Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 8:46:16 GMT
The denier according to his argument only accepts the victim turned into ashes as proof of the existence of the Shoah. He says explicitly that the denier asks the annihilated to account for their own annihilation. And he tells the survivor the annihilation did not take place otherwise you would have to have been annihilated. Faced with a position of this type with what arguments can philosophy discuss denialist theses if in the very fact of denial the annihilation of the other is claimed as proof of the truth Allow me in response to make a comment about the book.
My essay is dedicated to Shlomo Venezia one of the very few survivors Russia Mobile Number List the Sonderkommando of Auschwitz. He is someone I knew personally and who was very important to me to the point that writing If Auschwitz is Nothing was a kind of tribute to him. His life and testimony exemplify very well the attitude of the deniers as they always considered him a fake. believe that witnesses and survivors of the Shoah cannot exist. And the argument used is exactly the one you raised If you are here and say that you survived a situation of this type you are lying because you cannot survive something like that.
If the events you narrate were true you would be dead. In this sense denialism discredits the very existence of the witnesses who as Lyotard and Agamben lucidly analyzed are strictly speaking survivors. This is a very clear propaganda operation which is based on questioning the witness as an essential figure in history and in the public sphere given that the witness not only belongs to the past but also testifies in the democratic sphere. for present and future generations. The case of Shlomo Venezia is particularly interesting in this sense as he had survived the Sonderkommando of Auschwitz and could testify to the existence of the gas chambers.
My essay is dedicated to Shlomo Venezia one of the very few survivors Russia Mobile Number List the Sonderkommando of Auschwitz. He is someone I knew personally and who was very important to me to the point that writing If Auschwitz is Nothing was a kind of tribute to him. His life and testimony exemplify very well the attitude of the deniers as they always considered him a fake. believe that witnesses and survivors of the Shoah cannot exist. And the argument used is exactly the one you raised If you are here and say that you survived a situation of this type you are lying because you cannot survive something like that.
If the events you narrate were true you would be dead. In this sense denialism discredits the very existence of the witnesses who as Lyotard and Agamben lucidly analyzed are strictly speaking survivors. This is a very clear propaganda operation which is based on questioning the witness as an essential figure in history and in the public sphere given that the witness not only belongs to the past but also testifies in the democratic sphere. for present and future generations. The case of Shlomo Venezia is particularly interesting in this sense as he had survived the Sonderkommando of Auschwitz and could testify to the existence of the gas chambers.