Week 111

 

This week /u/Klesk_vs_Xaero has not come to work, since he apparently spent way too much time on a long post about old stuff, like Fascism, Socialism, “maximalism”, Bolshevism, the agrarian conflict, Marxist historiography, and so on. Things nobody cares about any more.

Thankfully, the good guys of the local fascio have come to replace him, as they do, so that this weekly discussion of Fascism can go on according to regular schedule. And – if we are allowed to say – much more efficiently.

Now, as to what everyone is expecting, let's learn our animals!

Who can tell the difference between a dog and a cat? We all know the difference, don't we? But what if someone comes up with the fancy idea that a dog is just a kind of cat? After all, they both like the couch, they both cry for food, they both eat stuff they pick up in the garden, they both have four legs! And fur!

And what if someone who has never seen either asks us to explain it to them? Maybe a definition may help straighten things up.

 

According to Cambridge Dictionary Online:

Cat: a small animal with fur, four legs, a tail, and claws, usually kept as a pet or for catching mice

Dog: a common animal with four legs, especially kept by people as a pet or to hunt or guard things

According to Merriam-Webster Online:

Cat: a carnivorous mammal (Felis catus) long domesticated as a pet and for catching rats and mice

Dog: a highly variable domestic mammal (Canis familiaris) closely related to the gray wolf

According to Collins Online

A cat is a furry animal that has a long tail and sharp claws. Cats are often kept as pets.

A dog is a very common four-legged animal that is often kept by people as a pet or to guard or hunt. There are many different breeds of dog.

We have a general consensus on the fact that they are both animals, both domesticated and kept as pets. Dogs appear to hunt or guard; while cats catch mice, which is a similar but more limited function. Also, we have no indication of origin for cats, but dogs appear instead to have a historical antecedent or possible analogue in the gray wolf. Furthermore dogs appear to be “highly variable”, with “many different breeds” - conversely, no such mention of diversity is made for cats, which are furthermore described as “small”.

This is actually better than I expected: we have some shape, some behavior, some heritage. I don't think I would have a clue what a cat or dog actually are if I never saw one, but it seems reasonable to conclude that they are indeed different things.

Now, I really had no time to come up with the next installment, which will be either about D'Annunzio in Fiume (it's about time) or about the elections of November 1919. And I blame this thread asking for a definition of Fascism – which is a perfectly fair question, of course, and one I am not too fond of, as my little example attempted to show. Therefore I was relieved when I saw that I didn't have to come up with one. And then the other thread happened, which I spent too many words on, but feel free to check both threads out. Despite the long diatribe, there's a decent summary of certain elements of the agrarian conflict in 1919-21 Italy.

As to the reason I don't like “definition questions” too much – just to be clear, they are perfectly and absolutely fair questions, which often lead to interesting discussions, as was the case here – the main problem I have with definitions is that, from my point of view, they are extremely helpful in remembering and schematizing a subject you know a lot about. Therefore they are excellent analytical instruments.

Yet, I believe they are extremely poor at actually delivering and conveying information. As to my example above, those very short definitions don't convey what a cat or dog is like – and even an extensive and thorough examination of their physiology and behavior is unlikely to convey the “idea of a cat” or the “idea of a dog” that we all have in our minds. Therefore, when a definition is provided, it feels to my like I am delivering the mnemonic, taxonomic part of what I understand – or think I understand – about something, without relying anything of the experience of that understanding.

As one last example of what I am referring to, I have this thread, with various contributions by /u/handsomeboh and /u/ted5298 as well as /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov. All extremely interesting.

Now, I remember reading those replies – as the discussion centered on whether Japan was a fascist country or not – looking to learn something about Japan. Indeed my ignorance of the subject is almost absolute, and one would expect that the answer, yes or no, given that I may know something about Fascism, would provide me with some understanding of Japan. Yet, I realized, being told that Japan was fascist, or not fascist, didn't alter my ignorance of Japan one bit – which, of course, is not something I can blame on those answers; I should just pick up a couple of books about Japanese history.

So, this is all. Since I didn't have time to put together something, but didn't want to completely miss a week, I thought better to come up with something which I had wanted to share my thoughts on for a while. This is certainly not worth showcasing, but I hope it can be of some interest for those who read it. And I promise not to get sidetracked next week.