Your culture sucks, mine is better

[Whaleboy]

"Careful, I said it was not very useful. It's not totally useless, since it provides entertainment and employment for intellectuals. I don't see how an belief that reality is ungraspable can be helpful in grasping reality, either."

Its not really worthy of a response, but hey I'm feeling charitable.

It assumes reality to be a canonical condition. A concrete set of circumstances that is independent to our perception (the light goes off, the table is still there etc). Take that forward a little, and you get moral absolutism, from which the ridiculous proposition in this thread is formed. You don't need to an absolute idealist in order to realise that this is simplistic bull (imho). Indeed, you don't need to be much of an idealist, just accept our inherent subjectivity. When we do accept our subjectivity, moral and cultural absolutism are first against the wall .

Incidentally, you'll note that the only element of that quote that resembles an argument is a strawman. While it may be an attack on my position, it is nothing on philosophical post-modernism, where (and Nietzsche may roll in his grave here), it is possible to believe in a canonical reality and adopt this element of liberalism! The mechanism behind that is not linking our notion of good and bad to "reality".

[Q Classic]

CLR James, like most anti-imperialists in the past, recognised that all progressive politics were rooted in the 'Western tradition', and in particular in the ideas of reason, progress, humanism and universalism that emerged out of the Enlightenment.

as well as a good chunk of all the other ills of this world.
although i'd have to say the west didn't and doesn't have a lock on the origins of reason.

what it boils down to is this: i don't think many "western ideals" are superior in any way to east asian philosophies.
however, at the time these western philosophies acheived dominance, the eastern nations had ossified and stagnated; those western influences did much to rejuvenate a stratified region.

but until you can convince me that imperialism, which lead to occupations, militarism, which led to brutality and violence, communism, which led to such joys as the great leap forward, the cultural revolution, and juche, were all good examples of the superiority of western ideals, i'll stick to my notion that they weren't necessarily superior so much as rejuvenating.

[Az]

Its not really worthy of a response, but hey I'm feeling charitable.

It assumes reality to be a canonical condition. A concrete set of circumstances that is independent to our perception (the light goes off, the table is still there etc). Take that forward a little, and you get moral absolutism, from which the ridiculous proposition in this thread is formed.

Yeah, that ridiculous propostion that some things are better than others.

You don't need to an absolute idealist in order to realise that this is simplistic bull (imho). Indeed, you don't need to be much of an idealist, just accept our inherent subjectivity. When we do accept our subjectivity, moral and cultural absolutism are first against the wall .

So basically, you say that a person can't judge about anything, once again, without any proof. And no, the fact that there are supposedly no constants in the world is no proof, since it has little to do with our discussion of ethics, and not physics.

but until you can convince me that imperialism, which lead to occupations, militarism, which led to brutality and violence, communism, which led to such joys as the great leap forward, the cultural revolution, and juche, were all good examples of the superiority of western ideals, i'll stick to my notion that they weren't necessarily superior so much as rejuvenating.

Actually, Imperialism was hardly a child of the enlightment. Very similar empires existed all over the world, prior to the enlightment, and not only in the western world, *cough*. Europe's empirialism was all-consuming because it was backed by mighty political institutions, scientific achievements, and economical structures. Things like 'The Great Leap Forward' are also hardly new in human life, once again, only the scale is the thing that was caused, second-hand, by enlightment.

[Ecthy]

Korean culture sucks, European is better.

[Drake Tungsten]

Korean culture sucks, European is better.

Way to state the obvious.

[Whaleboy]

Yeah, that ridiculous propostion that some things are better than others.

Now you're getting it!

So basically, you say that a person can't judge about anything, once again, without any proof. And no, the fact that there are supposedly no constants in the world is no proof, since it has little to do with our discussion of ethics, and not physics.

No, I'm saying that we can judge, but being of one subjective, we cannot make a logically valid judgement about another. For example, say we have the Iraq issue. I live in a democracy and I kinda like it, whereas Iraq is a totalitarian state. Needless to say, I choose democracy, but I recognise the subjectivity of my argument, and I would be opposed to the imposition of my judgement (inevitably skewed towards me) on that other subjective. I only say that because as a relativist, I like to think that I have the capacity to emulate objectivity, perhaps a definiting feature or cons and libs in some respects.

Incidentally, the fact that there are no constants in the universe means that any discussion of objective ethics are the first to fall, as there is not even a phenomenal reality (like in physics) for which one can make a judgement (for all intents and purposes). Moral relativism is probably the easiest to defend, cultural and cognetive relativism are as easy but we tend to use the former every day in dealing with people. Only absolute relativism is impossible to defend as it is a contradiction in terms, but then in that kind of realm, one has to revert back to idealism/realism, and thus cognetive relativism, so its hardly a critique.

The obvious exceptions to this is Finland and Birmingham. They're just evil!

[Q Classic]

Actually, Imperialism was hardly a child of the enlightment. Very similar empires existed all over the world, prior to the enlightment, and not only in the western world, *cough*. Europe's empirialism was all-consuming because it was backed by mighty political institutions, scientific achievements, and economical structures. Things like 'The Great Leap Forward' are also hardly new in human life, once again, only the scale is the thing that was caused, second-hand, by enlightment.

imperialism, granted, is not a child of the enlightenment. however, imperialism in that form--crossed with mercanitilism, colonialism, and a desire to "civilize"--that was a product of the enlightenment.
as for the great leap forward? i doubt it would have ever occured had there been no opium wars, no introduction of communism into east asia, and no crazed drive to modernize and catch up to the west.

Korean culture sucks, European is better.

korean food is better than european food. and it's cooked, unlike the barbarian japanese with their taste for raw fish.

[Sandman]

Firstly, my quote is a reply to Paiktis on another thread and is out of context (and has grammatical errors which I just noticed).

Its not really worthy of a response, but hey I'm feeling charitable.

I would have hoped for something better than this, then.

It assumes reality to be a canonical condition. A concrete set of circumstances that is independent to our perception (the light goes off, the table is still there etc).

No it doesn't. There's nothing in the quote to suggest this. Even if you jump to the conclusion that I think that reality is graspable, that just means I'm somewhere below an arch-sceptic, not necessarily a total absolutist.

Take that forward a little, and you get moral absolutism, from which the ridiculous proposition in this thread is formed.

It is perfectly possible to be a total realist and a total moral relativist. To believe in an objective reality simply does not imply believing in an objective morality.

You don't need to an absolute idealist in order to realise that this is simplistic bull (imho). Indeed, you don't need to be much of an idealist, just accept our inherent subjectivity. When we do accept our subjectivity, moral and cultural absolutism are first against the wall .

Well, yes. To bad that this is rounding off your strawman.

Incidentally, you'll note that the only element of that quote that resembles an argument is a strawman. While it may be an attack on my position, it is nothing on philosophical post-modernism, where (and Nietzsche may roll in his grave here), it is possible to believe in a canonical reality and adopt this element of liberalism! The mechanism behind that is not linking our notion of good and bad to "reality".

Sorry, but this doesn't make much sense. You still seem to be labouring under the belief that my quote is somehow related to morality. And what is 'this element of liberalism' you're talking about?

[Lord Merciless]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


From whom? Toelickers?

I'm pretty sure your family will treat you differently if you were a beggar or a somewhat well-off professional.

[Whaleboy]

No it doesn't. There's nothing in the quote to suggest this. Even if you jump to the conclusion that I think that reality is graspable, that just means I'm somewhere below an arch-sceptic, not necessarily a total absolutist.

Indeed, but like you said, it was taken out of context.

It is perfectly possible to be a total realist and a total moral relativist. To believe in an objective reality simply does not imply believing in an objective morality.

I concurred with that position later on in the thread. Necessary and sufficient conditions. Penguins and birds.

Well, yes. To bad that this is rounding off your strawman.

I was attacking Azazels argument, and the text he provided, not yours. Again, like you said, taken out of context. Talk to Azazel .

what is 'this element of liberalism' you're talking about?

Moral/cultural relativism. By liberalism, I mean the element that is opposed to neoconservatism, they seem to be the concepts being debated here. I should have specified, sorry, as "conservatism" and "liberalism" are far too disperate to be used in a single issue.

[Ramo]

Interesting statement - I can't even decide if I agree or disagree. Care to justify it?

If you look at the central idea of Taoism, the "wu-wei," it's essentially (when applied to economic and political systems) the anarchist idea that force ought to be minimized. The gist of the Tao-te-Ching seems to be a belief in a free and egalitarian society.

I suppose some modern anarchists might be influenced by Taoism, but the founders certainly weren't.

If you define anarchism to be the anarchism of Bakunin and Kropotkin, then the philosophy isn't rooted in Taoism. If you generalize the definition to mean modern anarchism, then there certainly are strong Taoist influences, and a few anarchists I know would say that they're Taoists. It's a little silly to say anarchism derives entirely from the enlightenment if you constrain anarchism to the 19th century.

[Ramo]

I'm a libertarian communist, which is probably one of the most capitalist societies you can get (aka right wing liberal), but is technically a form of anarchism, although I suppose many anarchists would view me as a bit of a sell out, but then can go and destroy some institutions, I don't care!

I think you're confused. Libertarian communism (anarchism) is not capitalism or right-wing liberalism. Libertarian communism implies the worker control of the means of production, which is definitely not capitalism. I think the phrase you're looking for is "libertarian capitalism."

[St Leo]

Why not drop the fancy speak and just call it "Feudalism"?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
[q]

Korean culture sucks, European is better.

korean food is better than european food. and it's cooked, unlike the barbarian japanese with their taste for raw fish.

Aren't there specialist restaurants serving raw, live octopus in Korea?

Besides which, salmon is very tasty 'uncooked'- as Scots and Swedes could also tell you. Beef carpaccio too, and steak tartare.... Having said that, I like Korean food.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Azazel
Actually, Imperialism was hardly a child of the enlightment. Very similar empires existed all over the world, prior to the enlightment, and not only in the western world, *cough*.

Yes, but by imperialism, most social scientists mean a very specific form of imperialism, capitalist imperialism, which conquered the world slightly over 100 years ago. No other imperialism ever came close, and they aren't existant today, so there's really no point in struggling against them.