Ideology is nothing but post-rationalization

[Kuciwalker]

There is no enough societies to actually see this as real evolution in term of survival of the fittest. Esp. when "memes" of societies mix all the time - their ideological 'genomes' being wide-exposed.

Your second point defeats your first - inheritance of memes is almost always lateral, which means that a relatively small population will still display evolution through natural selection. The "selfish meme" idea.

[Az]

Yes, but I was speaking of clear evolution of organisms. You know, old school. Besides, memes, just like genes, have to work together at groups at times, to achieve effect- so again, this is getting rather muddled.

[Kuciwalker]

Anyway, I'd assume that primates and humans are either genetically predisposed to the formation of such traits as social markers, or the memes that produce such behavior are too fundament and/or subconscious to identify, since this behavior is visible in almost any group.

[Az]

Oh, yeah, but I don't think that general religious laws are these markers - though it is plausible. Just a gut feeling tells me it's not.

[Kuciwalker]

Why not? They function wonderfully as such - look at how Catholics and Protestants fought so bitterly.

[Az]

It wasn't a real clash of cultures - more like a clash of politicians that used masses of people as tools. Remember WWI? The hatred that was achieved was mostly achieved through pure propoganda. This isn't always the case.

[The Mad Viking]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Cultural mores do serve a purpose. They establish a means of identifying outsiders and establishing a cohesive society.

It's like the proteins on the outside of cells in the body that identify the cells as "self" to the immune system.

Kuci and I in total agreement...

[The Mad Viking]

Re: Re: Ideology is nothing but post-rationalization

Originally posted by BeBro


Do you think this drives all actions? Then I disagree. I would accept it as basic though.

No, I agree with you. It is a basic, and it drives ideologies. We are more complex than that. Many human actions are very hard to explain or understand, on any basis. What is laughter?

I believe the majority of our genetic code is "designed" for us to function in small bands of nomadic hunter gatherers. That is how homo sapiens lived for many millenia; only in the past 2 millenia or so has the majority of human population lived in large agrarian societies with huge populations, including many people you don't know, often living very nearby.

You can consider that social codes are add-ons to our genetic codes to better enable us to deal with an shocking environmental change, for which evolution has had no time to prepare us.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Az
It wasn't a real clash of cultures - more like a clash of politicians that used masses of people as tools.

Exactly my point. Superficial differences serve as means of identifying as part of a group. It's not the differences themselves that matter, it's that you are a member of this group or that group.

Remember WWI? The hatred that was achieved was mostly achieved through pure propoganda. This isn't always the case.

Nationalism is the perfect example of superficial differences being used to identify with a group and justify conflict.

[Sandman]

Yes, but ( again borrowing from biology), the reason they evolved may have not been enviromental selection, but some other reason - and this trait has additional, powerful purposes.

It may have served a purpose at its inception, and it can still serve as an aid to group cohesion.

I don't think the pork taboo aids group cohesion - Muslims and Jews would still exist without it. They'd probably have developed their own varieties of ham and sausage - which you would be arguing aided their group cohesion.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think the pork taboo aids group cohesion - Muslims and Jews would still exist without it.

Yes, but it, along with all of the other little trivial customs, is a way of saying (even if just to themselves) "I'm a Muslim".

The point is that the actual specifics of the little trivial customs don't matter at all; it's that they exist.