hitler takes on in his book is rooted in ethics, in determining what is “right” and “moral” or what is “wrong” and “immoral”.

On an aside, one thing I learned from Hitler’s discussion (and I verified it with additional research) was that the Nazi foundation for eugenics was largely taken from the eugenics movement in the
United States earlier in the 20^th century.  Sterilization practices in California were cited by the Nazi’s as humane and practical—and were major motivating factors for moving ahead with their own form of eugenics.  Interesting, yet scary.

Hitler’s work continues to stumble in the lingual “Way of Knowing” department in a couple of ways:

(1)    He uses “loaded language” (words that carry meaning or implication beyond strict definitions) quite liberally.  For example, when discussing the role of the majority within a democracy, Hitler writes: “Is the incapacity of a leader shown by the fact that he does not succeed in winning for a certain idea the majority of a mob thrown together by more or less savory accidents?(80)”  First, the word “mob” connotes a gang of some sort— a violent, non-rational group of people caught up in passionate rowdiness.  Second, the phrase “thrown together” implies a ragtag bunch of people concentrated in one area through random assembly or “savory accidents.”  Whether correct or incorrect, both terms negatively slant the intellectual power of a majority.

(2)    Rhetorical questions “guide” readers toward an answer needed for further argument.  Example: “Isn’t every deed of genius in this world a visible protest of genius against the inertia of the mass?”  Hitler implies the answer “Well, of course” with these types of questions, and uses this technique to further his argument.  Even while I would normally choose to answer his rhetorical questions differently, I am forced to answer as he seeks, for the sake of continuing to read.  At times, these types of questions can be frustrating.  I guess that books (and other print sources in general) are well-suited for these types of questions, because one cannot dispute the inquiry presented.

Now, while I don’t expect Hitler’s writing to clear up at all, I will force myself to focus on other Ways of Knowing as I continue to read…

Signing off.

 I do not imply that Pringles taste any worse than other, comparable potato chips.  In fact, pre-launch studies indicated that Pringles was on-par with, if not better than, the taste of other potato chips at the time.  However, it was perception of the chips which influenced consumers to believe that Pringles tasted artificial, machine-made, and full of preservatives. 

The reason for this perception was because of the way Pringles was promoted and branded.  Put briefly, the initial advertising campaign for the chips focused on the fact that the chips could fit into a metal canister (which eliminated breakage and increased shelf-life), but not focused on taste.  Consumers saw the canister and subconsciously associated factory production, mechanical processes, artificial preservatives and related ideas.  Their perception influenced them into believing that Pringles did not taste as good as regular potato chips.  As mentioned above, Pringles had been tested under blind conditions, and scored as well or better as competitors.

Clearly, perception plays a big role in the business world in terms of promotion, branding, and other marketing techniques.  Because perception wrongly influenced consumers’ purchasing decisions, I believe that simply focusing a campaign on what is important to the consumer will go a long way.  At least P&G has learned its lesson.

Ways of Knowing: perception, language, reason, emotion 

Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf begins as an autobiography.  It describes Hitler’s childhood and maturation to adulthood, pausing to discuss his father’s influence on him and his educational and career pursuits.  The book moves quickly, however, to explaining the development of Hitler’s viewpoints (especially his anti-Semitic views) and his perception of the German people and German state.  At the very least, Hitler is very clear as to what he believes, and whom he holds prejudice against.

Hitler’s reasoning can be difficult to follow at some points in the book.  In particular, Hitler sets forth his italicized premises, on which subsequent paragraphs of argument are based, usually arbitrarily.  Little progression of ideas takes place to develop each premise, but these starting points are then defended and expanded upon—truth be told, several arguments feel like they are “built on sand” because while the arguments themselves may make some sense, the foundations on which they are built are sometimes pulled out of the air.  In this way, Hitler’s “discoveries” are biases in his approach to knowledge, a clear problem of knowledge.  The broad claims he makes as a result of his flawed logic and manipulated language detract from my understanding of Adolf Hitler as, for lack of a better word, a “reasonable” leader.

Language is further an issue in Mein Kampf because it had to be translated from German.  As the book’s ”Translator’s Note” brings to our attention, Hitler’s sentences are particularly “labyrinthic”.  While not typical of all German writers, the winding, rambling, ponderousness of Hitler’s writing sometimes serves to make his logic almost unintelligible.  For this reason, I have come to appreciate the small footnotes at the bottom of each page which iron out an lingual difficulties.  Interestingly, the translator makes a few important points before allowing the reader to move onto the book’s introduction:

1. While Hitler’s writing is often perceived as being tangled and peculiar, “Contrary to the general opinion, the German text contains only one or two sentences that make no sense at first reading” (xi).

2. Hitler’s writing is filled with (“clogged with” as Ralph Manheim writes) useless little words known as particles.  Hitler uses wohl, ja, denn, schon, noch, besonders, and others in almost every sentence, but because English doesn’t really have any equivalents, the translator sacrificed them.  Mr. Manheim notes that Hitler’s particles have a certain political significance, because they create “culture” in his writing—the avoidance of these dialectical particles would have been viewed with suspicion as foreign and modernistic.

3. “Where Hitler’s formulations challenge the reader’s credulity, I have quoted the German original in the notes.  Seeing is believing.” (xii)