EPTEuropean Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 91
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
warding
Portugal2394 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
things may be different for countries already facing other problems as youve said. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5277 Posts
On April 06 2015 22:59 MoltkeWarding wrote: Herder's notion of culture was in a way universal and idealistic, it applied to bushmen as well as to Germans, but German idealism of his generation also believed in an innate tendency towards self-perfection in all of settled creation, that the self-willed realisation of a better self was both the justification for, and the author of moral freedom. Moral freedom meant to the early apostles of culture precisely that: the ability and duty of each man, and each Volk, to follow a particular destiny. What made the Volk an organic reality was his psychological connection to others of his tribe; language being essential to the formation of consciousness, common language being the cause of a common consciousness. A Volk then was something different from the civic understanding of nationhood, it was a community incubated by the same mental and spiritual womb, hence the particularist connotation of the word "culture." The elevation of "culture" to an intellectual status adjacent and rival to older ideals of "civilisation" gave enormous benefits to the mind of the 19th century. Among the most valuable, it gave the men of the 19th century a more mature sense of the importance of history. It shifted men's minds away from deductions of right reason, and broadened our imaginations and experiences, expanded our knowledge of the possible, while reinforcing our loyalty to the accidents of existence. The cult of "Culture" has its flaws and weaknesses, and like all ideas, it can coarsen into a straitjacket of idealised rigidity and systematised thinking. Culture can very easily enslave as well as liberate, but its germs are now more necessary than ever. In my semi-literate generation, where culture has become that immediately-accessible thing rather than a difficult personal ambition, it is well to say that we have to recultivate how we think about culture. i appreciate you educating me in matters and nuances of culture but if the first part of you post was an extension to oneofthem's, then i just like to say the the only reason people started talking about a german culture was because the poster who was being replied to, had Germany as the country next to his name. we could just as well been talking now about french, italian or ... polish culture. i still can't see why I should've been the one to define what german culture means(what i mean by it) when it was obviously chosen as topic, by coincidence. google querie german+culture, it was that generic. as for the later,+ Show Spoiler + i instinctively see anyone who tries to deconstruct a preexisting concept just because, as an enemy because what ends up happening is that he will (try to)use the same concept later, but reconstruct it under a different banner. say one kills nationalism just so he could later replace it with corporatism(self evident to me); so, instead of dying/killing for your nation/country/land you'll do it for a corporation. how is that any different?. it's the same using or redirecting of human nature to a different goal/purpose/need/agenda. that might look like a tin foil-ish worthy argument but it's what happens. take culture now, it's obviously organic and ever changing but its new nuances always start evolving locally then, based on its merits(i assume), it expands (you can't redefine culture as something only universally valuable then expect it to make sense to people everywhere). on the same point, to tear down nationalism, one has to deconstruct then redefine or reroute that localized culture, that myth!. it ends up being very demotivational so people start behaving unexpectedly = contrary to statistics. if belongingness is not fixed/repaired, people will keep getting depressed and not multiply as per expected quota. qed, the innerworkings of someone who can never see black/blue or white/gold. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Acceptance of real teleological diversity means acceptance of relativism. Accepting that what is relative is the self rather than the absolute is one solution, but that would require the deconstructionist to admit that he is something other than an omniscient being with universal awareness. In the secular, democratic mind, this would be an unpardonable act of self-abasement. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deconstruction | ||
|
Taguchi
Greece1575 Posts
| ||
|
Shiragaku
Hong Kong4308 Posts
On April 07 2015 05:28 Nyxisto wrote: As much fun as it is to decipher your posts, are you trying to tell us that we should go back to 19th century nationalism and bash each others heads in based on cultural and national differences because universal human rights and democracy are just too boring? The lack of granduer, inspiration and promotion of konformismus and nihilism makes liberal democracy rather insufferable for many people which probably explains why so many people from Europe and America have gone to Ukraine and the Middle East to fight. Perhaps this kind of mindset can best be summed up by one of the participants in the Walther Rathneau assassination who said, "I fight to give the people a destiny but not to give them happiness." | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
puerk
Germany855 Posts
On April 07 2015 03:16 xM(Z wrote: i appreciate you educating me in matters and nuances of culture but if the first part of you post was an extension to oneofthem's, then i just like to say the the only reason people started talking about a german culture was because the poster who was being replied to, had Germany as the country next to his name. we could just as well been talking now about french, italian or ... polish culture. i still can't see why I should've been the one to define what german culture means(what i mean by it) when it was obviously chosen as topic, by coincidence. google querie german+culture, it was that generic. as for the later,+ Show Spoiler + i instinctively see anyone who tries to deconstruct a preexisting concept just because, as an enemy because what ends up happening is that he will (try to)use the same concept later, but reconstruct it under a different banner. say one kills nationalism just so he could later replace it with corporatism(self evident to me); so, instead of dying/killing for your nation/country/land you'll do it for a corporation. how is that any different?. it's the same using or redirecting of human nature to a different goal/purpose/need/agenda. that might look like a tin foil-ish worthy argument but it's what happens. take culture now, it's obviously organic and ever changing but its new nuances always start evolving locally then, based on its merits(i assume), it expands (you can't redefine culture as something only universally valuable then expect it to make sense to people everywhere). on the same point, to tear down nationalism, one has to deconstruct then redefine or reroute that localized culture, that myth!. it ends up being very demotivational so people start behaving unexpectedly = contrary to statistics. if belongingness is not fixed/repaired, people will keep getting depressed and not multiply as per expected quota. qed, the innerworkings of someone who can never see black/blue or white/gold. The issue is: you as an obvious non-expert on germany, claim there is "german culture", after a german poster proclaimed there is none. To make it clear to you: there is "culture in germany", but not "german culture". To defend "german culture" would mean to have a consistent image of what it is what you want to preserve. You yourself acknowledged that culture changes. So that preservation image is automatically imperfect. Furthermore every person acting in germany is part of "culture in germany", but to select from "culture in germany" to "german culture" is a subjective non objectiviable process, where your understanding of culture breaks down. Is "Döner" german culture? Is "Judaism" german culture? Is "Islam" german culture? they all are definitly "culture in germany" and your nationalistic missjudgment is to decide which is ethnically pure and which is not. Edit: sorry i confused you with someone else, you were the one speaking out against racism directed at roma, not purpetrating it yourself | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On April 07 2015 05:25 oneofthem wrote: well i for one don't know what deconstruction is Derrida's philosophy. Brilliant btw. Sadly most people who talk about deconstruction never read anything from Derrida, and use the word "deconstruction" to refer to a vague ideology that would deny the "existence" of anything through the analysis of language. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5277 Posts
On April 07 2015 06:32 puerk wrote: The issue is: you as an obvious non-expert on germany, claim there is "german culture", after a german poster proclaimed there is none. To make it clear to you: there is "culture in germany", but not "german culture". To defend "german culture" would mean to have a consistent image of what it is what you want to preserve. You yourself acknowledged that culture changes. So that preservation image is automatically imperfect. Furthermore every person acting in germany is part of "culture in germany", but to select from "culture in germany" to "german culture" is a subjective non objectiviable process, where your understanding of culture breaks down. Is "Döner" german culture? Is "Judaism" german culture? Is "Islam" german culture? they all are definitly "culture in germany" and your nationalistic missjudgment is to decide which is ethnically pure and which is not. Edit: sorry i confused you with someone else, you were the one speaking out against racism directed at roma, not purpetrating it yourself from this post, which you quoted, http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/471672-european-politico-economics-qa-mega-thread?page=89#1780 i used this context It wouldn't take more than a few generations before German culture becomes more and more displaced in your own country. and just went along with that phrasing. i can't say i claimed anything there. i still don't get this distinction To make it clear to you: there is "culture in germany", but not "german culture". from a pure theoretical/technical pov, it makes sense, it's valid, but from a practical pov it makes no sense because:- the culture in Germany is made by the germans and if it's made by the germans, why can't it be called german culture?, it hurts someone's feelings?. even if you factor in the lack of a temporal continuity, it still doesn't makes sense why it's offensive to call it german culture. plus, you can, at any time, choose 2 points of the culture in Germany and objectively compare them; or compare 2 points from different cultures, at different times. also, can't tell if your edit is sarcasm. it seems to be my culture. On April 07 2015 05:28 Nyxisto wrote: As much fun as it is to decipher your posts, are you trying to tell us that we should go back to 19th century nationalism and bash each others heads in based on cultural and national differences because universal human rights and democracy are just too boring? there's another option there which many people don't even take into account/don't believe it's possible to achieve. we, humans, strive/fight/militate to preserve diversification/diversity in pretty much everything else besides people. we even portray the future human as someone with a mix of everything in him - throw an asian, african-american, caucasian, plus some natives in a blender and there you have it!, the ideal of tomorrow. how fucked up is that?. that's the very opposite of diversity, it's not consistent with the logic we project outwards, thus bound to fail. as such, i see no reason as to why would a diversity in humans, in human ideals, ideas, concepts and so on, work against humanity as a whole. about my other ramblings: in a nutshell, they are about the reactionary mentality of a slave, of someone put in the position of a slave with no choice in the matter. it's somewhat of a natural evolution of <...> and borderlines Nietzsche's master and slave moralities. i'll write few words about those tomorrow; or i don't know, maybe in a different topic. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On April 07 2015 05:28 Nyxisto wrote: As much fun as it is to decipher your posts, are you trying to tell us that we should go back to 19th century nationalism and bash each others heads in based on cultural and national differences because universal human rights and democracy are just too boring? I am lost by your premise before I am able to reach your question. The European wars of the 19th century were wars of national unification/independence. To the early nationalists, the right of a people to live in a Volksstaat was both a natural right and a democratic cause. To say that these publicly-professed ideas are boring is certainly true, but the real debasing thing is where people come into their partisanship without having ever refined their beliefs through real intellectual struggle. Without this internal and external struggle, these beliefs are not beliefs at all, and people who profess them have neither a real idea nor even a freely-created self to offer the world. That was the great irony of the emancipation generation exposed by the "Tendenzwende;" the youths who wished to liberate the world could not even liberate themselves. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
There's nothing natural in the creation of the state, and the unification of "one" people under "one" legitimate power appeared after years of domination and ethnical cleansing. The worker class most of the time suffered from the desire of a dominant few to build a nation and its institutions, and, orwellian by nature, they didn't care for the most part. The people - united - only became the heart and soul of the idea of "nation" in crisis (the revolution for France). But I'm not really sure why we're talking about that anyway. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On April 07 2015 09:59 WhiteDog wrote: So much simplification in your train of thought Moltke tho... The idea that nationalists only had democratic and gentle desire for "unification/independence" is really simplist. And the idea that it was "natural" is even more questionable. There's nothing natural in the creation of the state, and the unification of "one" people under "one" legitimate power appeared after years of domination and ethnical cleansing. The worker class most of the time suffered from the desire of a dominant few to build a nation and its institutions, and, orwellian by nature, they didn't care for the most part. The people - united - only became the heart and soul of the idea of "nation" in crisis (the revolution for France). But I'm not really sure why we're talking about that anyway. When did 19th century German (or Italian/Hungarian/other) nationalists ethnically “cleanse” anyone? Ethnic cleansing only occurred in this context in the Balkan conflicts, and even they were not really politically orchestrated campaigns, but spontaneous massacres of civilians. Hungary did not cleanse its minorities, but attempted to assimilate them with remarkable success. Germany was comfortable with Polish, Danish and French cultural autonomy so long as they maintained their civic loyalty. Italy did not have many non-Italian minorities. The idea that legitimate power was aligned to dynastic domination of the nationalist agenda is insupportable; German nationalism was inherently anti-legitimist (ditto for Italy and Hungary) as a whole. During the revolution of ’48, but even earlier, among the Hegelians, the King of Prussia was prematurely assigned the role of unifying Germany by the liberal intelligentsia. The German Empire was created out of a compromise between Bismarck and the majority of the Liberal Party when he offered them not only a national federal state, but universal male suffrage. The early opposition to the governing coalition came from the Left Liberals, Old Conservatives and Catholics. German working class was demographically insignificant until the 1880s, and by the end of that decade they acquired the best-organised working-class political organisation in the world. They acquired first national pension and health insurance schemes voluntarily conceded by the federal government and the most extensive labour and wage regulations. Nor could the relationship between the German worker and industry be characterised as “Orwellian.” Large corporations like Krupp pioneered a new type of conscientious paternalism towards its employees; providing them with housing and social services, and being a “Kruppanier” was a boast of social distinction among the working classes. The paternalism of the German industries was intrusive, and often regulated the personal and social lives of its employees, but Orwellian it was not. Furthermore, with the social development of the German working class, came their imitation of bourgeois nationalism. The SPD had already abandoned Marxist revolution under Lassalle, but by the outbreak of the First World War, it had become an effective nationalist party too. The exceptional degree of German national cohesion by 1914 is demonstrated by the performance of the German armies on the battlefield, where the working class served as the backbone of a well-disciplined, well-educated and technically skilled machinery, in contrast to a less cohesive institution, say in the Italian army where the majority of recruits were illiterate peasants with no national consciousness. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11340 Posts
On April 07 2015 08:33 xM(Z wrote: from this post, which you quoted, http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/general/471672-european-politico-economics-qa-mega-thread?page=89#1780 i used this context and just went along with that phrasing. i can't say i claimed anything there. i still don't get this distinction from a pure theoretical/technical pov, it makes sense, it's valid, but from a practical pov it makes no sense because:- the culture in Germany is made by the germans and if it's made by the germans, why can't it be called german culture?, it hurts someone's feelings?. even if you factor in the lack of a temporal continuity, it still doesn't makes sense why it's offensive to call it german culture. plus, you can, at any time, choose 2 points of the culture in Germany and objectively compare them; or compare 2 points from different cultures, at different times. also, can't tell if your edit is sarcasm. it seems to be my culture. there's another option there which many people don't even take into account/don't believe it's possible to achieve. we, humans, strive/fight/militate to preserve diversification/diversity in pretty much everything else besides people. we even portray the future human as someone with a mix of everything in him - throw an asian, african-american, caucasian, plus some natives in a blender and there you have it!, the ideal of tomorrow. how fucked up is that?. that's the very opposite of diversity, it's not consistent with the logic we project outwards, thus bound to fail. as such, i see no reason as to why would a diversity in humans, in human ideals, ideas, concepts and so on, work against humanity as a whole. about my other ramblings: in a nutshell, they are about the reactionary mentality of a slave, of someone put in the position of a slave with no choice in the matter. it's somewhat of a natural evolution of <...> and borderlines Nietzsche's master and slave moralities. i'll write few words about those tomorrow; or i don't know, maybe in a different topic. The problem here is that the "culture in Germany" is constantly changing. People immigrate and bring some of their customs. Young people have new ideas. While "German culture" sounds like something static and neverchanging. It might just be a matter of tone, but when people say "German culture", they usually mean to discount any immigrant influences for some sort of imagined cultural purity, ignoring the fact that that pure culture never existed anywhere but in their heads. It also discredits those germans who are not of white, christian heritage by stating that while they might have been living in Germany for all of their lives, they are still not "true" germans. Basically, the problem is the baggage that the term "German culture" carries. If you used it to just mean "The culture of those people living in Germany", that would be valid. However, that is not usually how that term is generally being used, usually it is used to mean "White, christian based culture of those speaking the german language", which excludes a lot of people from being "true germans" and is quite bigotted in my opinion. Words have baggage attached to them beyond their literal meaning. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10604 Posts
| ||
| ||
