|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 20 2012 04:08 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:05 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 04:02 Azarkon wrote:On September 20 2012 03:52 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 03:47 Azarkon wrote:some guy with a very sensible post Other East Asian states followed suit by implementing their own forms of nationalism. In this they were simply responding to an existential crisis - become a nation-state, or die. Nation-states have a fundamental competitive advantage vis-a-vis older forms of political / social organization, and this is why virtually nationalism has swept the globe. We speak of a post-national future only with the knowledge that we are already at the stage of nations - and without knowing whether there is a way forward. they didn't implement any of it. it's not a top down directive, but an easily accessible mode of group representation playing into already existing group boundaries. it's not some grand strategy, nor should its advantageous in-group characteristics be any sort of justification. you've completely failed to address that guy's point, which is that you have the independent power of judgement apart from 'culture' or structure. You do not. Moral systems are fundamentally cultural, though there are features that are shared between cultures. It is only the general hegemony of Western culture in recent history that has caused people to believe that there is 'objective morality.' the question is not whether you are NOT that, but whether you can represent yourself. you've got the capacity to perform a moral evaluation, but also the capacity to represeent that fact and examine it with a different system. this is high level special tactics so it's ok if you don't understand. No, high level understanding requires the recognition that whatever personal judgment you render is fundamentally shaped by the culture and environment around you. Every one of us is able to produce a 'gut feeling' level judgment of a specific event. To know where that 'gut feeling' comes from is the difficult task.
you do realize you've essentially elaborated about the particular form of representation i'm talking about, right?
to see your own moral sentiments in a way that renders them undesirable, is already accomplishing the reflection. so do you now think you have the power of recognizing the wrongs of nationalism?
|
On September 20 2012 04:13 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:08 Azarkon wrote:On September 20 2012 04:05 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 04:02 Azarkon wrote:On September 20 2012 03:52 oneofthem wrote:On September 20 2012 03:47 Azarkon wrote:some guy with a very sensible post Other East Asian states followed suit by implementing their own forms of nationalism. In this they were simply responding to an existential crisis - become a nation-state, or die. Nation-states have a fundamental competitive advantage vis-a-vis older forms of political / social organization, and this is why virtually nationalism has swept the globe. We speak of a post-national future only with the knowledge that we are already at the stage of nations - and without knowing whether there is a way forward. they didn't implement any of it. it's not a top down directive, but an easily accessible mode of group representation playing into already existing group boundaries. it's not some grand strategy, nor should its advantageous in-group characteristics be any sort of justification. you've completely failed to address that guy's point, which is that you have the independent power of judgement apart from 'culture' or structure. You do not. Moral systems are fundamentally cultural, though there are features that are shared between cultures. It is only the general hegemony of Western culture in recent history that has caused people to believe that there is 'objective morality.' the question is not whether you are NOT that, but whether you can represent yourself. you've got the capacity to perform a moral evaluation, but also the capacity to represeent that fact and examine it with a different system. this is high level special tactics so it's ok if you don't understand. No, high level understanding requires the recognition that whatever personal judgment you render is fundamentally shaped by the culture and environment around you. Every one of us is able to produce a 'gut feeling' level judgment of a specific event. To know where that 'gut feeling' comes from is the difficult task. you do realize you've essentially elaborated about the particular form of representation i'm talking about, right? to see your own moral sentiments in a way that renders them undesirable, is already accomplishing the reflection. so do you now think you have the power of recognizing the wrongs of nationalism?
Simply substituting different moral systems for your own does not allow you to arrive at a final conclusion for which one is best, only which one best fits you.
Nationalism is the outgrowth of a historical process - there is nothing 'moral' about it. In fact, morality itself is of questionable value when the discussants abide by different moral systems.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
but one can make a moral judgement on it.
rape is the outgrowth of a functional process of male reproductive tactics, there is nothing 'moral' about it.
fascism is the outgrowth of a social process of power begetting more power, there is nothing 'moral' about it.
you are quite confused here, and the problem is, it's not easy to show you why. you are trying to run with a crass relativism of sorts, piggybacking on a descriptive narrative about nationalism. what is moral neutral is not the actions in question but your descriptive stance. it is your descriptive approach that is preventing a normative judgement here.
|
On September 20 2012 04:18 oneofthem wrote:
but one can make a moral judgement on it.
rape is the outgrowth of a functional process of male reproductive tactics, there is nothing 'moral' about it.
fascism is the outgrowth of a social process of power begetting more power, there is nothing 'moral' about it.
you are quite confused here, and the problem is, it's not easy to show you why.
I am quite lucid. The question is whether you even understand what I'm talking about. Your examples show that you do not.
There are cultures that abide by what Western cultures consider 'rape,' and fascism was widely supported before the Allies' victory in World War II. Tell me again why you think it's so easy to render a moral judgment?
|
On September 20 2012 04:18 oneofthem wrote:
but one can make a moral judgement on it.
rape is the outgrowth of a functional process of male reproductive tactics, there is nothing 'moral' about it.
fascism is the outgrowth of a social process of power begetting more power, there is nothing 'moral' about it.
you are quite confused here, and the problem is, it's not easy to show you why.
wait, what?
|
Reading some of your comments here is headache inducing.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
that normativity is a performative. pretty basic.
just because the analyst, in her mode of representation of a human activity, is not engaged in moralizing, does not mean the subject matter is inherently non-moral. nor does it mean those who would like to take a moral stance on said human activities are wrong or confused.
|
On September 20 2012 04:20 Xiphos wrote:
Reading some of your comments here is headache inducing.
who are you referring to?
|
On September 20 2012 04:21 Caihead wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:20 Xiphos wrote:
Reading some of your comments here is headache inducing. who are you referring to?
probably referring to "oneofthem"
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 20 2012 04:20 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:18 oneofthem wrote:
but one can make a moral judgement on it.
rape is the outgrowth of a functional process of male reproductive tactics, there is nothing 'moral' about it.
fascism is the outgrowth of a social process of power begetting more power, there is nothing 'moral' about it.
you are quite confused here, and the problem is, it's not easy to show you why. wait, what?
do you think the fact that rape is a pretty valid, even good, reproductive tactic precludes you from thinking it's wrong?
the analyst's ways of engagement with the facts is itself a choice. you can either activate your moral organs, so to speak, or you can choose not to. the point is, you have a choice in the matter and it is not settled by facts.
a hipster like azarkon thinks it's pretty cool to take some functionalist narrative and run with it. that is, however, high embarrassment.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On September 20 2012 04:21 oneofthem wrote:
that normativity is a performative. pretty basic.
just because the analyst, in her mode of representation of a human activity, is not engaged in moralizing, does not mean the subject matter is inherently non-moral. nor does it mean those who would like to take a moral stance on said human activities are wrong or confused.
No subject matter is inherently moral. You make a subject moral when you moralize about it. Reflecting on different moral systems does not grant you the ability to escape a 'gut feeling' reaction to morality. No one said that people who take moral stances on human activities are wrong / confused.
In short, what are you arguing about?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 20 2012 04:26 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:21 oneofthem wrote:
that normativity is a performative. pretty basic.
just because the analyst, in her mode of representation of a human activity, is not engaged in moralizing, does not mean the subject matter is inherently non-moral. nor does it mean those who would like to take a moral stance on said human activities are wrong or confused. No subject matter is inherently moral. You make a subject moral when you moralize about it. Reflecting on different moral systems does not grant you the ability to escape a 'gut feeling' reaction to morality. No one said that people who take moral stances on human activities are wrong / confused. In short, what are you arguing about?
getting you to realize it's ok to condemn nationalism, even though it's a human process etc etc?
i could go back and quote your posts and lead you through the logic you apparently deny now. but that'd be a waste of time.
|
On September 20 2012 04:28 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:26 Azarkon wrote:On September 20 2012 04:21 oneofthem wrote:
that normativity is a performative. pretty basic.
just because the analyst, in her mode of representation of a human activity, is not engaged in moralizing, does not mean the subject matter is inherently non-moral. nor does it mean those who would like to take a moral stance on said human activities are wrong or confused. No subject matter is inherently moral. You make a subject moral when you moralize about it. Reflecting on different moral systems does not grant you the ability to escape a 'gut feeling' reaction to morality. No one said that people who take moral stances on human activities are wrong / confused. In short, what are you arguing about? getting you to realize it's ok to condemn nationalism, even though it's a human process etc etc?
Did I ever say it was not okay to condemn nationalism? Your moral judgment is your own. I withhold the right to criticize it, to ridicule it, and to not accept it. But I've never withheld your right to render it.
This is why I said that you don't even understand what I'm talking about.
i could go back and quote your posts and lead you through the logic you apparently deny now. but that'd be a waste of time.
It'd spare you the embarrassment of being completely wrong / trollish, so I suggest you do it.
|
Azarkon, S.Hands, and Caihead: by now you guys should have realized the massive trolling scheme that you got yourselves caught into by oneofthem.
If not, then I don`t know what to say.
|
On September 20 2012 04:25 oneofthem wrote:
do you think the fact that rape is a pretty valid, even good, reproductive tactic precludes you from thinking it's wrong?
I'm confused here. What are you trying to say?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
well okay, carry on with your analysis of how nationalism is pretty good because it's intrinsic to the human experience.
On September 20 2012 04:35 Shady Sands wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:25 oneofthem wrote:
do you think the fact that rape is a pretty valid, even good, reproductive tactic precludes you from thinking it's wrong?
I'm confused here. What are you trying to say?
i don't see how you can be confused. the evolutionary advantages of rape does not confer it moral justification. replace rape with nationalism.
btw, that the present society is pretty well regulated when it comes to rape would also mean it is possible to do without nationalism/tribalisms.
this is again a straightforward analogy.
|
On September 20 2012 04:32 Xiphos wrote:
Azarkon, S.Hands, and Caihead: by now you guys should have realized the massive trolling scheme that you got yourselves caught into by oneofthem.
If not, then I don`t know what to say.
I already said I was wasting my time so yea.
|
On September 20 2012 04:36 oneofthem wrote:
well okay, carry on with your analysis of how nationalism is pretty good because it's intrinsic to the human experience.
Just because you have to bring morality into everything does not require that I do it. No subject matter is inherently moral, remember? I never made a moral judgment about nationalism except that I disagree with the naive assertion that it is 'inherently evil.'
|
On September 20 2012 04:36 oneofthem wrote:well okay, carry on with your analysis of how nationalism is pretty good because it's intrinsic to the human experience. Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:35 Shady Sands wrote:On September 20 2012 04:25 oneofthem wrote:
do you think the fact that rape is a pretty valid, even good, reproductive tactic precludes you from thinking it's wrong?
I'm confused here. What are you trying to say? i don't see how you can be confused. the evolutionary advantages of rape does not confer it moral justification. replace rape with nationalism. btw, that the present society is pretty well regulated when it comes to rape would also mean it is possible to do without nationalism/tribalisms. this is again a straightforward analogy.
Yes or no.
Is rape bad?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 20 2012 04:38 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 04:36 oneofthem wrote:
well okay, carry on with your analysis of how nationalism is pretty good because it's intrinsic to the human experience. Just because you have to bring morality into everything does not require that I do it. No subject matter is inherently moral, remember? I never made a moral judgment about nationalism except that I disagree with the naive assertion that it is 'inherently evil.'
that inherently evil statement is not a demand for everyone to agree that it is evil. if you don't think it's evil, that guy would just say you are wrong. "inherent evil" is just that guy's particular moral assessment, and as he is not speaking in philosopher speak, he is not using inherent in a metaethical way. he just means it's really really bad.
you are now in nesting problem territory though.
always [nationalism bad] is different from [nationalism always bad]. the former is a metaethical claim that the guy wasn't making. the latter is what he is actually saying. the former is a description of moralizing, the latter is moralizing. they are run by independent mental routines even though the words may be the same.
again, special tactics maybe. but this bit should be in intro ethics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
