|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Norway28736 Posts
On December 12 2017 00:13 Kickboxer wrote:
A formally secular culture is always superior to a formally religious one (I'm not even an atheist, it's just that separation of church and state is core to personal freedom and things like not having your genitals mutilated as a toddler).
A formally capitalist culture is, as history would suggest, always superior to a formally communist culture. Just ask anyone who actually lived under communism. Thought police and economic oppression aren't nice.
A culture with clear ideals and values is always superior to a relativist or postmodernist culture, because having ideals and values gives you direction in life and cancels out existential dread.
I could list many more examples. These things aren't relative, because it's not where you'd want to exist and you know it. The rest is semantics and virtue signalling.
There's a very clear reason why nearly the entire planet tries to move either to USA or Canada, or to Europe, or to South Korea and Japan, and only completely insane people are moving to places like Pakistan or Chechnya.
Your first two points seem to contradict each other? Communist countries have generally been rather secular, more so than their capitalistic counterparts. And clear ideals and values always superior to a relativist or postmodernist culture? Norway/scandinavia/western europe/canada are about the most 'relativist and postmodernist' countries in the world (countries where cultural relativism and postmodernism have the biggest intellectual following and permeation through education levels. )
If you could list more examples I'd be very interested because so far all I'm seeing from your absolutist examples are that they contradict each other or don't match up with the societies you list wanting to live in (you cite Europe..)
Like 'clear ideas and values', what are you even talking about here?
--
For the bigger discussion, I don't fully identify as a 'cultural relativist', most certainly not in the sense how most people who oppose the term use it. I think Norway's 'culture' in 1970 was clearly 'better', as in, providing more happiness and prosperity for its inhabitants, than Norway's culture in 1600 was. And if culture can improve over time, then it can also differ based on location. There are elements to enlightenment thought that have influenced western thought and societal development in a positive way.
However, that does not mean that trying to quantify cultures of various countries and pitting them up against each other is a fruitful, or even possible, endeavor. Even if I acknowledge that I myself certainly prefer living in Norway in 2017 over virtually any other country from any other timeline of earth, and even if I acknowledge that I think most people who have ever lived would live happier lives being born and raised in Norway 2017 than whatever place in whatever timeline they were born in (a claim I am not certain about, but I'll agree with it for the purpose of discourse), this does not mean all of this relates to the superiority of 'Norwegian culture'. What more is, attempting to separate Norwegian culture from other cultures that have influenced Norwegian culture is even more impossible. Even if you want to go back to like, ancient Greece as a sort of, ground zero for what has eventually become some 'european thought-capital', then it's hard to really separate that from Egyptian and middle eastern influences (even if these sources have to a significantly lesser degree been maintained).
If you want to include 'Christian Values' into the equation (and normally, it's my impression that people who are anti-cultural relativists tend to idealize a combination of influences of christian values and secularism), then that becomes even more iffy; as societies we have rejected the radical ideas of Jesus. We like the golden/silver rule (existed before him), but nobody influential in the west advocates his extreme form of pacifism (turn the other cheek), or his anti-capitalism.
Trying to pretend that 'everything is always equally good for everyone everywhere', that's dumb. I'm glad we've stopped performing human sacrifice, I'm glad the nazis lost, I'm glad I didn't have to undergo some rite of passage involving swallowing the semen of older men, I'm glad I'm not circumcised. But I feel it's similarly dangerous, and stupid, to try to proclaim that you have the objective answers and that 'your culture' is 'best'. Some degree of cultural relativism, and rejection of the notion that 'our culture has clear values that must be adhered to', are requirements for the continued positive growth and evolution of any culture you are part of. I mentioned Norway's culture in 1970 as superior to Norway's culture in 1600. But Norway in 1970 was still criminalizing homosexuality. Evolving away from that did not happen in a vacuum - and this evolution, as was civil rights' movement, woman's suffrage, etc, were combated by 'cultural conservatives'.
Rejecting other cultures as possibly positive influences on your own culture tends to come in the form of rejecting everything about the culture, even the aspects that could constitute an improvement. (And here it's important to note that I am not talking about objective improvement, but I still consider it positive if more people subjectively experience it as one). Like, subjectively, I think the way Norwegians 'trust' in each other is absolutely amazing. If I go to the store and I have a bag of groceries from another store, I just leave it at the entrance because I know nobody is going to take it. I have eastern european friends who have chided me for this, saying that I deserve to lose my stuff if I don't care to protect it. My experience is that I vastly prefer living in a society where I can do this, over a country where I can't leave a football on the porch overnight because people will assume it's fine if they take it seeing as how it wasn't locked inside.
But equally subjectively I don't like how cold we are when dealing with strangers. I like how Africans greet me and smile towards me when I walk past them, even if I've never met them before. I'd like Norwegians to be friendlier towards strangers, and I see that other cultures are, from my perspective, clearly superior to Norwegian culture in this regard. Then there's food, arts and music - the most clear cut examples of 'culture'. In all of these three categories, Norway, until it was exposed to other cultures through the mechanisms of globalization, was at the far bottom of the barrel.
Basically I think that trying to see this from the point of either extreme (a culture can be reduced to its individual cultural values which can then be quantified objectively and measured against one other, or there are no differences between any culture in terms of how good they are for its inhabitants) are both highly flawed approaches.
|
Secular means you can opt out of the state's official religion without getting oppressed for it. The US is definitely secular in that regard and Islamic countries are definitely not.
Same goes for the capitalism example. You can opt out of capitalism in America and live on the street. Opting out of Marxism in a communist state gets you shot (or maybe just buried alive, since bullets are expensive in a planned economy).
|
On December 12 2017 01:21 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2017 01:11 Plansix wrote:On December 12 2017 01:04 kollin wrote:On December 12 2017 00:59 Schmobutzen wrote:
Again, anybody who says that they are cultural relativists must deal with the fact that they can't criticise Nazis killing Jews.
That's moral relativism, please try and understand what you're talking about before you talk about it. Morals are a result of culture... I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but this statement in and of itself is highly debatable. Regardless of that, you still don't understand cultural relativism if this is your position.
It isn’t even debatable. Morality and culture cannot be divorced from each other. They develop and change together.
|
On December 12 2017 01:29 Kickboxer wrote:
Secular means you can opt out of the state's official religion without getting oppressed for it. The US is definitely secular in that regard and Islamic countries are definitely not.
Same goes for the capitalism example. You can opt out of capitalism in America and live on the street. Opting out of Marxism in a communist state gets you shot (or maybe just buried alive, since bullets are expensive in a planned economy).
There are secular majority Islamic nations. What planet do you live on?
|
On December 12 2017 01:27 Uldridge wrote:
No, kollin, I don't think it really is that debatable. Almost all people are determined by their social environment, aka, their immediate cultural surroundings.
It's why Nazi Germany was able to kill so many people despite knowing killing is bad. Unless if you're a psychopath or something like that, you'll know that, based on what the rules are around you, to follow those rules and you'll feel good when you follow those rules and you'll feel bad when you disregard or go against the rules.
The idea that morality is objective is debatable haha, there has literally been thousands of years of debate preceding the 20th century that provide evidence for that. I am not coming down on either side of the argument, but it is astoundingly arrogant to assume that morality is so open and shut
Cultural relativism, based upon my understanding of it, argues that the standard by which we judge, for example, the average person in Nazi Germany differs from how we should judge the average person in 21st century Belgium. I think we will both agree that the 'right' thing to do is not ethnically cleanse people - but should you choose to carry out an ethnic cleansing, my understanding of the values and beliefs that led you to do so would lead me to a different conclusion when compared to the values and beliefs of someone in Nazi Germany that was implicated. I can still morally condemn both while coming to different conclusions about them.
|
On December 12 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2017 01:21 kollin wrote:On December 12 2017 01:11 Plansix wrote:On December 12 2017 01:04 kollin wrote:On December 12 2017 00:59 Schmobutzen wrote:
Again, anybody who says that they are cultural relativists must deal with the fact that they can't criticise Nazis killing Jews.
That's moral relativism, please try and understand what you're talking about before you talk about it. Morals are a result of culture... I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but this statement in and of itself is highly debatable. Regardless of that, you still don't understand cultural relativism if this is your position. It isn’t even debatable. Morality and culture cannot be divorced from each other. They develop and change together.
So you think there is no debate surrounding the fact that there is objective morality? Like, not that you don't agree with the position that there might be, but you actually think it's beyond debate??
|
Secular Islamic nations? What? The Quran specifically dictates apostates are to be murdered. Apart from Turkey, which is rapidly going to shit, do you have any specific examples?
|
On December 12 2017 01:34 Kickboxer wrote:
Secular Islamic nations? What? The Quran specifically dictates apostates are to be murdered. Apart from Turkey, which is rapidly going to shit, do you have any specific examples?
Malaysia, Indonesia, I think a bunch of the ex-Soviet states are too, Bangladesh, I'm sure there are others this is just the top of my head. The Bible also rails against killing non-believers too, but that's ok cos it's the Bible
|
Morality isn't objective, but it's based on what your culture perceives to be moral at that time. How would that make it objective?
That's because their value system is completely different based on the "state" their cultures are in. I don't really see what you're arguing here though. Of course ethnic cleansing isn't all the same. Also, you're an outsider condemning ethnic cleansing. Let's see you condemning ehtnic cleansing when you're a Nazi officer yourself.
|
Plansix, no. There are constants that have nothing to do with culture, like mourning or death rituals or expressing feelings and a lot of other things, that give rise to nearly universal claims about good or bad. There are fringe cases, but they are to be accepted.
|
On December 12 2017 01:38 Uldridge wrote:
Morality isn't objective, but it's based on what your culture perceives to be moral at that time. How would that make it objective?
That's because their value system is completely different based on the "state" their cultures are in. I don't really see what you're arguing here though. Of course ethnic cleansing isn't all the same. Also, you're an outsider condemning ethnic cleansing. Let's see you condemning ehtnic cleansing when you're a Nazi officer yourself.
I'm arguing that cultural relativism is a tool which we can use to understand other cultures.
|
Norway28736 Posts
On December 12 2017 01:29 Kickboxer wrote:
Secular means you can opt out of the state's official religion without getting oppressed for it. The US is definitely secular in that regard and Islamic countries are definitely not.
Same goes for the capitalism example. You can opt out of capitalism in America and live on the street. Opting out of Marxism in a communist state gets you shot (or maybe just buried alive, since bullets are expensive in a planned economy).
Norway didn't separate church and state until 2012. Until this point, half the members of any government had to be members of the state church. You can easily find countries that are significantly more explicitly secular than Norway 2012 that were also significantly worse countries to live in.
The fact is that you have several points that I agree with. Secular countries are generally preferable to non-secular countries. More capitalist-oriented countries have performed vastly better from a 'provide decent living conditions for the population' than totalitarian communist regimes have. The problem is that the way you present your statements as absolutes, entirely devoid of nuance, turns the overall statements you make into nonsense, ones where the logical fallacies and self-contradictions are immediately obvious. I can't help but feel like your views on culture are flawed in much the same way. You don't have to choose between everything is always completely relative or nothing is ever relative at all, and you'd really benefit from nuancing your statements and positions.
|
On December 12 2017 01:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Your first two points seem to contradict each other? Communist countries have generally been rather secular, more so than their capitalistic counterparts. And clear ideals and values always superior to a relativist or postmodernist culture? Norway/scandinavia/western europe/canada are about the most 'relativist and postmodernist' countries in the world (countries where cultural relativism and postmodernism have the biggest intellectual following and permeation through education levels. )
As I said, I consider Marxist doctrine a religion. You either accept it or you are actively persecuted, and that's how I would define "religion" in fact. A system imposed upon you at birth that allows no questioning. The existence of a deity is here besides the point.
As for your second assertion, this is precisely why we are having this discussion. In the minds of myself and many people like me, the places you've listed have had their zenith a couple decades ago or so and are now being systematically eroded and undermined by concepts like cultural relativism, gender theory, third wave feminism, accommodation of Islam (the worst offender, imho), vilification of healthy traditional masculinity and femininity etc. I know you disagree with me on all these, but it's still a position you should attempt to understand.
I attempt to understand the worldview of a progressive, I just think it makes the fatal mistake of completely ignoring the pragmatic realities of human psychology and is in its essence utopian in character which strikes me as a broken position.
|
On December 12 2017 01:33 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:On December 12 2017 01:21 kollin wrote:On December 12 2017 01:11 Plansix wrote:On December 12 2017 01:04 kollin wrote:On December 12 2017 00:59 Schmobutzen wrote:
Again, anybody who says that they are cultural relativists must deal with the fact that they can't criticise Nazis killing Jews.
That's moral relativism, please try and understand what you're talking about before you talk about it. Morals are a result of culture... I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but this statement in and of itself is highly debatable. Regardless of that, you still don't understand cultural relativism if this is your position. It isn’t even debatable. Morality and culture cannot be divorced from each other. They develop and change together. So you think there is no debate surrounding the fact that there is objective morality? Like, not that you don't agree with the position that there might be, but you actually think it's beyond debate??
I think the debate is both worthy of discussion and has merit, but only if it takes into account how stunningly arrogant the concept of objective morality is.
|
On December 12 2017 01:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2017 01:33 kollin wrote:On December 12 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:On December 12 2017 01:21 kollin wrote:On December 12 2017 01:11 Plansix wrote:On December 12 2017 01:04 kollin wrote:On December 12 2017 00:59 Schmobutzen wrote:
Again, anybody who says that they are cultural relativists must deal with the fact that they can't criticise Nazis killing Jews.
That's moral relativism, please try and understand what you're talking about before you talk about it. Morals are a result of culture... I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but this statement in and of itself is highly debatable. Regardless of that, you still don't understand cultural relativism if this is your position. It isn’t even debatable. Morality and culture cannot be divorced from each other. They develop and change together. So you think there is no debate surrounding the fact that there is objective morality? Like, not that you don't agree with the position that there might be, but you actually think it's beyond debate?? I think the debate is both worthy of discussion and has merit, but only if it takes into account how stunningly arrogant the concept of objective morality is.
Yes, of course that would be an argument that could be made haha. I think it's ridiculous to just dismiss the debate entirely, as you and others have done, and shows an arrogance in the complete reverse direction.
|
But how is that ever going to happen when you're determined by your own culture? When you grow up to know killing a certain demographic is good, you won't see an issue with a country cleansing that demographic, but you'll have an issue with a nations preserving that demographic. Of course this depends on your personal traits again, but determinism still has large impact on how you'll develop as a person.
You need a thorough pallet of different cultures before cultural relativism becomes possible. You literally need to know what the store has to offer and you had to have tried the products before you can say you dislike the products.
This a pro-multiculturalism argument.
|
It's quite easy to argue for cultural relativism. The opposite is ethnocentrism and that doesn't quite make sense.
Moral relativism can mean a few different things in the minds of different people. Some of them I would be against. I certainly believe that my morality as a leftwinger is preferable and more logical (superior?) to the morality of a conservative religious person who hates gays for moral reasons, for starters.
|
On December 12 2017 01:42 Liquid`Drone wrote:
The problem is that the way you present your statements as absolutes, entirely devoid of nuance, turns the overall statements you make into nonsense, ones where the logical fallacies and self-contradictions are immediately obvious. I can't help but feel like your views on culture are flawed in much the same way. You don't have to choose between everything is always completely relative or nothing is ever relative at all, and you'd really benefit from nuancing your statements and positions.
This is true, yes. But when arguing on a forum I find it sensible to make clear and concise points and that requires some unfortunate hardcore reduction. Certainly nothing in life is entirely black-and-white, naturally things are relative to some degree in all sorts of ways, but ain't nobody got time to discuss nuances with people you fundamentally disagree with. I'm pretty sure I have a similar perspective on your beliefs - as in understanding clearly that there are some correct and practical parts of knowledge to extract from them going forward. That's why I'm even here.
|
Norway28736 Posts
On December 12 2017 01:44 Kickboxer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2017 01:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Your first two points seem to contradict each other? Communist countries have generally been rather secular, more so than their capitalistic counterparts. And clear ideals and values always superior to a relativist or postmodernist culture? Norway/scandinavia/western europe/canada are about the most 'relativist and postmodernist' countries in the world (countries where cultural relativism and postmodernism have the biggest intellectual following and permeation through education levels. ) As I said, I consider Marxist doctrine a religion. You either accept it or you are actively persecuted, and that's how I would define "religion" in fact. A system imposed upon you at birth that allows no questioning. The existence of a deity is here besides the point. As for your second assertion, this is precisely why we are having this discussion. In the minds of myself and many people like me, the places you've listed have had their zenith a couple decades ago or so and are now being systematically eroded and undermined by concepts like cultural relativism, gender theory, third wave feminism, accommodation of Islam (the worst offender, imho), vilification of healthy traditional masculinity and femininity etc. I know you disagree with me on all these, but it's still a position you should attempt to understand. I attempt to understand the worldview of a progressive, I just think it makes the fatal mistake of completely ignoring the pragmatic realities of human psychology and is in its essence utopian in character which strikes me as a broken position.
If you choose to define religion as 'something you accept or that actively persecutes you', that seems like an unbelievably ironic 'relativist' approach towards 'definitions of words'. That's just not what religion is, and it doesn't become more like that just because you need this definition for your statements to be logically consistent. It's much easier for you to simply agree that your initial statement was too absolute in its claim than it is for you to defend the initial statement.
For the second part, from my perspective, Norway is a vastly superior society in 2017 compared to how it was in 1970. It also has more cultural relativism, acceptance for modern gender theory, accommodation of Islam, and acceptance of different ways of 'being a man'. My own experiences tell me that at the very least, it's possible for a society to continue progressing while adopting these values. It's fair if you don't want to attribute any of the societal improvement Norway has underwent during this period to the adoption of some of these values, I'd disagree with you, but that's fair enough. However attempting to portray the adoption of these values as 'societally disastrous' or whatnot, that seems 'empirically wrong' based on what so far is observable.
As for the last part about you trying to understand the worldview of a progressive, I appreciate that and it's why I respond to you in depth. I think human psychology is extremely malleable, and if you disagree with that, that's fair enough.
|
On December 12 2017 01:46 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2017 01:44 Plansix wrote:On December 12 2017 01:33 kollin wrote:On December 12 2017 01:29 Plansix wrote:On December 12 2017 01:21 kollin wrote:On December 12 2017 01:11 Plansix wrote:On December 12 2017 01:04 kollin wrote:On December 12 2017 00:59 Schmobutzen wrote:
Again, anybody who says that they are cultural relativists must deal with the fact that they can't criticise Nazis killing Jews.
That's moral relativism, please try and understand what you're talking about before you talk about it. Morals are a result of culture... I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but this statement in and of itself is highly debatable. Regardless of that, you still don't understand cultural relativism if this is your position. It isn’t even debatable. Morality and culture cannot be divorced from each other. They develop and change together. So you think there is no debate surrounding the fact that there is objective morality? Like, not that you don't agree with the position that there might be, but you actually think it's beyond debate?? I think the debate is both worthy of discussion and has merit, but only if it takes into account how stunningly arrogant the concept of objective morality is. Yes, of course that would be an argument that could be made haha. I think it's ridiculous to just dismiss the debate entirely, as you and others have done, and shows an arrogance in the complete reverse direction.
I would dismiss it in the context of this discussion and modern political debate. Specifically because of the word “objective” which implies some level of unbiased view of morality and culture. We can’t have that debate so close to politics and not run into negatives of hyper nationalism and cultural superiority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
