Western Civilization
Is Western Civilization, the very foundation self-criticism regarding ideas like universal rights, due process, and Western philosophy itself unfairly and unthinkingly maligned by educators and leftists for some kind of relativism or one-way version of rights? (Only the West has to abide by rights but no one else even though everyone else was basically colonized, uses the technology of the west and are forced into the post-WW2 reality of nation-states rather than sprawling multi-ethnic empires or tribal units that proceeded it)? Isnt it true you cant have it both ways, you either have universal rights and liberal principles are a thing or they are not. You cant have it one way. The very idea of being self-critical of ones OWN ideals seems a Western thing. You posit this idea of rights and you see if youre living up to it. Does Bill Maher have a point? I would say yes. See here:
Comments (247)
Not only would you expect better of your own elected representatives that have been voted in by you and your peers, this is the most realistic thing you have control over. It's hard enough to effect change in your own country through campaigning for the attention of your fellow citizens that would most share your values. It's almost, if not, a waste of time to try and change the values of people living on foreign lands. It makes sense that people are most critical of their fellow citizens and representatives they elect.
Do you mean the west should be antagonistic toward countries that don't value rights and liberal principles?
The West has also given us fascism, socialism, communism, and whatever the current brand of nanny-statism is.
Of course. They also gave us the "nation-state". Indeed, I would argue it is how the ideas of "nation-state" collide with ideas of "liberalism" "conservatism" and "socialism" that cause many issues of the 19th-21st centuries.
I didn't mean that. Where did you get that from? Rather, Maher's critique was of the "Left" critiquing Western civilization, downplaying the very values that are usually seen as "good" (like universal rights). I think it brings up a larger point of "Liberalism" versus "Leftism" in general. Liberalism generally tends to see the universal aspects, and that more-or-less, everyone has inherent "rights". However, this butts up against the left-tendency to value cultural relativism (each culture should be respected). So it brings up a whole hose of contradictions:
1) What if a unique cultural trait is something that is contrary to universal human rights?
2) What of the fact that "rights" and "balanced forms of government" and "legal rights" were really an idea that came about in a time and context (arguably from previous Greco-Roman and even Medieval thought in Europe, but can certainly be demarcated around the Enlightenment emerging in the 17th century and going full force by the 18th century).
2a) Well, if this came out of the "West" should the "West" expect other peoples not of the Western tradition to follow the Western position? You will get a plethora of views. Traditional Liberals will say it applies everywhere, a more leftist ideology would say its the oppressor culture demanding more than is its right from various other traditions. However, this same group cannot cry "foul" then about violation of rights on one side but not on the other, as if only one side can be held to Western standards, but another should not. I guess in this case, there is a belief that if it "started in the West" then "universal rights matter", but if it started from the non-West they don't? Then are they really universal?
3) If universal rights are seen as good by both liberals and leftists, and these are a cultural feature that came out of a place and time, is it wise to downplay the role of this cultural feature simply because its the dominant one?
Attempts by Europeans to impose "universal rights and liberal principles" by colonizing and coopting non-Europeans for the last half-millennium was and is, in fact, trying to "have it both ways" subverting that "universalist" end with illiberal (i.e. imperialist/hegemonic) means.
In theory, maybe; but not in practice. Empires (via conquistadors, gunships, missionaries & systematic colonization), for example, are not "self-critical" emancipatory projects (pace Hegel, vide Aristotle).
:fire:
I think youre right about that. I would go further and say the nation-state is just a repurposing of the Ancien Régime, not a repudiation, and the ideas you mention are built around seeking that power.
Anyways, there is a good little book by Pascal Brukner called The Tyranny of Guilt: An Essay on Western Masochism that goes deep into your topic from the French perspective. Its basically a form of narcissism arising from a wing of well-fed socialists upset that, in the end, the proletariat sided with their bogeyman.
It depends on what the goals of those countries are. Are they expansionist? Are they threatening other Western countries and/or countries that are friendly to Western interests? Do they fund anti-West terrorists? The West should definitely be antagonistic towards China, Russia, Iran, and N. Korea.
That's true, but at the same time would the pagan roman empire, if given modern tools, not be even more cruel and rapacious? There is a significant capacity for self-criticism in western philosophy, arguably inherited from the anarchist (or at least anti-authoritarian) side of Jesus' teachings.
But surely the "illiberal" part is Western too. You doubt the idea of "self-criticism" as Western, but I believe this demonstrates it. It is Western intellectuals, or at least, the torch-bearing of such ideas by the former colonists, that talk in such terms. You need an idea of "liberal" to have "illiberal". So which is it? It's either "law of the jungle and conquer", or universal rights exist.
Quoting 180 Proof
Absolutely. I won't debate that there. Europe, mainly Britain, France, Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal, conquered the rest of the world with their technology and then those that did not get decimated remained in the system under their particular style of government, enlightened or otherwise. Italy and Germany were late to the game in forming a nation-state out of smaller states and kingdoms. Italy tried and failed in Ethiopia. Germany also had some forays into Africa, but mainly used their industrialized economy to start wars with their neighbors. They kept it more internal, Napoleon-style. They had to show their British and French neighbors that they are players too. Austria-Hungary was by that point a quaint idea of old- multi-ethnic empires, as dead as the Holy Roman Empire. My point was that after this initial conquest though, even the idea of "fighting the colonizers" with terms like "rights" and "self-determination" through "democratic rule" is Western itself. You can't get out of it.
Interesting. How much do you think anti-Western imperialism was fed by socialists (I would say more Communists and Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist theories). Surely those are Western too (and can be considered broadly "socialist" but in a sort of very definitive school of thought that can be characterized as Hegelian-Marxist, rather than a broad notion of social welfare). Can there be a direct lineage of modern Islamist ideology that has connections to Marxist anti-imperialist thinking during the Cold War? Is it the "West" teaching the former colonies how to fight "the West", but retrofitting it?
Moral relativism of both individual and cultural varieties is in vogue, and it happens to be incoherent in the way it is presented. If someone is an individual moral relativist, then they should not tell other individuals what to do (but of course they do). If someone is a cultural moral relativist, then they should not tell other cultures what to do (but of course they do). That is the underlying vacillation: when the relativist wants someone to do something, they exert pressure. When they see others exerting pressure for a cause with which they disagree, they call foul on account of moral relativism. I think this is the underlying double standard that first needs to be addressed.
To give an example, if someone is against cultural exports then they are not rationally permitted to export their favorite issues to other cultures (e.g. exporting women's rights to the Middle East). If they are going to try to export their favorite issues to other cultures, then they cannot oppose cultural exports tout court and still be consistent.
Actually, I tend to think it is the opposite. They look the other way, or downplay the "liberal values" that are not being followed, as long as that nation-state has a grievance with the West, and emphasize that grievance as the matter that counts, not the internal liberal society of that nation-state.
Indeed, and I think this reveals a bigger issue, actually. First off, accepting being in the confines of a "nation-state", is Western, is it not? Okay, now to fight the Westerners, you have rockets, grenades, mortars, tanks, and guns. Is this not made in Western factories, using Western-based technology? Much of the infrastructure, and medicine, and engineering is Western, no? Okay, so let's say these notions and material resources are legitimate to import, with this importation, why would universal rights, freedom of speech and press, due process, etc. the "liberal" parts of the West be unacceptable to import? Even a bigger question, why would the cultural relativists be okay with cultural export of Western material items and notions of nation-state, but not internal notions of "liberal civil society and polity"? Also, why would one support Western notions of "self-determination", but then not Western forms of non-violence or civil discourse versus tacitly being okay with terrorism as long as it is for some form of nation-state which again, is a Western notion. There is a knot of contradictory beliefs for those who hold "cultural relativism" leftist beliefs. And even modern terrorism, arguably is just a Western import from anarcho-communist tactics and ideologies of anti-Western imperialist groups of the 20th century.
Yes, good points. I think we need to keep shining light on that knot until it breaks down. Cultures are porous, and there has always been intercultural exchange and trade. There may be good reasons for distinguishing some exports from others, but the simplistic idea that "all cultural exports are impermissible" is crazy and impracticable.
Another thing to note is that if someone holds that it is unjust to export such-and-such a cultural artifact, then they must forfeit their claim that everything is a power game. That's another thing that irks me about the left: out of one side of their mouth come claims that everything is merely a power game, and out of the other side come claims regarding justice. Granted, they may not use the word "justice," but that is what they are talking about: what is right or wrong (permissible or impermissible) in a manner that is not affected by will or power.
No, many do use "justice", "self-determination", "rights". But it imports the Marxist ideas of the "oppressed". So now, if you are the "oppressed", the "victims" (non-Western former colonized nations, ethnic groups, or people), your reaction will be, well, reactionary and this is promoted and praised. That is to say, often violent, terroristic, and all of it. At the same time, the Westerners who tacitly or loudly support these groups/states, are the loudest in their own societies against the illiberalism that they support in the "oppressed states" societies. Again, contradiction upon contradiction.
And also, do you not think this guy:
was trying to import the idea of "nationalism" an "nation-state" to Arab tribal societies to break up the Ottoman's 400+ year reign over the Middle East?
And did not the Sykes-Picot agreement that created more-or-less, the modern Middle Eastern borders (and thus basically the territory for this new "nation-state" import)?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
And did not the Scramble for Africa in the 1800s not create the arbitrary states (and notions of a nation-state) in Africa?
Is it not the toppling of the Spanish of the Incan/Aztec empires (who were brutally oppressive in some ways themselves) that created the Latin American countries. The Spanish aristocrats, coming over and intermarrying with former Aztec, Taino, and other native peoples to form a stratified and often more forcefully brutal kind of hierarchy than the US slave system?
Is it not the Portuguese and then Brazilians, who followed the same Spanish model, but with the added step of importing more slaves than the US, Spanish and French colonies by a longshot? And then the last to stop the slave trade and slavery in 1888?
Was it not the British who basically helped to wipe out the Natives in the 13 colonies, to then to be extended with Manifest Destiny, the Louisiana Purchase and settler movement, and the Mexican War, that allowed the United States to become as large as it became? And don't forget Canada!
And I am not forgetting the colonizing of British colonies in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and the like... Let's not forget those more recent colonization efforts....
I think we'll find reason to be at odds with each other one way or another.
Who are these leftists, and why is their devotion to one of four two-dimensional directions make them an enemy?
Exactly
The contradiction is heinous. Good luck getting any leftist symp to reconcile any of it. Instead, expect that they will misapply your logic and pin the contradiction on the oppressive structure of the west.
Leftist morality reduces all good and evil to oppressed and oppressor (as you aptly tied to marxism). It runs into the contradiction because it is collectivist, and it applies its relativistic morality only to groups, so that we inevitably find many of these groups to be both oppressor and oppressed. And here we see the classical moral dilemma.
Of course they try to weasel out of this with the idea of intersectionality so that they will not have to admit the evil of one type of oppressor over another, after all, an oppressor of any kind is equally evil in all cases and it is never ok to sympathize with the oppressor. The only thing more evil than the oppressor is the one that oppresses along multiple dimensions, and the more dimensions the more evil. They have unanimously distinguished the west as indisputably having more structures of oppression than any other entity in existence. But this still does not address the moral dilemma.
Because of the leftist emphasis on the group, the morality can never be localized to single cases. In other words, for example, moralizing about the oppression of women does not stop when defending an oppressed nation that actively oppresses women. No, the rights of women are supposed to be universally respected in all places, at all times - wherever oppression of women is possibile, it is relevant... no exceptions. But, alas, this is not the case.
If leftists weren't so full of shit, they would respect their intersectional logic and raise hell over the oppression of women within particular nations that are colonized. But then, this would make them, ipso facto, on the side of the western colonial oppressor, which is a big no-no. This is why so many leftists are capable of siding with a group like Hamas while entirely dismissing the plight of Palestinian women that are directly oppressed by Hamas. But then this places them on the side of the western patriarchy, which is equally evil to the western colonizer. It is perplexing.
It's all hypocrisy.
As if many on the left do not seek some egalitarian utopia by means of conquering the "status quo" through violent revolution. It is inevitable that in the victory of the left, it will become the very oppressor that it condemns. Simply more natural contradictions of the Left.
These are people who have a strong commitment to collectivism and egalitarianism. In recent times, the left has taken on an adversarial disposition towards the liberal principles of freedom and progress.
The examples of recent leftist censorship and hatred of freedom are countless. But even more unnerving is its opposition towards actual liberal progress - which traditionally seeks to take whatever is the case and improve upon it, while protecting essential freedom at all cost (all in theory of course). And all the while, the Left has been secretly embracing a desconstructionist ethic (usurping the principle of freedom and deceptively calling it progressivism) that aims to raze any traditional institution that it deems oppressive - claiming whatever smoldering heap leftover to be an improvement.
Unfortunately, the damage has been done by the dishonest Leftist exploitation of liberal progress. Now, any sincere progressive movements advocating for equal rights of oppressed groups will be reasonably looked upon with suspicion of covertly pushing a subversive deconstructionist agenda.
I believe they gave us the proto-codpiece
I would go further and say it is part of Western culture, not just something that seems to be Western. Of course being critical about one's own culture and society isn't solely a Western thing. Kemalism of Turkey is a prime example of a non-Western nations leaders understanding that the weakness they suffered against the West was their own fault and because of their own backwardness. Similarly the Japanese woke up by an American warship and had their Meiji-restauration. Yet the kind of perpetual criticism is quite Western: everything could be always better.
Hence some people are pissed off when leaders say that they defend Western democratic values yet introduce Apartheid type segregation with people living under different laws or just don't give a fuck about rights of individuals or existing international agreements.
Putin is at least honest when he makes a difference between the decadent (homosexual?) Western Europe and the pure traditionalist Russia. I myself consider Russian culture Western, but seems that Putin wants to make the difference with Russian culture being Eurasian.
So I'm a leftist; I'm a strong supporter of universal human rights; and philosophically I am a sort of moral relativist. David Vellemann outlines the kind of view I go with: that different social groups can, indeed will, have incompatible moralities, but their moral concerns are thematically linked. Rational-based negotiation then remains the best way of trying to resolve moral differences.
The argument here seems much more political than philosophical. Who are the 'leftists' who under attack here? Why hasn't anyone quoted any of them? What is the corrective moral view: Maher is a comedian so he has every right not to have an answer, but are people in general arguing for moral objectivism, or what?
I think you have cheated here. You have used the word Leftist to contain an admixture of subject and predicates. It is no longer descriptive word, but has become the grounds for the tautology of X are the problem, because they are people with this problem. All you have accomplished is put a name to a bunch of integrated predicates, which does not help describe who youre talking about or what the problem is.
However, I dont mean to diminish your concerns, because they are still real and valid. But doing this makes your argument about cultural power as opposed to knowledge or wisdom, and it is thus not really philosophy. I mean, after all, who does not believe in collectivism and egalitarianism? We must be more descriptive of the subjects involved, what the problem is, and then and only then can there be any meaningful analysis.
Perhaps, I can see that. So by "Leftist" it is a fluid and over-used term so is confusing. First off, you can be a "left" political leaning person and not be Leftist as I (and Maher) is using the term. More recently people like Maher have been using Leftist or "people on the left" in contrast to "old-school liberal". Now this is even more confusing because there is such thing as Classical Liberal from the 18th century (which is like Adam Smith libertarian economics yet moderate/liberal socially). No, what Maher means by "old-school liberal" is the general "moderate liberals" that are referred to in politics in the 20th century. That is people who are economically liberal but usually, moderately so (they agree we need some social safety nets and that government has some role in helping the economy), but also as a matter of domestic and foreign policy are very pro-individual rights. That is to say, freedom of speech is of utmost importance. That means, for example, the culture on college campuses that run-out conservative speakers or people that have differing views than the often very left-leaning administration/professors/student-body is a very bad thing as it curbs that very important element of freedom of speech and exchange in ideas. They also tend to see universal rights as binding, and not one-way. That is to say, regimes that repress minorities (religions, views, ethnicities), and represses freedom of speech, are to be condemned outright. That is to say, a political entity like the Iranian government or Hezbollah are bad, and should be condemned. It is also pro-Western in terms of it rather former colonies of the world (aka "third-world countries") should adopt Western notions of universal rights, freedom of speech, etc. Policies that promote and protect this, even at the behest of repressing the anti-Western notions, are favored in foreign policy.
On the other hand, in this newer terminology, we have the "Leftists". That is to say, they are also "liberal" certainly in their economic outlook, and socially, but they are more severely critical of points of view that differ. These are the people on college campuses that run out the guest speakers, for example. As far as former colonies (aka the "third world"), they think in terms of cultural relativism. They care less that for example, Iran or Middle Eastern cultures are repressive towards minorities, women, free speech, etc. and are more in favor of the fact that they are "non-Western" and thus this should be respected (even if they don't necessarily agree).
Leftists also tend to take on Marxist views. Usually this is not consciously. Many don't know this is the origins of their thought. Here is a good example of the origins:
Quoting Anti-imperialism
So that is its origins, but what of it now? No one is really speaking in terms of Marxism, right? Well, not really. What happened was, this got translated into viewing the world in terms of only the "big bad West" and the "underdog". The victimizers (the West), and the victims (the Rest). But this directly conflicts with the "old-school" liberal notions that the West actually is morally "right" in its views (of universal rights being more important than things like religious matters, that freedom of speech is important and above and beyond cultural traditions, etc.). But "Leftists" are willing to support repressive cultural traits and regimes that want to put this in place, because they are viewed as the "underdog". Thus, anything "anti-West" or at least, "the underdog" is good or right in some way. And thus, they are supported simply because they are seen as the underdog. But you see, it's obviously not that black-and-white. Sometimes, the underdog, the little guy, is wrong, and should be condemned. It's not just a matter that they are right because they are the little guy.
And so this brings me to the contradictions of the left. They would never want to live under regimes of these "underdogs" but they support them none-the-less. They will even support terrorist acts and asymmetrical forms of warfare that leads to large losses of life and harm, because it is disrupting the Western regime.
But one of my points was that this is a fantasy to think that nation-states are "liberating" themselves from anything. Because even the notion of a nation-state, is a WESTERN notion. It is ALL the WEST. Even the ways of fighting the WEST are the WEST. You can't get out of it. It's all contradiction and genetic fallacy. Even the fact that there are nation-states, is a Western thing.
In a previous post, I gave a whirlwind summary of world history of European (West) domination of the rest of the world, basically writing the very rules which they will exist. The Middle East and Africa is purely now a European fiction. So any attempts at any individual country "liberating" itself, is also buying into that fiction. It is not fully understanding the history of how all of this was created. Nationalism in the Middle East (the big conflict now) is just a continuation of Nationalism from Europe. The very territories of the "nations" of the Middle East, is just the lines drawn by Europe.
The problem here involves a socio-political orientation that is wrought with contradictions. Namely that it criticizes western civilization for being this incredible monolithic structure of oppression, while fighting that very oppression with uniquely Western ideals like equal rights and social progress. Schop said it in the OP.
Quoting schopenhauer1
There is also the contradiction in which they speak about marginalization of groups as the worst form of oppression, yet they are themselves consistently guilty of marginalizing groups they pretend to defend. There are more.
Quoting kudos
I didn't come up with that, I'm just trying to keep up with how leftists think. It was a famous wise Leftist that wrote:
I recently read an article about the frequency of thoughts about Rome. Apparently many males think about the Roman Empire quite a bit -- at least once a day. I like thinking about various aspects of the Roman Empire.
Nobody is denying that collectivism and egalitarianism aren't viable concepts, it is how they are prioritized and the level of commitment to realizing these things that make one a leftist.
Okay so youre talking about hypocrites basically. I still dont see what this has to do with democratic or liberal politics besides some incidental particularity or correlation of the present day.
Good quote. It seems as if your concern is with an abstract idea of freedom, but its halfway to inappropriately becoming about politics. Youre defining a difference, I do not believe this (set of notions), and there is a group who has this ethos. Then adding, Therefore, if you subscribe to this ethos you are a part of this group. It is a logical fallacy that you are likely used to seeing used against you, as it is the old way of doing business. Just be clear that this is business and not much more.
:up:
Indeed, now it's called "woke mob". That is to say, their "tolerance" has turned into "intolerance" of other opinions. It is an inability to understand the freedom of speech space. It does happen on both sides, but the Right never claimed to be completely for "tolerance". So, the contradiction happens more on the left.
I should mention, and I guess for @mcdoodle too, that the "Left" as opposed to "old-school liberal" tends to emphasize identity politics and political correctness over more universal agendas (usually more economics-focused, or perhaps celebrating various Western/Enlightenment-based notions developed in the 17th-19th centuries, or even being vaguely patriotic or pro (pick your Western country). If it at all focuses on the West, it is critical of the West (critical theory, and vaguely Marxist in origin).
I don't have more to add to that. Nuanced. The "dilemma" and contradictions you discuss are well-stated and laid out here.
I have nothing against the "old way". It's not perfect, but it's reliable. I have no problem calling it "just business".
Leftism is more of an orientation or disposition than a group. However, there are indeed leftist groups (Socialist International, Antifa, Democratic Socialists of America, Black Lives Matter, &c.) committed to counteracting what they see as the oppressive structures of the West.
And, I'm not saying I don't believe in the leftist "set of notions", I'm saying that I have noticed countless contradictions in that "set of notions" which make it an absolutetly untenable position. And, I am not arguing that if a person genuinely subscribes to that "set of notions" then it makes them a proper leftist, even though that is true. I am arguing that proper leftists are so deluded with their ideological obsession that they are willing to consciously ignore the unmistakably recognizable contradictions ...so much so that almost every position they occupy appears dishonest and false. For when a Leftist is called out to reconcile his contradictions, he will never address it directly, but will always change the subject in a way that projects his contradictions onto his opponent in some way. It is unfortunate, almost nothing from a Leftist can be accepted on good faith any longer.
Even my position, that I have put forth here, is never directly addressed by any Leftist (probably because, I being a reformed Leftist, understand their position better than them). It seems like they are always trying to hurl my points back at me, as if I'm the leftist holding all the contradictions...but I am only highlighting the contradictions.
Yep. Richard Rorty posited a distinction between a cultural left and a reformist left - the latter being a more traditional progressive agenda concerned with working people, the minimum wage, health care, housing costs - economic gains which would improve the situation of diverse communities. The cultural left is concerned with identity politics, culture and sociology. Rorty warns that this latter group could fragment and atomise the left and to some extent become preoccupied with culture at the expense of economic and class based concerns. I tend to agree that the left has split into these two camps.
Yes, :up:. I think hes right on there and that threat becomes imperative. Ill have more to say later but wanted to acknowledge that comment.
I get what you're saying, and I have encountered such type of thinking, but don't see any evidence that it is answerable solely to a liberal mindset. How can you tell that their coincidence is not related to some common factor? Or maybe you are just defining these faults to be Leftism. Furthermore, can the political dividing lines you are drawing not equally incite individuals to take on those roles knowingly in order to prove their difference from your side, as per some similar ethical idea they wish to abide by that belongs to the other's domain?
I think the right has similar divisions: there are the classic conservatives who do value both free trade and classic liberal values, and then there is the right wanting to fight the culture wars and to engage in the identity humbug. Just as you have have populists on both on the right and left.
You basically can make the division between those that promote and love the polarization and then those old school people who care about getting things done.
:up:
All political groups have their divisions and schisms. The interesting part is identifying who they are and what they want. I'm often struck by how the Right has a radical free market arm which doesn't seem to care what gets destroyed or sold in the process, and a somewhat separate conservative tradition, which seeks to venerate certain expressions of culture and tradition.
I don't doubt that all divisions are sincere. In other words, they all think they are working to get things done.
The right does have it's issues and contradictions, which definitely should be highlighted. But I see all the cultural wars originating from the Left. The Right merely joined in because it is witless. The right has no big issues with culture, there is "US" :strong: and then there are "them" :shade: It is the left that has made culture and identity into an issue. It can be traced to Antonio Gramsci, up through the critical theory of the Frankfurt School and beyond.
While the Right is championing "US" (whoever "US" is), trying to make a better world for "US" despite "them", the left is endlessly identifying oppressed groups for whom it can champion against whoever it deems as the oppressor of said group"
I don't think it is a coincidence, i think it is intentional, although many leftists may be unaware of the rationale beneath it all. If it were otherwise, I would expect them to address their contradictions head on, instead of avoiding them and changing the subject every time it comes up.
Quoting kudos
Im not sure. Could you give me an example of how this might appear?
Don't forget that the concept of "tolerance" is also an oppressive Western invention, which somehow doesn't matter when they are pushing it.
The right generally has a clear red line for what it will tolerate. The left has a virtual spiderweb of constantly shifting and intersecting red lines of tolerance, all with the potential for conflict, this is why free speech is so often restricted on the Left.
Such antagonism to free speech for the purpose of enforcing tolerance is a classically bad omen. Moreover, it highlights the left's antagonism toward liberalism, after all, what is more central to liberalism than free speech?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well stated. However, I don't think the leftist roots of the woke mob are in any way "vaguely marxist". No, the similarities between the Marxian academic theorizing and the political activism of the left is too closely correlated for it to be a coincident...it is unquestionably Marxist.
Haven't you seen similar villain narratives, where a social group hints that it wants your evil to legitimate their good? One would be surprised at what any person can become when they are immersed in a set of such opposing ideas.
It really all depends. If one has been given sufficiently justified reason to change his opinion, perhaps he should. But if one has only been presented with nonsensical rhetoric and ridicule, never. The left these days seems to deal in nonsensical rhetoric and ridicule, and everything they say feels scripted and phoney - untrustworthy.
Quoting kudos
I have experienced two events in which I saw this weird dynamic. Post 9-11 and Covid. If you didn't want to bomb all the muslims, you were a traitor. If your didn't maskup and lockdown, you were a murderous troglodyte. I was both, and proudly, as you can imagine.
Still, the leftist never addresses his own contradictions, and this failure of the leftist to face its faults (not to mention the underhanded strategies it utilizes to avoid it) is all the reason anyone needs to reject the leftist agenda.
I am getting old and I don't have much time for the woke left. In all, it seems like there are some very non-polemical a-political trends at work.
"Everybody says" that politics is getting more extreme -- from the screwy woke left to the screwy fascist right. More extreme and more contentious, less civil, less thoughtful, less accommodating (not to very different positions, but often to only slightly different positions. Why?
Perhaps it's a result of a reasonably free society where the bar to entry into political debate has been lowered by technology. Anybody can get on one social media platform or another and babble away about anything. The Elite are still the elite and still run things, but the proles now have big megaphones to express themselves.
"Post modernism" seems to have mentally unhinged many on the the left. Up until... what? the 1950s? 60s? the now old left seemed firmly anchored in reality. They may have been dull, but they were accounting for real material forces.
The "public attention span" is only so long, and there is stiff competition to get one's views heard, to dominate the stage. This alone leads to exaggerated claims -- attention bait in the crowded market place.
A lot of what we see on the news seems to be "public performance". This isn't new, of course. Over the decades, maybe a century, people have learned how to effectively demonstrate anger, rage, grief, resentment, outrage, and so on.
People in politics have to work fairly hard to differentiate themselves. This is true for Republican Party candidates and the woke left, as well. Getting noticed can lead to absurdities (like the famous drag queen story hour).
I'm sort of a relativist. I heartily disapprove of slavery (chattel slavery or wage slavery), for instance, but it's conceivable that slave holders didn't feel guilty about owning slaves, any more than capitalists feel guilty for paying very low wages. Similarly, people leaving England to colonize New England mostly felt quite justified before God. They felt plenty of guilt, but it wasn't for being colonizers.
I don't look at "empire" -- colonialism -- as it was practiced in the 17th - 20th century as a moral evil. Certainly not very nice, certainly wouldn't want to be on the receiving end, certainly took away more than was given, certainly relied on sticks (guns) much, much more than on carrots. The Romans required a steady flow of goods from its colonies to feed everyone, England, Netherlands, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany, Russia -- everybody who COULD -- wanted to tap into (for them) new resources. Finding, acquiring, holding on to, and exploiting resources is a well-established practice, everywhere on every continent, wherever it could be managed, by any group who could pull it off.
Western Civilization is not perfect, but it's the only civilization [people in the west] have got, and it is better than most. Those who are too good for this culture could emigrate to the East and to the south, to Russia, to the PRC, to Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Congo, Afghanistan, or any number of places where the "woke left" would be sent to prison, reeducation centers, mental hospitals, or end up beheaded.
I couldn't help but think of Debord's idea of The Spectacle (sorry @Merkwurdichliebe, I brought in an architect of critical theory, but not Frankfurt, so perhaps allowed? :D). That is to say, I notice that most disruptions, even what would have seen as ridiculous and absurdly crazy disruptions (let's say in the US, invading the Capitol to stop the confirmation of an election), don't actually change much as people are so disconnected from the actual "doings" of politics, that it really doesn't matter. In fact, if Trump took over the US as dictator (in practice if not in name), would it affect anyone's daily life really? I mean most people never thought a presidential candidate in their lifetime would have said things like "the election was a lie", and cast that kind of doubt in their lifetime, but here we are, and many people go along with it, condone it. But really, has it disrupted much other than parlor talk?
Quoting Society of the Spectacle - Debord
That is to say, if you turn off your cable news (an ancient thing nowadays), put down your newspaper (an even more ancient thing), don't look at online media, and don't talk politics, are you really affected much as to what happens on "Capitol Hill"? Every so often it comes to you in taxes and ballots, but really, many are detached. I think of an office worker or mechanic or construction worker blissfully just doing their thing.
Quoting BC
More of the spectacle!
Quoting BC
:lol:
Quoting BC
Yes, but what do you think of my idea earlier on the fact that anti-Western sentiment is still Western sentiment. There is no getting out of the framework set up by the West.
"The Economy" on which we all depend isn't managed from Capital Hill, 1600 Pennsylvania, or elsewhere in the District. And you are right: a lot of Americans are 'detached' from government / political affairs. Still, when I talk to people who do not listen, watch, or read the news, they often seem detached from reality to some degree.
I want to know what is going on in the world. The quality of life of many Americans has, or will be, conditioned by decisions that are made in Washington--not just taxes and elections.
I'll have to chew on Debord's Society of the Spectacle for a while.
Regarding tolerance, Ive always found this to be a philosophical landmine:
Tolerance of intolerance results in intolerance. Ergo, those who favor tolerance must be intolerant of (i.e., oppress) intolerance if tolerance is to be preserved.
One can scoff at this affirmation as a bundle of equivocations and contradictions. And yet I still find it conveys a solid truth in day-to-day life. A democracys tolerance for fascism results in fascism at expense of all democratic tendencies. So called pacifists tolerance for warmongers results in war-mongering and war, this at expense of peaceful tendencies and the peace which the latter sustain. Or, is the person who abhors murder a hypocrite for refusing to tolerate the murder of an innocent and thereby killing/murdering the murderer or should such a person allow the murder of the innocent to occur by not themselves murdering the murderer? Less drastically, the tolerant parent ends up with intolerant children if the parent is tolerant of their childrens intolerance. And so forth. To my mind, its a complex philosophical issue that can have widespread applications.
One can make of this what they will in terms of left vs. right arguments. But yes, this conundrum only affects those who like tolerance and dislike bigotry. Those who admit to being intolerant or else desire for bigotry (in their own favor of course) dont have to address this paradox: How can one preserve tolerance in the absence of intolerance for intolerance?
All the same, civility, and a democratic civilization in general, is hard to come by in the absence of tolerance for other tolerant people who happen to be different than oneself.
Do note that technically conservatism can have various leanings as it refers to preserving traditional institutions, customs, and values. Now those values and institutions don't have to be right-wing.
Hence in curious way in the post-Soviet Russia the "left" and "right" wings of politics were changed from our point of the view the other way around with "leftists" being right wing and "the right" being the left. But it makes sense when you think that those wanting to preserve the "traditional institutions, customs, and values" were communists yearning back to the days of the Soviet Union!
Actually this is a narrative that the right wing engaged in the Culture Wars promotes. Because "the Left" has no underlying master plan, no agents of the Frankfurt School that have taken their time to spread like cancer into the academia and then over into business sector. Remember that here you do have really leftist people who do know their Marx so one should listen to them.
Perhaps it's simple easier to sell the idea that some cabal of leftist thinkers thought that after the collapse of Marxism-Leninism that the way into power would be through culture and education. Far more difficult would it be to tell that American institutions, both in education and in business, are so scared shitless about being called racist that they make overtures from adapting ideologies to simply parroting nonsense close to the left. All in the name of keeping good public relations.
I think a lot more realistic would be to assume that the left simply takes the issues that the next new generation of leftists take to heart and simply and feed them the older leftist thought. This is possible because of the political amnesia and ignorance of history. Leftist ideas and policies that have failed in the past suddenly appear to be new and fresh! And why not? People in their 30's or younger have not lived when there was a Soviet Union, when Marxism-Leninism was the official religion of the true staunch leftist. The left simply waits for the next batch of angry youth to take the streets, be they protesting the WTO, police brutality or whatever woke matter there is.
I'm a Green, and the big 'leftist' issue for me is facing up to global warming, and how we transition to a sustainable economy.
Once you're into that as a major area of policy other problems follow, for an anti-authoritarian leftist of my kind: how to rein in financial capital, which monetizes everything and obscures human and environmental value; how income and wealth is distributed, given existing inequalities and the likelihood that worldwide 'growth' is probably near its end (as opposed to 'development', which is always a must); how people are democratically involved in the whole process.
Europe is largely composed of social democracies, which are moving 'right'wards in some respects at the moment, but from a strong consensual basis, with welfare states, socialised medicine and relatively high taxes, owing little to Marx, especially the Leninist flavour. There are issues on which there is obviously a gulf between 'us' and the USA, the most obvious of which is abortion: apart from Poland and Hungary (and pockets of countries like Northern Ireland in the UK), abortion rights are widely accepted in Europe, and the USA's insistence for many decades on tying international aid to reproductive rights has been a source of disagreement about what 'Western civilization' means.
So these are the leftie issues for me, which no-one in this thread has mentioned.
This word 'woke' has caught on only in quite rightwing circles over here, though maybe that'll change. It seems a rather vague insult, like 'reactionary' used to be among liberal lefties (or indeed 'Fascist', which in my youth was a horrible slur). In the UK for instance the rightwing government have trumpeted freedom of speech, but in the last few weeks have been retreatiing to obvious things like 'Freedom of speech has its limits'; alas the first university free speech tsar, Arif Ahmed, appointed by the Tories, is known for believing that free speech includes being able to speak up for Palestinians. (Also trans rights has been less of a left/right issue here, and so for example I'm a supporter of Kathleen Stock, a philosopher who has been no-platformed for her critique of transgender rights)
My last point: is 'race' a mostly unspoken part of this debate? Bill Maher in the opening monologue said 'White' startlingly often to my ear. Brits don't do that so much any more. In the UK of course the staunchest defenders of Empire, and opponents of immigration by black and brown people, have in the last decade been Conservative black and brown ministers of state, so our debate over here has a different feel, but we too have some sort of reckoning to make with slavery and Empire. But perhaps that is an example of how woke I am, that I think such a reckoning is needed!
I love that paradox. It reminds me of the paradox of freedom, which may result in a free person restricting of the freedom of others, in which case, the freedom of restricting the freedom of others must be restricted. It seems that the more freedom is permitted, the more restrictions become necessary.
Quoting javra
my point was in line with @schopenhauer1, "that anti-Western sentiment is still Western sentiment." So that when voices from the Left claim that all Western civilization is a monolithic structure of oppression, then turn and begin advocating for the "tolerance" of oppressed minority groups (relying on a uniquely Western ethic), they highlight their contradiction.
The voices on the left who are constantly screaming about tolerance do not really care about tolerance. For them, it is an effective a political weapon because it is impossible to pin down due to its paradoxical nature (as you have shown). To win the debate, they will have no trouble calling your tolerance as intolerance, and their intolerance as tolerance, or when it suits them, calling tolerance as tolerance and intolerance as intolerance.
Good point. This makes me wonder. If the latter is the actual case, and the former not, how is it that they come to be fearful of being called racist? From where does that notion of being called racist come from? Did the ceo's and directors of the myriad independent institutions and businesses all conveniently wake up one day and say to themselves: "I hope noboby thinks my company is racist."? And what is the source of those "adapting ideologies" or "parroting nonsense" that are relevant enough to integrate into a company's mission statement, and why would a company feel beholden to that source?
It appears much more orchestrated than coincidental.
Quoting ssu
I have to agree. There is a strong line of leftist ideology, usually marxian thought, that has been developed over the past century that lays out the blueprint for what is to be Leftist activism. It is very explicit about actively and practically applying its theory in society. It has catalogued the problems, the goals, and the solutions, and has successfully fed it through the relevant institutions and media. Now we can see how all activists on the Left are echoing a uniform message (usually in ignorance of the underlying scholarship). There is no mistaking the similarity of content, only that one operates in offices, the other on the streets.
Again, hard to call it a coincidence, especially nowadays with everything we know about mass manipulaion and propaganda.
As far as your last question, Maher is uniquely politically "incorrect". He says stuff that is often "off the cuff". Where in polite society, we would never mix "white" with simply "European-descended culturally significant figures", well, he just did there. You must remember, he had a show called "Politically Incorrect". And ironically (though predictably), after 9-11, he made a remark about US policy that got him kicked off ABC (syndicated TV). He reformulated to be on a premium cable show, Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, so is able to have a "freer" platform to talk about controversial ideas. And I must say, the ideas that are debated on that show are infinitely more interesting than soundbites on cable tv shows (including everything from BBC, CNN, whatever).
But perhaps @BC can elucidate more on his type of humor? I would say his brand of incorrectness is just as "offputting" in most polite society, which kind of makes him standout as an outlier. But maybe BC has a different take. He certainly, milks the idea of "old school liberal" and "woke liberal" for all he can to show a division in interests of the left. He often takes the Democrats to task for indulging in "woke liberal" talk to appease a progressive wing, which alienates "meat and potato" folk in the Midwest US, who then find refuge in Trump, who for whatever possible reason, they find more sane.
That term term is misleading. Woke is not liberal by any stretch of the imagination, rather it is the activist branch of leftist ideology. It is as puritanical as right wing conservativism. It is certainly antagonistic towards free speech. And what it passes off as liberal progressivism is actually deconstructionist in nature. Progressivism implies a goal to improve on what is the case, pretty straightforward. However, the "woke" leftist views everything that is the case as a structure of oppression that must be obliterated, hence the woke version of progress is not to build and improve, but to tear down and destroy. Theoretically, it is a Leninist tactic ("the worse it is, the better") because it gives them more opportunity to highlight the failures of the oppressive state and push their illiberal agenda.
I've been a small-time victim of a woke-leftist (whom I counted as a good friend). I rejected the necessity of the working class acquiring marxist enlightenment as a necessary prerequisite to solving the environmental crisis of global warming. "If that's the way you think," he said, "I never want to talk to you again!" and he hasn't.
I thought my view was quite reasonable. Considering the extremely meager results we had achieved in 20 years as Marxist missionaries, we had best move on. Try something else. No! No! If you are not with us 100%, then you are against us.
That's crazy. Maybe you popped his hope-balloon and he couldn't forgive you?
So sad. :groan:
It just seems like that would be the reason to maintain contact, not sever it.
However... I'm of an old enough age where dying might happen. There is some comfort in that, oddly enough. When I was much younger, I felt called to act on the many injustices, and that involved a lot of sturm and drang. That's over. An order of concern on dry whole wheat toast, hold the sturm and drang.
Quoting frank
It would IF one was not a rigid ideologue. Hey, I've been rigidly ideological at times on different issues, and it is hard to escape the box of one's own construction. I can find endless embarrassment in my past--confusion, rigidity, self-righteousness, etc. etc. etc. There were good things too -- insight, smart moves, deep commitments, loyalty, flexibility, and so on woven in with the crap, as it usually is.
But this incident was mild compared to teachers in colleges who were hounded out of their jobs by a braying mob of Woke lunatics.
Sure. I'll be right over. I've decided the world doesn't need to be saved. It's pretty much whatever it's supposed to be.
Ha! Yes. Well said. The greater the freedoms for all within a populace, the greater the constraints that all within the populace must live by in order to preserve said freedoms. Irrespective of whether these constraints are intrinsically upheld by individuals or else are extrinsically pushed against what some individuals would otherwise want. Societal rules against murder, for one example, attest to this: one can either not murder any other due to intrinsically maintained motives/intentions or else not murder any other due to the consequences that would likely befall one on account of the societys either explicitly consecrated Laws (with a capital L) or else implicitly maintained laws (written in lowercase). In the absence of these, the first group wouldnt murder still, but the second group would. And when some start murdering and get away with it, the societys freedoms are diminished (e.g., cant walk alone at night quite as freely).
Brings to mind a literally awe-inspiring, chilling, surreal documentary, The Act of Killing, wherein, in part, hardcore gangsters in Indonesia label themselves free men on account of their freedom to engage in mass murders and maybe worse without compulsion, any constraints, or bad repercussions. (Adding a link to the trailer as a shout out for it, which I think the documentary deserves.)
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
I hear you, and I cant disagreeprogressive leaning though I am in some ways (conservative in some others; and independent in yet many more). Still, the way I look at it, there is no forest in which no crooked trees grow. Some forests have more crooked trees than othersbut none are perfectly constituted of upright individuals.
I think the egotistical term of woke sort of gives away the underlying psychology of most who make an issue of self-labeling themselves as such. If As views pertain to someone who isnt somnambulistic and Bs opposing views do then isnt B necessarily inferior to A in value at any time B disagrees with A? In the same vein, youve then also got the brights as was launched by Dawkins I think (contra the non-atheistic dim-witted folk the creation of this dichotomy being a sure way to get your opponents to better understand your own perspectives, not). And, then, you have the self-labeled Good Old Party (this contra the Bad/Evil New Party, one would be led to believe. Disappointingly, Ive so far never heard of anyone complaining about the narcissistic grandiosity required to label ones political affiliations the GOP). The same bigoted attempts at an Orwellian propaganda thing all around, but in different clothes. That sums up my views in this regard.
Having said all that, I wouldnt mind living in a more voluntarily tolerant society, myself. Its the getting there part thats ... well, difficult. :smile:
Because people, institutions and companies want to be respected and respectful.
And because the United States, just like Germany, does have an ugly past with skeletons in the closet. There is no denying of this. We can debate just how racist present day America is, but there is no denying how racist the US was earlier. If for Germans it's their Nazi past, for the US it's the racism of slavery and segregation.
Irrelevant how profitable some CEO has made a company, if there are accusations of racism or him using the n-word, it's very likely that he loses his position. And then there's the ESG score.
Now if the largest mutual funds like BlackRock or Vanguard make diversity or climate change important, it will be important. And I'm sure that Mr Fink didn't have any dark intentions, some evil conspiracy behind such actions. Just ask yourself: what is wrong in large mutual funds making environmental and social issues important? Isn't that something responsible to do?
Then we have to understand how the business world approaches these issues. If there's somehing like diversity or any new term similar to that, that a responsible corporation should take into account, what do they do? They hire a "diversity director", usually who works in the human resources. Guess who apply for that position?
Of course these people, just as people usually do, do take their jobs seriously. And if the diversity director tells that there few if any (or no) black women holding some level positions, do you think that the corporate execs will brush off it as nonsense. Again, Americans don't like racists. Just like self-censorship is very typical, here self-regulation is the driving force, not that there's some underlying conspiracy that first has filled the academia and now is spreading like a cancer to corporations. The people making the real decisions are not some closet Marxists secretly huge fans of the Frankfurt school.
What's bewildering, though, to a non-woke leftie across the Atlantic is...in practical terms, it looks like in the USA that the right-wing Republicans are trying to tear down and destroy. Surely an alliance of Trump and the Republicans in Congress are like old Trotskyists used to be (the bane of my life as a moderate leftie activist), forever disrupting, continually avoidiing commitment, never wanting to pass any motion because they are so busy signalling to the world how right they are?
Are you saying this isn't the case? Where in the USA are these woke lefties tearing down and destroying anything?
It is prudent for an individual, company, or institution to be respected and respectful. But I wonder, why racism specifically? why is it so uniform amongst them all? Why is there no appeal to honesty or dependabilty, or anti-murder? After all, historically speaking, dishonesty and homicide are very serious issues, as much so as any example of racism. Why are such alternative measures of respectability never boasted about in such a boisterous and uniform manner as racism? What about earthquake safety guidelines, that seems like a worthy cause if one seeks respectability?
Quoting ssu
I don't know, Who?
Quoting ssu
Yes, so why all the arbitrary emphasis on racism all the time everywhere? If Americans don't like racism, why does the message always come across so accusatory? Or is it simply some lame form of commercial pandering, like: "let's tap into that american non-racist sentiment to sell more products"? If so, why all the comparisons of american race relations to Nazism? If not, what is the deal with all the emphasis on American racism?
Does the right view all things belonging or adjacent to Western culture as a structure of oppression? Is the right seeking an all encompassing revolution that will obliterate the status quo?
What are the exact structures of civilization that the "right-wing republicans" are trying to tear down and destroy?
Quoting mcdoodle
Not much of a Trumpster myself. Those are some vague assertions. You'll have to provide specific examples to what you are making reference if I am to answer honestly.
Iconoclasm my friend.
The Conflict Over Vandalizing Art as a Way to Protest
A list of the statues across the US toppled, vandalized or officially removed amid protests
I don't see why such powerful groups like blackrock or vanguard won't lead the way by dissolving their capitalist enterprise and dispersing their capital amongst oppressed peoples. That would make a greater impact than their false posturing and virtue signalling. After all, groups like BlackRock and Vanguard represent everything that is wrong and oppressive about Western civilization.
If I may:
In a nutshell, there are basically two competing political wants among humans: A) the want for a society that exhibits liberty (of all), equality (of innate worth), fraternity (or siblinghood, this as some might nowadays call it so as to be inclusive of the [s]weaker sex[/s] women kin) and B) the want for a society that exhibits subjugation (of everything different from oneselffrom infidels to ones creed (be it theistic or atheistic) to nature at large), supremacy (which necessitates inferiors, sub-humans and all), and despotic governance (such that all else obeys ones own groups sum ego unquestioningly, else, often, the singular depot in charge who trumpets his dictums to all, such as by use of twitter).
This doesnt pertain to any one culture, e.g. West vs. East, but is a universal competition of sorts within all populaces at large. Respect, as well as power, can be had via success in either endeavorthough the type of respect and of power will starkly differ: For example, respect for B has a lot to do with fear of, and envy for, the superiors position (who tends to suffer from Damocles Sword syndrome, Stalin as a good enough example of this) whereas respect for A gets to that mushy thing which in English often goes by the term love, to include compassion and the like (Gandhi transformed an empire, this even though hed not stand a change in a boxing match, and most people very much wanted him to live in peace when he started his hunger strike).
To be fair, there are also C) those who dont give a defecation either way, going with the flow of whatever is so long as theyre sufficiently fed and such. But these utterly neutral humans dont effect any significant influence upon what type of societal environment they live in.
For all its deficits and hypocrisiessuch as those which this thread is aboutWestern culture as we now have it greatly honors category (A), at least on the surface. What did our oligarch-sustained politicians and oligarch-maintained media state was the reason we must invade Iraq and other parts of the Middle East? Was the justification given to us masses that of us bringing democracy to unjustly suffering people or was it that of us getting our hands on their fuel and mineral resources so as to better politically and economically dominate the world however we please? It was the former, of coursewhich is in fully keeping with (A). At our current juncture as a Western culture, the latter mentioned possible justification wouldnt have worked all that well on the majority of the population.
Racism falls flatly into category (B) and is antithetical to category (A). And because of that, it becomes a telltale sign of a person being antithetical to what the majority generally respects: category (A); this, at least, in our present Western civilization. Dishonesty is something that all people on occasion engage in without exceptionso it doesnt fit anywhere near as nicely into either one category. Plus, deceptions come in a lot of different nuances: there are differences of acceptability between telling white lies so as to comfort another and telling another lies so as to control them to their future detriment while you make a profit. Cant think of what would constitute acceptable racism, though, this among those in category (A). Whereas anti-murder intents are, again currently in our society, so well established that they are nearly as superfluous as the intents to breathe. I dont respect my neighbor on account of him not having murdered anyone yetjust as I dont respect him for breathing as he goes about his daily life.
Things can always change, though, this for the better or worse.
You always may with me. But be warned, I am an irritating bastard but with good intentions :grin:
Quoting javra
That describes me, for better or worse.
[Give me a bit to reread your philosophy here. It is interesting]
Glad to hear you find interest in it. :up: :wink:
What you wrote there is an Op of its own :strong: . So i will break it down as such.
I think harmless joking amongst friends that may play on racial stereotypes, like "white people can't dance" might constitute acceptable racism. It is too absurd not to be funny. The question is: where to draw the line on the comedic front. And then there is the issue of true racists using comedy as a front. It os certainly complicated.
Yes. True. In not wanting to do another OP meriting thing, if it was, I'll just say that it depends on the intents of the humor (unconscious if not consciously held). You see a Chaplin movie where the Tramp slips and falls then gets up awkwardly: does one then laugh at the stupidity of the other such that one views oneself as superior to such stupidity (here there is category B pleasure in the laughter) or, otherwise, does one laugh with empathy at the character thinking "yea, I've been there and done that too" (exhibiting a category A pleasure in the laughter)?
Same can be generally said about the two different types of laughter at the exact same racial stereotype joke. A black, a white, and a purple walk into a bar ...
But yea, I agree, this can get very complicated indeed.
Quoting javra
Murder is really no different than racism as a social concern. "Whereas racist intents are, again currently in our society, so well established that they are nearly as superfluous as the intents to breathe. I dont respect my neighbor on account of him not having been racist to anyone yetjust as I dont respect him for breathing as he goes about his daily life."
We don't consider everyone a murderer a priori, so whence the idea that people are a priori racist, ipso facto some accidental ancestry? I think someone who envisions murdering her husband every night is as close to being a murderer as a person that tells one poorly crafted racially charged joke with harmless intentions is to being a racist. Where is the outcry against the would be murderer?
Let's not pin that on the US alone. Almost all of Europe was in on it. We just like to wash our hands from it because on paper everybody is now equal.
BTW, I find this whole thread distasteful hubris in its pretension there are monolithic cultures. It's just a repeat of everything Huntington got wrong (and thus philosophically boring as well).
You may have forgotten the "anti-" part, as in "anti-racist"?
In which case, in the world I live in, this is patently false. If absolutely nothing else: Thought I am a white US citizen, I immigrated with my family to the USA on political asylum as a young kid. Not being protestant, not speaking English with a fluent accent, and not looking like a "true American", my family, and me, experienced a good deal of occasional bigotry if not racism all the same ... As just one measly example, my mom was spit upon with a sizable loogie by a troupe of "true Americans" as she got off the bus from work; foreigner-looking and sounding that she was, she obviously wasn't seen fit to dwell among the superior race of true whites. And this was almost a half a century ago, and in relation to white-skinned "inferiors".
But shoot, the example I just gave is trite. All one needs to do is look out the window a bit to see that racism of all stripes and flavors is alive and well in Western society.
I loosely agree with the take given in op and have had similar thoughts myself.
I would say the distasteful hubris is calling Japan / Japanese culture Western. Or (South) Korean. Or any non-Western country that has developed and prospered to be then Western.
At least capitalism and the consumer society aren't limited to Western culture.
Surely this is more Fukuyama inspired End of History stuff. Israel Palestine are still in history. Russia has brought it back in Eastern Europe. The 90s was a facade of exuberance. Fukuyama admitted he was wrong. That doesnt mean Huntington was right either though. However, it isnt wrong to want the conflicted war torn countries to attain the peaceful ennui of a post WW2 Western Europe, replete with liberal democracies that respect their heritage, history and culture of the respective region. Englands history and Anglican Church (official religion of government) and roots in medieval early Anglo Saxon and Norman kingdoms that developed its unique culture arent obfuscated because its a liberal democracy that also has taken on enlightened principles. The Netherlands gets to still have a roughly Dutch culture even though it takes on Enlightened principles. Same with Japan and their culture, same with Israel and theirs.
The Western part is the exported methods of liberal democracies, technology, and scientific method. Leftists want the historically Western nations to abide by Western ideals but then if cultures clash with notions of rights and liberal democracy to give that a pass because of cultural relativism. Therefore human rights to them matter less than respecting cultures. Yet they support the current idea itself of a self-determining NATION STATE. That idea itself, as outlined in the Atlantic Charter is, guess what? WESTERN. You cant get out of it. Rather, its best to acknowledge the End of History is Western and adopt liberal democracy and rights wholesale.
Quoting End of History
Quoting Atlantic Charter
Isn't it so nice the Western countries allowed their colonies to live within their framework in such a fashion? :lol:. So much confusion around the notion of "self-determination".
No, let us hope liberal democracy is not and will not be the end of history or we're fucked.
The categorisation of the world in distinct "civilisations" and then also to pretend you can actually speak on behalf of it, is just so utterly devoid of any critical self-reflection that it's meaningless to engage with it.
My point was not whether it was a good idea or not, but it's the reality of the world order post WW2, both for Europe and the former colonies (though being somewhat questioned by Russia at the moment.. pulling Europe back into "history" if you will). Russia represents a sort of "old school" sprawling multi-ethnic empire, run by a core region near Moscow and St. Petersburg.
Arguably the nation-state started with the 100 years war between England and France when the King-dom of Britain really became prominent over the various nobles and lords and their vassal armies. But really got going in the Quoting Westphalia in the 1600s, near your region, I believe.
Quoting Benkei
Oh, now you are denying your own heritage! The Dutch did a lot to contribute to this and enjoy a very libertine society more-or-less (well, at least in Amsterdam). Don't forget, even old New York, used to be New Amsterdam. You can still see remnants of it here:
The Netherlands contributed greatly to the idea of liberal republics. Arguably they were the most tolerant of other religions due to their being dominated by Catholic foreign power under Philip II. Thus, they let in various Jewish groups from Spain and Portugal (hence Spinoza and early Enlightenment free-thinking), and other minorities (the Pilgrims were kicked out of England but taken into Netherlands around 1607-1619. They didn't like the urbanism of Leiden apparently and thus took the trip to Plymouth, Massachusetts to piss off the Natives there with their moralizing and ineptness at living in a harsh cold climate..
I'll respond the rest in a bit..
Maher makes a good point, but he completely overlooks the bible as a source of anything related to western civilizations/ideals. I think of Samuel's speech in book of samuel inveighing against the evils of centralized government. Samuel could easily remind one of a modern libertarian with his anti-monarchist ideas. There is a genuine debate over whether this style of governance ought to be adopted. The idea of a court system is also heavily biblical. In any case, I agree with Maher's point he just leaves out one major source of western civilization.
Quoting javra
BTW, I previously thought this self-evident, but now feel compelled to make the point explicit.
Talking about races, acknowledging their social reality (for they have no biological foundations*), and occasionally finding humor in some racially stereotyped jokes does not somehow make one a racist by default. Racism, in order to so be, is about deeming some races superior and others inferiorwhich is not necessarily entailed by any of the aforementioned.
* Plenty of online articles on this. Heres a quote from one of them:
Quoting WHAT IS THE BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR RACE - IMPLICATIONS FOR PSYCHIATRIC GENETICS
Could you give some examples of this tendency of 'leftists'? I don't get it.
If you take female genital mutilation (fgm), for instance, are you claiming that leftists are somehow soft on fgm and other people aren't? I don't know of any evidence for this. I'm inclined to think, feminists leaning to the left have recognised the fact of fgm more clearly and openly than anybody else. But I don't know that that involves believing that perpetrators aren't responsible for their acts, and that the acts aren't wrong in ethics and in law.
If you take the way some women from some Muslim countries are clothed, then there is some sort of left/right divide, e.g. in France, where they have legislated against certain forms of dress. But I don't see the right to tell women what they can and can't wear to be part of a Western ideal, do you?
So, what are examples of this leftist leaning?
This kind of stemmed from the thread on Israel/Palestine/Gaza. There are people who don't differentiate between "Palestinians" and "Hamas". Some extremists (on the Left) will even be for Hamas (not just Palestine in general). That is to say they are for a homicidal Jihadist/Isalmist society that would certainly stand for everything that these (extreme leftwing) people would be against if a Western country was for this.
It stems from a weird inverse of morals whereby if a group is perceived to be an underdog they must be morally the right side. As long as they are "fighting" a "hegemon" and who are "occupiers" they are then "justified" is somehow the thinking. This is a tendency that the "Left" takes. It may stem from various Marxist "liberation" ideas (think Che Guevara starting revolutions in Africa against the Western allied regimes). Anyways, I will go further and give you more examples, including the term "Woke", but that is a different contingent of people. And these Hamas-supporters are not just American (you'd probably see less of that in America actually). They are all over. They quickly become muddled in the general protesters in general who might have more nuanced and moderate understanding of the situation.
It goes along with a segment he did the week before:
Where I live, this is exactly the strategy of right-wingers.
Well, being that Trumpism might pretty much take down the worlds oldest surviving liberal democracy, they have their own strategies that look similar.
I think you should watch the video. Notice how Maher brings out the fact that the craziness cuts in both sides (most of those politicians from
Harvard are right wing even though his critique started out criticizing the left wing students and academics).
Quoting schopenhauer1
Wasn't it Leibniz that said in his time that this is the most perfect of Worlds? At least quite aptly Voltaire ridiculed him with Professor Pangloss in Candide. And I guess something has improved since the time of Leibniz.
And, for (the same?) reason as Voltaire mocked Leibniz, nearly everybody (as it's a low hanging fruit) has criticized Fukuyama. And in the end, Fukuyama is really a simple, foolish man: he went all in with the neocons and then later had to refute joining them in a book.. as he somehow didn't understand what the neocons were up to from the start. And that's why he deserves to be called a fool. Because let's face it: the neocons were utterly insane!
Perhaps Fukuyama was the Peter Zeihan of his time: saying to Americans what they want to hear. And that is that America is great and others aren't. Hence Fukuyama was, for some reason, put on a pedestal. A shaky pedestal, that has to be said.
When the topic here is "Western Civilization", we should discuss when that belief in Western ideas goes off the rocker. Actually Fukuyama and other neocons are a perfect example of this. These idiots really sold this idea that you could create democracies by gunpoint and transform cultures that didn't have the own desire or were not capable to transform after a military defeat (like Germany and Japan).
For the first time, because there was no Soviet Superpower whose reactions would have to be anticipated, since the US-Spanish war United States went to invade countries. And if the neocons would had it, there would have been immediately a lot more invasions. Which actually, many happened after the Arab Spring and the emergence of Al Qaeda part II, ISIS.
Only after Trump, yes, of all people after Trump, this insanity was shown out as he kicked out of the 2016 elections the older (wiser?) brother of George Bush with his little finger simply saying truths about George Bush invasion of Iraq. And that was it! No more of the Bush clan. Because before the insanity was totally looked as something sane: It wasn't only the insane lie that "Bush got bad intel", it was the delirious, crazy statement that it would be logical to invade and occupy a country because a small terrorist cabal whose financier happens to be in that country (Afghanistan) and not in another one (Sudan).
In a way, there is a moment for similar delusionary thinking in Israel now. October 7th was such a horrific attack, that "the gloves come off" and now is the time to settle all the scores. Because why not, the US won't do anything. There is an election coming and if the Biden makes any trouble, Bibi can simply pass him and talk directly not only to the Republicans, but also to Democrats. Just look at Carter and soon perhaps Obama: US presidents telling the truth about the Palestinian question are sidelined.
Fukuyama later with another neocon, Bill Kristol:
And back to the issue of Western culture. First and foremost, when looking at any culture, one has to weed out the hubris that people will often label to actually any culture. If it's some native tribe still living as they lived hundreds of years ago, then that culture is promoted by the idea of the "noble savage" who "have not been tarnished by present consumer culture etc". Because they have a "bond" with nature.
And even if it's a joke, there is a truth to it that those who study cultures in the university are usually excited about all cultures except they own culture, which they despise from the bottom of their heart.
At least, in the West.
So why didn't you quote one of the first things I wrote?
Quoting schopenhauer1
I just outright said Fukuyama was wrong and said he admitted he was wrong too. This is a philosophy forum so I get more cred apparently if I throw around philosophers. There was one that came to mind. However this is a strawman you are saying I hold because I mentioned an association of the idea (I didn't endorse his actual ideas or anything resembling neocons, possibly my least favorite political philosophy of recent history):
Quoting ssu
So no, don't try lumping me in there with Bush, Cheney et al because Fukuyama became associated with them.
Rather, my point was that liberal democracies (liberalism in general) is a good thing. I don't think it should be forced onto people at the point of a gun. Rather, I was pointing out that Europe did a lot of carving out of the rest of the world, and is basically drawn as to the territories it is because of them. Even the idea of a nation-state itself is a Western notion. They "let" them self-determine AFTER creating the divisions that they wanted. My point was:
"Well, if you are already Western in the fact that you exist in the entity you are (non-Western country), you mine as well try out liberal democracies too. It seems to be a good thing for humans.. And I mentioned the anglo-saxon-norman (celtic/Roman/Viking) history of England, and the Anglican Church, and the monarchy and all the other cultural trappings because England is an example of a country with a liberal democracy that also keeps its cultural characteristics and history intact. Just as France. Just as the Netherlands. Just as Finland. Just as Japan. Just as Korea. Just as Israel, etc. You don't need to forgo a bunch of your own cultural history or pride or whatnot because you are taking on "Western" political notions of free speech, equality, freedom of thought, freedom to demonstrate, etc. etc. You already use the technology, you like the medicine, the engineering of the Enlightenment of the 1700s and onwards. Well, probably good to embrace that."
Oh and the odd idea that the Soviet Union/Russia were "counterbalancing" American aggression as if they weren't ACTUALLY aggressively trying to convert countries to their point of view, is a bit beyond ironic. You should know that well knowing Finland and its history with Russia.
Here's why:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Because that's the idea behind the neocon delusions. Because it's wrong to assume that if Germany or Japan could make a dramatic change after a disastrous aggressive expansion policy that ended up in total defeat, then just invading a country that isn't democratic can be made democratic.
The hallucination here is that the drive to democracy can be implemented by guns and violence by an invader. It was Germans themselves that didn't want to continue the Nazi resistance by forming Werewolf units, but happily went on as being occupied. In West Germany the leadership wanted to make a dramatic change, whereas East Germany simply regarded itself to be different as a socialist country (and hence the East German army was quite similar to the old Wehrmacht). And so was with the Japanese.
And in general, the US made it's most brilliant foreign policy decision, perhaps unintentionally, by listening to Europeans themselves and supporting European integration. And the end result is NATO, in which the European member countries believe themselves and hence nobody wants the US to get out of Western Europe.
And if Iraq had indeed attacked Iran and Kuwait, the US invasion was because of a non-existent WMD project. And they (Iraqis) had been under sanctions for quite a long time. Besides, just as the Saudis had warned that it was a bad idea to go into Iraq (perfectly understanding what a mess it would be). So once the US came into Iraq, then started the Sunni Shia civil war too.
So wanting to be a "Western democracy" has to come from inside the country, not pushed through by outside powers. Especially with military force. That is the pinnacle of delusional hubris. And we have witnessed that.
So again, why are you ignoring my whole post above when Im saying the exact same thing you are saying here? Here is the post again if you want to try again to read what I actually said instead of cherry picking and then debating a straw man.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/851829
The question ought to be more specific as just referring to being a "democracy", what to do we mean? Is that there are elections every once a while? Usually we are OK with just that narrow definition.
One of the difficulties is that in English there seems not to be a term for what in Finnish is called oikeusvaltio or in German Rechtstaat. Simple translation is "justice state" and closest version in English would be a constitutional state. Here the "justice" isn't only that laws are followed, but the laws are also just. A justice state is nearly the opposite of a police state. Putin might demand that laws are followed and will hold the elections every now and then, but that doesn't Putin's Russia at all justice state. And many democracies usually have a constitution like Russia, so the constitutional state can be misleading.
:up:
Quoting ssu
Yes, that's why I like the term "liberal democracy" as opposed to "illiberal democracy". Just having elections is part of the equation. It is having the (good) trappings of the notion of rights, free speech, freedom of expression, freedom to exercise religion, the ability to have opposition parties, etc. The problem is, you have to have systems in place that don't allow an illiberal group to be voted in and then take away all those systems.
Quoting schopenhauer1
And simply are:
a) Constitution and limits (majority requirements) on changing the constitution / minority rights
b) separation of powers (Montesquieu)
c) free press
d) the educated voter.
D) is crucial. There is no way to protect democracy from the voters. Hence that the voters are informed and reasonable is essential for the system to work. This happens when the system works for the voters. But if for some reason, the voters are treated like shit and they lose all confidence at the existing institutions, they will simply turn to radicals and "the fringe".
Because in a democracy the voters do get what they want. If a party that thinks red headed women are dangerous witches who have to be detained and gets a 2/3 majority in the elections here, guess what will happen to the few red-headed women in Finland?
Yes, my apologies for the typo.
I'm sorry you had to experience that xenophobia. I suppose you know first hand what it's like to be prejudged because of some perceived ethno-cultural differences.
Quoting javra
That is quite an exaggeration. It is the kind of thinking that this thread is meant to address. The notion that "racism of all stripes and flavors is alive and well in Western society" is known as "racial realism". This concept originated with Derrick Bell, who applied marxian critical theory to his civil rights work and has become known as the core architect of crt.
I don't think that it is a coincidence that many Leftists are echoing the ideas of Derrick Bell. Impossible to think that so many would independently arrive at such complex ideas with such uniformity.
It seems much more likely that ideas based in critical theory (like those of Derrick Bell) have been taught in top tier Western universities for decades, and adopted by myriad successful people who have gone out into western societies to evangelize and exert varying degrees of influence. Many of those ideas have come to be go-to, boiler-plate talking points of the Left, particularly when pointing out how oppressive Western civilization is.
Yes, education is key. The problem is when "Rights" are used as a tool to bludgeon the enemy, and not as a way to govern one's own population. Only others (foreign powers, the Great Satan, the hated enemy) can violate your rights. WE can't do that. WE represent your best interests. That might be at the root of most of these populist versions of illiberal democracy.
Nice of you to so say. My pov: In life, shit happens; dont know of anyone who can affirm otherwise.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Myself, Im not well enough versed in political science to have much of an idea of what youre referencing with Derrick Bell, unfortunately. I have however had Asian, Hispanic, and Black friends and acquaintances over the span of my life, aside from the white. From their storiesand from a little that was directly witnessed by meincidences of racism from some pockets of society were and remain. Then theres things like me hearing the N-word used in derogatory manners by folk that happen to be white thinking they're talking to another likeminded white person (for better or likely worse, I admit that I most often didnt start lecturing them on why racism is not good). I've seen swastikas drawn up in humongous sizes in sand on easily seen beaches; and I don't think they were there to reference what the swastika represent in Eastern cultures.
Despite not knowing much about Derrick Bell, I greatly doubt that most of the black lives matter people in the USA gained their perspectives from writings, or even from the media; and I instead firmly believe that most have had shitty experiences due to racism on repeated occasions (with the untimely death of loved ones here included). Nor do I take the anti-Asian sentiments, assaults, and battery that are sometimes reported in the media to be some sort of a hoax sponsored by a cabal of liberal academics. And theres a longer list here regarding present day accounts of racism. Theres antisemitism, as previously touched upon. Theres anti-non-Jewish-Middle-Eastern-ism. And more. Granted, this from my own largely USA-centric (more specifically Californian) acquaintance with the topic (though, being from Europe and having traveled there often enough, Ive seen it there as well first hand).
What youve mentioned at least seems to indicate the view that racism is something only perpetuated by the majority populace toward minorities which are thus oppressed. However, in my experiences, theres also racism that can and in some circles does occur from minorities toward the majority, as well as from one minority toward another. (For example, with the friends and acquaintance previously mentioned, some groups would make derogatory racial jokes against the race of other friends I had, with which the first batch of friends was not acquainted.)
So again, from what I know of the society Im living in via my own experiences, racismthough not pertaining to the majority of the populacedoes nevertheless exist well enough in society at large, and with no signs of stopping. Its like traffic on the streets: most drivers are polite enough to make driving manageable, but there always were and still are those who can make driving in traffic an unpleasant experience due to being assholes. Yes, the latter are a minority on the streets, but theres still enough of them to make driving, lets say, unnecessarily stressful and antagonistic.
Im not here offering any academic theory regarding the matter. Its simply my honest observations thatalthough not pertaining to the majority as it currently standsracism is alive and well in society. For me to deny this is for me to deny my accumulated experiences, as per those mentioned above.
[BTW, a funny anecdote: Normally cops are pretty cool with me on the rare occasion theyve stopped me in traffic. Now, Ive been confused over the years for a number of different races by some: Gypsy, Hispanic, Middle Eastern Anyways, a white cop who gave all indications of at first thinking me Hispanic once pulled me over for driving about 5 miles per hour over the speed limit in a 40 or 45mph zone. I politely told him good afternoon officer as he was nearing my open window. He immediately pulled his pistol out of its holder in front of me while asking, what did you say to me?. At the end, he let me go scot-free this after at first forcefully asking me if I was ever imprisoned and the like. Funny anecdote to me. But shoot, this doesnt compare to stories Ive heard from Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks Ive personally known.]
With all that said, I'm by no means one to deem Western civilization oppressive! I find it to be quite the contrary. Racism can be found in individuals everywhere (like in many a Buddhist, of all people, in Myanmar toward the Rohingya people). But, to my knowledge, only in the West was the affirmation of "liberty, equality, fraternity" made explicit with ambitions to create states that more perfectly embody this ideal. This as just one example of what I have in mind. (The politics of any given moment does not constitute a civilization ... ah, but I've already written more than I initially wanted to, so I'll cut this short.)
At any rate, this doesn't make the West a place where racism is as infrequent as is murder.
Dutch tolerance is in fact a fairy tale that was romanticised thanks to the links to the pilgrim fathers and the dominance that the Netherlands got in the 17th century when the system of religious tolerance continued. But it was tolerant to the point that different people could live next to each other but it didn't accept exchange between the two to the point that they had their own church, schools, bakery, hairdresser etc. that was largely also a reflection of regional differences. Even in that period of "tolerance" (starting in 1543 with the 17 provinces) the Great Iconoclasm happened. It was pragmatism that brought them back together. Certainly, nothing as high minded as liberalism crossed these men's minds. In reality, this religious tolerance existed in other European countries as well at the time. Meanwhile all those Jews that were welcome were still pushed into ghettos and they had to bury their dead far away from the cities.
The pilgrim fathers moved to a country that was receptive of protestants (calvinisten) and the Dutch had just signed a treaty with the Spanish - it was close and relatively safe at a time that local rulers were quick to (pretend to) be calvinist or at least 'tolerant' to the point they kept their heads and power. The pilgrims still got into religious fights in Amsterdam after which they moved to Leiden, where they then were disgusted with the drinking and gambling going on.
Even so, all this, including the first colonies, predates liberalism as a political movement and any links to Dutch thinkers is tenuous at best.
Write more, please. You are a well-spring of fresh thought, don't cut yourself short for anybody, nor Time. I have more to add but I've been kinda swamped at the moment, however your ideas are very worthy of conideration.
First, it is an indisputable truism that all racists are bitch-ass cowards that deserve a healthy beatdown. So let's get that out of the way.
If we are talking racially motivated homicide, it is pretty evident from police statistics that, whites are predominantly killing whites, and blacks are predominantly killing blacks.
Quoting USA today
And since i live in a diversified and civilized area, there are never any people being murdered, much less over racial hatred, hence I can only go off statistics from usa today. Based off those statistics, it is obvious that intraracial homicide is much too prolific to give interracial murder any consideration until the intraracial is dealt with.
With that I can agree. Everyone holds racial prejudice, even those that genuinely consider all races equal. Prejudices of all types. The question is about which prejudices we can tolerate while respecting the core principles of "liberty, equality and fraternity/duty". Is it even possible to push the limits of tolerance?
And simply that the society works at least somehow. The economy has to work in some way. Politicians can be incompetent, that can be, but not criminals. Or simply people who don't have the people's interest at all. Revolts on the ballot box can then become revolts in the streets.
Oh just stop it. :smile: Thanks though. :pray:
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Interesting. Im in fact surprised by the relatively low percentage of race on race killings among blacksthis considering that theres a far higher percentage of black street gangs with violence in-between, or at least so my presumptions hold. I added that part about death due to what Ive heard on the news regarding police killings. Heres one statistic relative to the US:
Quoting Law Enforcement Epidemiology Project - U.S. Data on Police Shootings and Violence
The statistic, though, doesnt give context to why the disparity occurs. And I for now can only speak of cases Ive heard of in the news, granting that theyre preselected to be newsworthy.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
Aye, to that. It would be dysfunctional for developed life not to form pre-judgments (i.e. prejudices in this sense) via generalizations from past experiences. What degree of prejudice (in all senses) can or should be tolerated is a tough question; akin to asking how many grains of sand does it take to make a heap. Dont know. Still, at the end of the day, we can all distinguish between a blatant heap of sand and a few sprawled out grains of the stuff ... or so I'm thinking.
In this particular case though, there is an alternative explanation: According to Buddhist principles, Buddhists aren't supposed to drink alcohol or kill animals or be involved in the business of making alcohol or slaughtering animals. But they still want to drink alcohol and eat meat. And as far as the meat is concerned, the Buddhist precept against killing is not breached as long as one didn't kill the animal oneself, didn't order it to be killed, or has no reason to believe that it was killed for one specifically. So the Buddhists found a convenient way around the Buddhist precepts and allow people of other religions to live among the Buddhists and to do the dirty work of brewing alcohol and slaughtering animals.
How the Buddhists thought that this wasn't going to backfire ...
I watched both, but I'm not sure what to make of them. First off, I don't appreciate mixing serious criticism with humor. I'm not sure what to make of this genre.
Generally, the US just seems strange to me, a world I cannot relate to. This is, pretty much, why it captures my interest.
Ok, so I'll admit that one of the main reasons I brought up Dutch history was to show its connection with the US to some extent. That's why I put in some Dutch cultural traces with the name "Brooklyn", "Bronx", "Harlem" and the like. Presidents such as Martin Van Buren, Teddy Roosevelt, and Franklin D. Roosevelt have obviously Dutch names and lineage amongst a litany of Dutch-descended Americans.they were unsurprisingly from New York, undoubtedly descended from the early Dutch families. In a bit of counterfactual history, I wonder what New York would have turned out if it remained New Amsterdam, or if it retained much more of its Dutch roots and was liken to New Orleans' French Quarter retaining French/Spanish influence.
As far as any connection to liberalism, I never said it was tolerant as if taking on the present-day version of that, but it was leading the way towards a kind of religious tolerance. However, this might have been a Calvinist Protestant specific kind of tolerance that for a time, had a philo-semetic characteristic. Under Oliver Cromwell in England, the Jews were allowed to return to England after being kicked out in 1290 under Edward I Longshanks. So, there were various factors regarding tolerance. Besides this there was the fact that for a while, there was the Dutch Republic with a sort of democratic confederacy. Of course, it also ran an imperial and brutal colonial system just as England, Spain, Portugal, and France. But they did secure a for the burgeoning US in the Revolutionary War, though they waited until the defeat at Yorktown to provide that loan.
But certainly, despite some regressions to a monarchical form of government, there has been a strain of liberalism in the arts, religious tolerance, etc. up until WW2, where, as with other European countries people were forced into helping the Nazis, some having to collaborate with sending their Jews and others to the concentration and death camps far away. But like other countries such as France, they also had a resistance movement. Many Dutch sacrificed and died, the tyrannical rule and the hunger winter and forced factory labor. But there were numerous strikes. And let us not forget the Diary of Anne Frank, which is a ubiquitous text for most school children around the world in regards to WW2.
Certainly "Liberalism" as we know it being a term for having "rights" and "freedoms" and a sort of focus on individual liberty was more a product of specific philosophers and movements in the late 1600s and 1700s.. People like John Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, even Spinoza had some ideas that could start leading to freedom of religion, etc. Certainly Montesquieu, Voltaire, and in America Jefferson, Adams, Madison, et al.
But as far as nation-states many historians would indeed point to the origin of territory self-determined without outside influence as the Westphalian system. However, indeed it wasnt until the romanticism of the 19th century that you get a cobbling of city states into a nation state in the examples of Italy and Germany.
I understand that, and police have a culture all their own. Maybe there are currents of racism running through police culture, I don't know. Let us impugn all police as racists (against black people, whatever), I still do not see any necessary connection between that, and the general sentiment of the average person. Police exist in an entirely different world than the average person, and, imho, we shouldn't impugn the average person for the actions of state sponsored officials.
A touchy topic for a number of reasons. Besides, I've conversed with more than one police officer who was anything but a racist. Of course, if the culture of a particular precinct is, then those police officers within the precinct that aren't generally have a very hard time with things.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
There's a lot of connections in life that cannot be epistemically established as necessary. All I've got to go on are my own experiences, of which I think I've addressed enough of.
Do you by chance uphold there being a "necessary disconnection" between the actions of state sponsored officials within a democracy and the general sentiment of the average person within said democracy?
I do. I don't think it is the average person that determines the government, despite the system. Whether constitutional republic or ochlocracy, it always seems to be controlled by a select few. When has the average person ever mattered? Was it Lenin who said: "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves."?
That made me laugh a bit, in a good way. Sure, but then it sure sounds like were addressing dysfunctional democracies here: states that are democratic only in name. This in full parallel to how communistic states have only been communistic in name.
Seems like the same applies to both in like measure: "All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others". (to quote from Orwell, of course)
As for those who might be naysayers when it comes to functioning democracies, they've been in the past. Ancient Athens as a good example: the citizens - male though they all were - where deemed equal enough to have most offices of state settled by lottery. I say this laughingly: imagine having the secretary or state or some such selected by lottery nowadays. Its why education has always played one of many pivotal roles in any functioning democratic rule. So as to no result in a system wherein some are deemed "more equal than others". But this is a wholly different issue.
As for the connection topic, I'm OK at this point with agreeing to disagree on the matter.
You have given me an innocent chuckle too: something about grains of sand and heaps. Loved it.
I disagree that we disagree much on the matter. I feel like we are simply expositing various approaches on the matter as best we can. We have not been emotional or irrational reactionaries in our entire conversation.
:grin:
Yes, now that you bring it up, quite true. Somehow was taking this for granted before as the way things ought to be. Especially on a philosophy forum. But I guess it is something significant enough to be worthy of mention. :up:
Ive been watching Bill for nearly 30 years. I find him funny at times and used to think he was interesting (at least he cares about more important stuff, I figured). Now I think hes almost always pure fluff. Theres no depth. Just whatever fairly mainstream hot take that pops into his aging mind. Relies heavily on strawmen, so he can then look cool tearing them down.
And thats the level of this entire analysis, I think.
Maybe people have become more critical of their own country but thats a good thing. If they go too far with it, then we should object fine. But notice the real reason for the claim: growing and vocal support for Palestinian people. Thats unacceptable to the old guard and their echoers like Bill Maher. So suddenly the sky is falling and Western civilization is under attack.
There isnt 100% support anymore for everything Israel does? The kids just not know their history! They must be communists! They must be cheering for Hamas and terrorism! They must hate America and the West and all things White!
Give me a break.
You speak of strawmen but this is one. Your characterization is off. He was against the immediate cheering for Hamas after the attacks. If you cant bracket that as a horrible thing in and of itself, whatever your view, you are morally corrupt. Israelis didnt want to tear into Gaza and cause collateral damage fighting terrorists who hide in large populated areas. It was Hamas who did the barbaric acts which is going to cause the military to respond by removing them. But see, people dont know when to bracket. They have no shade of subtlety. They cant seem to wrap their minds that a barbaric act of injustice doesnt justify past political grievances. And this was right after the attacks so the response wasnt even under way yet. But we all know that Hamas only has the media cycle as their cover. The response to the aggression then becomes the self fulfilling prophecy that the proverbial world stage was waiting to get to. They want to conveniently skip over how this move to get rid of Hamas got started.
You are an excellent interlocutor. I have constantly been thinking how civil you have been with me, and I can be a bit of an instigator. It is more than worthy of mention, you might have a unique insight, on how not to turn off your interlocutor online.
It is not sudden. The sky is alway falling in some way. That gives meaning to our lives. And western civilization is under attack, as always, from the barbarians which seek to overthrow everything that is "decent" and "good". When has this never been the case except in the postmodern world? However the sky is still falling.
Never
Except from the Israeli or true Jew. And from me now, especially since the radical Left has unequivocally come out in support of the Jew hating, antisemetic, pro-Hamas bullshit.
No, its not. At least not Mahers.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Of course they did. Theyve been wanting it for a while. Moreover, theyve been killing Gazans slowly for years.
Unless of course were talking about the people of Israel, not the right-wing, genocidal government. Im guessing many Israelis are against what their government is doing in Gaza. Likewise the people of Gaza, I suspect, are against the actions of Hamas.
Its part and parcel of the same thinking. The oppressed and oppressor is exactly the black and white thinking that Maher brings up. Looks at how even just the basic condemning of Hamas is almost completely avoided and shifted, and I said it best here: Quoting schopenhauer1
If you dont want to add to the conversation here and deflect for your friend or whatnot than perhaps same deflection. seems to bring up a good point and keep people accountable for this characteristic Left view that has to see this framework that Israel has of course been wanting this for years in his words. Its equivocating because no shit Israel would love Hamas to go away being that they have for years violently attack and hide under civilian targets provoking response. But the equivocation is the response to this recent attack was invited or something in some weird conspiracy, so it isnt even that they were caught off guard now. The view is so warped the oppressor must have wanted it. Not only that his comment not so subtly hinted that the government wanted collateral damage, not just getting rid of Hamas. Its all avoidance and redirection of blame. For them, Hamas cant just be undeniably condemned as evil. It has to move to the oppressor. All black and white thinking. No bracketing. I shouldnt even have to explain this much to an unhelpful deflecting comment from someone who contributed nothing except (see other thread) but here I am.
Strawman.
But does Israel want to kill innocent Palestinians? Please read into their souls and tell us about what their great intentions arethat justify the reality: killing innocent Palestinians.
Then go on about moral corruption as you rationalize genocide.
Hamass actions are grotesque. No rational human being is in favor of their actions. The same can apparently not be said of the Israeli government. Why? Because theyre the good guys, with noble intentions.
Also, the equivalency here lies with those defending Israeli war crimes. Theres no parity whatsoever. The balance of power overwhelmingly favors Israel which is obvious, given the resources and military strength (and backing by the US).
Thats all that the commentary was trying to convey is needed. If you saw the second video it was condemning the conflation with any Palestinian cause with Hamas.
Yeah but you know very well thats not the full context. A normal human being will ask Why did this happen?, especially when a horrific event like October 7th is used to justify the killing of innocent people (aka, collateral damage). And the answer to that question isnt as easy as they terrorists we good guys. It just isnt.
But Ill leave it there. Not off-topic per se but theres a whole thread dedicated to this issue.
I think I addressed that earlier political grievances dont justify that kind of civilian grotesque killing, period. And as to response, in context of this argument, I mentioned the waiting for the media cycle for Hamas to take cover. They physically take cover under civilian structures. As I said:
Quoting schopenhauer1
That is to say, Hamas could do anything and it wouldnt matter because Israel oppressors. If they try to remove Hamas its just the oppressor oppressing. There is legitimate arguments by what tactics Israel should take, but certainly they had to take some action with a group who killed and took hostages. They arent just perpetrators. They technically are the government of Gaza, and stole billions on making themselves and their military wing enlarged so they can perpetrate such operations and provoke a response from a heavily armed combatant.
Hamas for the best of two bad choices given to the people well over a decade ago. Things have changed. Israelis have an obstinate leader and many Israelis want him gone.
Western? Not much to speak of here of Western civilisation as far as I can tell. Just another hate vs hate scheme orbiting religious dogmas and bigotry.
Western civilization is relevant if we consider that out of the two, Israel is the one that respects the basic human rights and civil liberties of its citizens - uniquely Western values. We also see that portion of the Left, which despises everything about the oppressive West, has wholeheartedly sided with Hamas - a group which also despises everything about the West, including the infidels on the Left who support them, and especially Western values like civil liberties and basic human rights that those same Leftists claim to champion. It is rather ironic.
People in Gaza and West Bank and citizens of what nation? How are they treated by this so-called Western Civilisation?
I think western ideals reach beyond religious dogma most of the time. Needless to say this is a complex issue.
I can say one thing for certain though. I do not think of Israel when I am talking about Western Civilisation. What I do think about though is how Europe (mostly UK) made a horrible mistake in backing Zionist zealots out of some kind of collective European guilt due to the horrors committed on Jews throughout the centuries.
Small minorities are small minorities. I think they should be shunned and more focus paid to those peacefully demonstrating.
There will always be elements wanting to cause unrest.
Either way, the left vs right thing is silly. I hold some views that more liberal and others that are more conservative. I think it makes more sense to say Conservative and Liberal that some distanced term like left.
I have no real idea how to define western civilisation either. I know most people everywhere are pretty much the same. The differences accumulate with education. Education is key.
It is not the duty of a state to worry about that which it has no sovereignty over. Western civilization has a prerogative for seeing the victory of it's values wherever possible, but in the places where Western values are shunned and despised by the local powers that be, especially those places that are openly hostile to Western civilization, it has every right to subjugate them if necessary.
Quoting I like sushi
That is true. I'm not as informed about Nazism on the Right, but I'm sure their position is mired in contradiction as well.
Quoting I like sushi
Right-Left are general political orientations rooted deeply in one's beliefs on human nature. Despite one's disregard for the category of Right vs Left, nearly every political economic or sociological opinion can be comfortably classed under one or the other, whether liberal or conservative. On the other hand, liberal and conservative are actually political ideologies for designing the state. They are so broad in their reach that they bleed into every other modern ideological system. It's not gospel truth, just political theory, but it explains a lot in many cases.
Quoting I like sushi
Western civilization is global. It has spread it's influence everywhere, especially when capitalism has driven it, and for both good and bad, but overall for good. Western civilization is any place where an athiest, Trangender, lesbian with different color skin than the local population can visit and voice radically divergent opinions in public, while expecting to be reciprocally respected for simply being a human being, and with no threat of being stoned by a mob and strung up in the streets. Western civilization is also a place that happens to be more or less dedicated to the protection of civil liberties and basic human rights of all the citizens within it's respective sovereignties (ideally). Again, just political theory, not gospel truth.
Sounds a little barbaric though. The if necessary is not foolproof. Subjugate how? For what reason? To force assimilation, to dislodge or to destroy?
The problem is always application of ideals (attached to national and/or religious identity) as if they are ubiquitous to all humans.
I believe the main pillar of any civilisation society is the ability to sit down with those you oppose and talk, to disagree, and then to compromise where possible. Western Civilisation does this maybe a tiny little bit more I think mostly due to technological and scientific development.
Israel exists now. It should not of come into existence in the manner it did, but such is life. Zionism is pretty dumb idea based on religious garbage.
As things stands too many Jews are being brought up to hate Arabs and too many Arabs are being brought up to hate Jews. I believe the vast majority just want the killing to stop but that is highly unlikely for another generation or two.
I have held the belief for a long time that patriotism and religion are equally dogmatic and almost as silly as each other.
We could explore forever what Western Civilisation means that might be a good idea? To insinuate that Israel is a Western Civilisation makes little sense to me, geographically, historically and politically. More Western than Syria or Jordan? 100%. Might be better to start with cultural and historical distinctions. It is a complex topic in and of itself.
This insidious need to associate with one side or another is the biggest problem.
This wording is very particular. There's an interesting opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about Druze Israelis, who serve in the armed forces, but do not have equal rights. The writer says:
[quote=Haaretz"]The nation-state law, let us recall, contains no mention of equal rights for all the countrys citizens, Jews and non-Jews. A law that defines the State of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people but does not in the same breath declare equal rights for all the countrys citizens is a nationalist, anti-democratic law.[/quote]
The second issue concerns what respect Israel offers to those who previously inhabited the land on which Israel is founded, who are not its citizens but whose descendants live either in Israel, or in territories conquered and administered by Israel. How is Israel respecting 'the basic human rights and civil liberties' of the inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank?
It is a shame that innocent and honorable Palestinian civilians are being held hostage by Hamas, and many will necessarily have to die in order to eradicate those savages, but that is the hand that has been dealt. It is unfortunate, but sometimes barbarism is the only language barbarians understand. If those savages were civilized there would be every reason to treat them with civility and avoid barbarity. But alas, it is not so, and it would be embarrassingly naive to think otherwise.
Quoting I like sushi
Subjugate through force of arms, diplomatic means are obviously no longer an option. For the purpose of exterminating all traces of Hamas - for the betterment of the Palestinians that are tyrranized by Hamas, and Israelis too. There is no reason for a group like Hamas to exist.
Quoting I like sushi
Most likely. It only takes a handful of assholes to ruin things for everyone else.
Quoting I like sushi
Well, as long as there are nation-states and things beyond human understanding, there will be patriotism and religion.
Quoting I like sushi
Agree. Israel is not a proper Western state as such, but relative to the other states in it's geopolitical region, it falls most in line with the values of the West, evinced by it's generally favorable relation with many Western states.
Quoting I like sushi
The theory of postcolonialism has done a more than adequate job of contrasting Western culture with non-Western culture. No need to reinvent the wheel.
Quoting I like sushi
I think Left and Right make up a spectrum, which is why there are designations like of center, left of center, right leaning leftist, &c. I agree that no one conforms purely to one side, except for radicals.
I don't think people are choosing which side they are associated with. It is a a byproduct of one's morality and view of human nature, which are difficult for people to change. However, as a category that explains particular political dispositions and opinions, it works perfectly well.
This is the crux of it. Necessary use of force. It is pretty clear to me that there has been too much force used. If people wish to avoid civilian casualties dropping lots of bombs on highly populated areas is not really going to cut it.
Boots on the ground would be the non-savage response. Killing thousands of civilians to save a 100 Israeli soldiers is not justified. In war soldiers should be dying not civilians. Seems pretty obvious to me.
Quoting Merkwurdichliebe
There has to be a wheel to start with. There are no ubiquitous terms when it comes to culture. Culture has been a contentious term in anthropology since its inception.
Israel has something called Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty. Hamas has something called the Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement. The former intends to protect the fundamental rights and liberties of Israeli citizens. The latter makes no significant mention of the fundamental rights and liberties of Palestinian people.
What is "particular" about that? :chin:
Quoting mcdoodle
The people of the Gaza strip and West Bank are not Israeli citizens, hence they are not recognized under the Israeli constitution and are not eligible for its protections. Hamas and PA are responsible for the civil administration of Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza. I suppose their way of protecting the fundamental rights and liberties of Palestinian people is by embezzling billions in aid and infrastructure meant for civilians...or committing terrorist acts that provoke heavy military responses, and using their own civilians as human sheilds.
On paper, it is obvious. But in reality, it is a fantasy. The non-barbaric response is long dead at this point. It was tried, and it failed. Diplomacy and half measures will do nothing but guarantee a future October 7th, and if that is to be avoided, Israel is going to have to get medieval. It is unfortunate.
Quoting I like sushi
Nevertheless, postcolonialism has made a strong case that there is such thing as western culture, and in civilized societies in which western culture reigns, we can say that these belong to Western civilization.
I should add that postcolonialism speaks of Eurocentrism, the history of colonialism, cultural hybridity, and Globalization as being key components of Western Culture.
Some want to conveniently overlook these points.
I should probably mention that members of the Israeli government wanted some form of attack in order to make a move on Gaza. All kinds of underhanded actions take place in these situations. Just like with Ukraine the truth of the matter may see the light of day in several decades time.
All talk is irrelevant really. Actions speak louder rhetoric.
Do you think what defines the West is lived and realised mistakes? I ask this as it seems to me the success of any culture (and progression of) is directed by how it reacts to mistakes made.
First off, that itself is huge it implies testing, changing hypotheses, observation, mathematical modeling, applying to materials, mechanics, energy to make devices and structures etc. its bringing centuries of knowledge and research into systematic study and application, replicating it, and making it in grand scales repeatedly in products, medicine, and infrastructure. Anyways, yeah thats huge.
Many non-western areas want those technological perks of western output but not the socio-political aspects that arose with that. You have for example, Islamist forces wanting a 600s CE religious governance with modern (western) technology or AT THE LEAST the war technology that leads to destruction and violence to live out the 600s lifestyle (a contradiction). But that technology didnt come from a vacuum. Its tacitly acknowledging the west has something to offer (technology) but not admitting that perhaps it comes out of a bigger framework that is also preferable even if its resisted as evil. That is to say it came out of the Renaissance/ Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment principles that coalesced around the 1600-1700s with notions of rights and balanced governments, and freedoms of speech and press. That culture and religion and tradition should be a choice not an imposition to these individual freedoms. That democracy isnt illiberal, that you cant vote out rights. Voting itself is not a measure of democracy but the structures that prevent government from encroaching on liberties as well as protecting minority political views.
And yes, the west is self critical. It imposed on itself that all men are created equal. This goes against the practice of slavery and discrimination laws. So you have abolition movements, civil rights movements, protests, and sometimes civil wars to ensure the ideals the west invented (discovered?) are held up. Its why I believe Israel is given the burden of taking more care to save lives even if trying to rid itself of a deadly attack. Its western in its governance. Its why when Assad or Hamas, or Iran or the Taliban, or China or Pakistan, or many African countries consistently violate liberal principles (freedoms, rights, crimes against humanity) no one seems to care all that much. They have no western standards they are even living up to, so whats the point. They are treated as if its just a matter of course that they do what they do. Its ironic that once a country is fully westernized it has the hardest time fighting non-western enemies, as these enemies arent hampered by the same qualms. They will use the wests conscience against itself to ensure maximum chaos and division.
@Merkwurdichliebe perhaps youd like to add more.
Also dont get me wrong, the west also invented fascism, nazism, communism (more specifically referring to the Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist kind) etc. These have been massively destructive, and are generally violent. I have already mentioned that much of these western style governments that arise in the 19th century are what influenced non western leaders too. Baathist middle eastern regimes come out of fascist principles. Liberation fronts seem like communist era rhetoric. Islamist terrorism may have taken its worst methods of violence and governance from these and combined it with their form of strict religious political worldview. So when I say west I am really using it as a shorthand for a kind of liberal democracy that went hand-in hand with the ideas of the scientific revolution around the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe and America.
This is why I call this theory "Big-Toe Theory". Once you have your big-toe in the West, the rest should go too. That's because we are the West whether we like it or not. You don't like your "failed state". It doesn't matter. That state is a state because of the West. The fact that there are even nation-states, are western (from colonialism and imperialism era). There is no going back. There is no way out, for good or bad. Mine as well embrace what makes the West work, as you are living in that framework.
Apropos an underlying current that's been in many of the more recent posts I've read regarding the Israel / Palestinian conflict on this tread:
First off, I am extremely in favor of a cessation to all antisemitism worldwide. (To the antisemites out there this would make me a hardcore Jew lover.) However, I am also one to sternly believe that a Semitewhich, let's face it, is a technically inappropriate and often derogatory slang for Jewis not to be absolved of all wrongs merely on account of so being Semitic.
As such, I am very opposed to the slaughter of innocent Palestinians (btw, dont know how more innocent a person can get than being a child) by the Israeli state which indeed is, from at least my pov, nowadays in large part internally supported by Judaic religious fundamentalists rather than Jews who take views such as that of not in our name. (such as those who some years back outlawed interracial marriages between Palestinians and Jews, if memory serves me right)
With that general background in mind, apropos the allegiance to Western Civilization by westerners, or something to the like, which this thread in part seems to be about:
Has anyone so far brought up the following issue?
The religious fundamental-extremist drive, yearning, and often undulated lust for the coming of the Messiah asap (the first time the Christ arrives for fundamentalist Jews; the second coming for fundamentalist Christians)which is supposed by fundamentalist-extremists to only occur once the nation of Israel is fully inhabited by only Judaic people is, to the best of my knowledge, a staple part of the Western Judaeo-Cristian civilization. Some such extremist Christians at least seem to exhibit some degree of blood-lust in this craving; cf. the whole Armageddon days that is desired to arrive by some, and as was supposedly prophesied in Revelations (for only then will Christs second coming occur, according to this common interpretation of scripture). Some current fundamentalist-extremist Jews seem to not be lagging too far behind in this same lust for blood (from human lesser-animals, apparently).
Christs coming for the first time for Jews can be, for fundamentalist-extremist Jews (btw, a group to which, tmk, many Orthodox Jews are sharply antithetical, the latter being very peace-loving and such), interpreted to signify the exaltation of the chosen people and, by certain inferences, thereby the subjugation of all non-chosen-people, i.e. Gentilesor something to this effect (heck, one can even see the case for the existential disappearance of Gentiles world over for not being sufficiently close to G-d as understood by self-labeled true Jews). Whereas Christs second coming for fundamentalist extremist Christians will basically signify that all non-believers get sent to eternal Hell right away, Jews most typically included.
But, despite this, till then, there is all indication of a strong, unassailable allegiance between fundamental-extremist Christians and fundamental-extremist Jews, for both seek the same given aforementioned goal of fulfilling the prophecy of the Messiahs coming.
One could bicker among the details of the just expressed (and I wrote them down from best recollections, mistaken as these sometimes are, without going through the trouble of finding references where appropriate, and most certainly with the hew of my own current biases as a human)but the overall gist to me seems to remain. Oddly, I havent heard of this commonly known reality of fundamental-extremist religious belief structure among the Judaeo-Christian civilization/populace often spoken about publicly, such as in media or in houses of worship with publicly accessible sermons. And those brights/atheists in the populace havent managed to make the slightest dent in this situation; if anything, only adding fuel to the fire. In democracies, politics is determined by the population intentions. How much of the western populace is fundamentalist-extremist is hard, if at all possible, to accurately judge. But theres plenty of evidence that fundamentalist thought and practice has not diminished, and has likely increased, in the West at large over the decades. If nowhere else, then at least in the USA.
Sothis just mentioned issue of the Messiahs coming sure seems to me to be a purely Western Civilization thing. Many might even say that the West as we know it required, and still requires, Judaeo-Christian ideology in order to work.
The pinnacle issue all this is intended to ask about: Ought this policy-influencing yearning in our Western culture for the Messiah's coming to not be mentioned, questioned, and disapproved of by us westerners this on the grounds that it has been a staple aspect of Western Civilization for the past two millennia?
--
Ps. Not only am I very pro all peace-loving and justice-loving Jews of the world, Im also for all Christians thatin the paraphrased words of Bill Maher in the documentary Religulousare Christ-within-ers or some such (to my reckoning: hold the ethical teachings of JC as that which ought to be lived and practiced via works). Well, since I also mentioned atheists, also very much pro all humanitarians as well. All the same, the issue I posted is still of interest to me.
:up: :up:
Your reductions of whole threads or argument to a straw man is laughable. In fact, you are falling for exactly the kind of fallacy the OP set out to explain.
If you have an argument, make an argument, just don't say X, Y, Z label trying to start a fight but with no argument.
I mean yes, the reason the Israeli-Palestinian conflict takes so much interest is because like it or not, that is the place where a large chunk of Western Civilization's history is focused via the events portrayed in the Bible/Hebrew Scriptures and the person of Jesus. Christianity took over the Roman Empire's leadership and slowly spread across the populous in various conversions such that the original paganism is little seen except through overlaid practices (like putting Christmas trees in a house.. Germanic practice of honoring Wodin with the Yule log, or even the revelry that is associated with Christ-mas going back to the original Roman rowdy holiday of Saturnalia). If Christianity became the Marcionite version, WITHOUT the "Old Testament" (Hebrew Bible), then perhaps the Christian sect would have simply been another mystery-cult amongst the many that thrived in the Mediterranean at that time. But keeping the Hebrew Scriptures allowed the tradition a place/time/people. This became infused as part-and-parcel of Western Civilization since. So yes, why would an atrocity in Afghanistan or even a nearby neighbor like Syria not be as intensely looked at in American-European media perhaps? It doesn't have that historical tie. But more recently, you cannot deny that Israel being borne out of the Holocaust basically, put a spotlight on it as that was a huge part of Germany's operation. This itself makes the project that much more inextricably tied to the history of the West.
Quoting javra
So I would say it is a bit of a misnomer to say "the Christ arrives for fundamentalist Jews". The idea of the messiah being "The Christ" is a very "Christian" concept (mainly from Paul and his writings). Messiah comes from the Hebrew "moshiach" and was meant to refer to a leader who would bring an end to any occupying civilization and restore the old kingship back to the an heir from the lineage of the House of David. Later versions (starting around the Book of Daniel we'll say), had a more apocalyptic aspect where the dead will rise, and there will be universal peace (lion lies next to the lamb, etc.). Some versions around the time of Jesus had an apocalyptic aspect of the warring of the "elect of Israel" and the rest, etc. (the Dead Sea Scrolls is a good source for this more apocalyptic version of events). Some of that may still be in there, but the beliefs of the mystical aspects are more fluid and open to interpretation. The basic gist is that it is a Jew (literally a Judhite as David was from the tribe of Judah) restoring the kingship of Israel.
The Christ is Paul's notion that the messiah has a metaphysical component. He may be pre-existing (though in Paul's letter that might not be the case), and eventually tied into the notion of a literal Son of God, and that his death acts as a sacrifice abrogates the original covenant such that the Laws of Moses become nullified. This is actually the real split from Judaism, not believing that "Jesus was the Messiah" (though that didn't help too between the very early group after his death, because a dead messiah doesn't seem plausible as restoring the kingship.. If he is dead, he cannot fulfil that).
Anyway, yes there is a strong tie of Evangelical theology with Israel as the belief is that if all Jews go back to Israel Jesus would come back and then send the non-believers to hell and start the whole rapture and the like.
Here is an article: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/truth-many-evangelical-christians-support-israel-rcna121481
Hm. From what I know, Christ or, more accurately, Khristos is the Ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew word for Messiah, ????????, both having the same exact meaning of the anointed one. For both religions basically meaning the chosen one who will lead his people into salvation of one type or another. Lets not forget that all Christians were in fact Jewish and pagan (if Gnosticism-like beliefs held by former polytheists get so labeled) before the first Council of Nicaea with its newly found doctrine of the Trinity. But yes, today Christ distinctly connotes Christian religion whereas Messiah tends to connote Judeic religion. Thanks for the correction in that regard.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Right. This state of affairs has always made me doubtful of the sincerity of a two state solution as sponsored by the USA and Israel. I used to hope for the best in this respectthinking that this would best facilitate relative peace given regional politicsbut constantly saw all signs indicating that this two state solution proposal was nothing but a facade for stopping any opposition to the forceful disappearance of all Palestinians from the former state of Palestine this to facilitate the coming of the Messiah/Christ at nearly any cost. And todays activities in these two countries in no way contradicts this in fact being so. I know its a very touchy topic, but there you have it. To non-extremistsbe they Jews, Christians, Muslims, pagans, Buddhists, atheists, or what have youwere this to in fact be so, it can well be looked upon as an unwholly alliance between two otherwise antagonistic extremist factions which as alliance is set on destroying what we have of global harmony so that they might have their personal salvation in the here and now.
My questioning, though, was more in regard to what constitutes this Western Civilization of ours that should not be derided by us westerners. Many fundamentalists will maintain that it is the very fundamentalist interpretation of scriptureincluding that of the Messiahs/Christs comingaround which Western Civilization pivots. And I can see this argument: from in God we trust written on money to bibles in trials and more (although, to me, were Cleopatra to have succeeded in her endeavors, and were ancient Egypt to have united with ancient Rome, it would still be Western Civilizationalbeit one likely not pivoted around anything Judeo-Cristian).
But then, are you saying that us non-extremists are wrong for wanting this aspect of current Western Culture, which longs for some violent apocalypse to occur, to no longer be of any influence in politics (or in society at large for that matter)?
-----
ps. Personally dislike this use of apocalypse to address supernatural doings, like the reawakening of the dead of which you make mention. It initially strictly meant a revealingliterally, an un-covering of what is (which makes far more sense in a gnostic-like interpretation of the world). Bummer, thats all.
pps. Grew up around more than a few non-extremist Jews, many of which are still good friends of the family if not personal friends. That said, in high school had one Orthodox Jewish friend who latter on became extremist. He for example once informed me that Palestinians were sub-human the same rhetoric used by Germans toward Jews before the Holocaust and he claimed to have quite a following online, this a few years back. Gained a rather bad impression from this now no longer friend in respect to extremists.
Technically correct. I was referring to the post-Pauline use of Christ Jesus, in which the Christ certainly changed the metaphysical idea of the simple translation of its original anointed one. It gets the connotation and baggage of sacrificial Son of God rather than simply a restoration of the King, a once again anointed one.
Also I distinguish between the original Jewish movement headed by his brother James where the original messiah concept was most likely viewed and what it became after Paul with his concept of the Christ. As for gnostics, some were certainly Jews. That is a mysterious origin story that would take longer to explore.
Quoting javra
I dont know if its that simple. Now you are reducing this conflict more than probably the case. Theres all sorts of reasons Israel is an ally strategically with the US. However, you are discounting the fact that there were various times offered and rejected of a peace plan towards the Palestinians- this was before and even after Netanyahu and likud's dominance. The peace in the region is more for the two sides than anyone else but yes, Israel has to have some moderates again who will look for moderates and there has to be Palestinians who are moderates who can moderate their extremists. Its not a matter of shaking a hand and calling it good. It takes taking action against extremists who want to ruin that. Quoting javra
No, I specifically defined what I meant by 17-18th Enlightenment movement. So you can split it into two phenomena:
Nation-State came from Colonization from the West
1) Western Civilization colonized the rest of the world from the 16th-20th centuries. They drew up often arbitrary territories, and introduced all kind of political notions like, "This territory is now a "nation-state" amongst many others in our conception of the world"
1a) After WW2, with even more rapid "decolonization" occurred" and under the Atlantic Charter, it was conceived that these former colonies that they controlled for many years, are now "free" to be "self-determined".
1b) But wait a minute!! Why are they now "free to be self-determined"? What is this "entity" being "freed" to be "self-determined". Well lo and behold, it is the "nation-state", allowed to be its "own version" of the nation-state that the WEST CREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE. It's a big ruse. It's all fake. Decolonization is not going to a state of affairs PRIOR TO COLONIZATION. It is just the allowed outcome of POST-COLONIZATION.
1c) That being the case ALL OF IT is Western in THAT sense (not every sense of course).
Ideas of Enlightenment
The basic idea is if the nation-state is going to be considered a "thing" (like what really is Palestine, Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Iraq, etc?), then mine as well take on the Enlightenment ideas of "universal rights" and liberal democracies (meaning not just voting, but protection for the groups not in power, separation of powers, freedoms guaranteed of speech and press, freedom to worship). And I also explained that just as with Britain retaining its heritage (it still has an Anglican head of Church for example and a monarchy), traditions can still be kept in these nation-states that keep the character, pride, and history as part of their nation-state. The problem of course is that Britain has actually "been" a nation-state since Medieval times. Same as France, etc. But one can maybe model it after newer nation-states, but WITHOUT the romantic nationalism that befell them (Germany and Italy are two egregious examples of nation-states from smaller kingdoms/city-states that quickly radicalized to fascism).
Quoting javra
Well, "apocalypse" means a sort of "revealing or revelation" and can mean some sort of esoteric secrets like the beginning of the world, the end of the world, heavenly realms, heavenly hosts, etc. In other words, its very esoteric. One can say the apocalyptic literature is a genre that starts with the Book of Daniel (written in the 200s BCE but takes place in 539 BCE) and continues. Themes of the End of Times are very much a part of this type of literature, though not strictly. The idea of a general resurrection of the dead can be seen in Ezekiel and Daniel. There were a bunch of "apocalypses" that did not make it into the TaNaK though including the Books of Enoch, and Apocalypse of X (Moses, Adam, Moses, etc.). There's also pseudopigripha like the Book of Maccabees,etc. that were also influential but didn't make it in the Tanak coming too late were more referenced for historical purposes.
Why so? For instance, what other interests do you find occurring in Western Civilization post Enlightenment which justify what Palestinians term the Nakba?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Ok. I then take your reply to indicate that criticism of Western civilization at large by westerners is not something that is to be proscribed? The proscription simply applying to the potential denunciation of the ideal of "universal rights for all people" and the like?
Quoting schopenhauer1
Right. And so understood from a non-Abrahamic perspective (here written as an umbrella generalization and not looking at what more often than not are deemed heretical variants--with aspects such as the Kabbalah as exceptions), an apocalypse is always a strictly personal experience regarding the nature of reality - i.e., mysticism 101 (of which Gnosticism is one variant) - rather than about the living dead rising up from their graves or some such.
The Holocaust, historical reasons, and antisemitism in general in the West. But the religious reasons no doubt play a role, but it doesn't have to be in the messianic sense you describe. One of the things that make it somewhat unique is that it is reestablishing a Jewish polity in a region. But it's not that unique really in terms of a religion also being a sort of "nation" as well. The Assyrians for example, are an example of this. They are sort of an ethno-religion. Samaritans might be even more apt as an "ethno-religion", one tied to the land (e.g. Mt. Gerizim). There are other ethno-religions too. That being said, IRONICALLY, it is also the Enlightenment which models this idea, mainly starting with the French Revolution. "To the Jews as individuals, all rights. To the Jews as a nation, no rights." was what came out of the National Assembly convention in 1789. And that made a kind of sense in Europe to an extent that assimilation and universality was the guiding principle of the day. However, this did not internally diminish the Jewish belief of being an ethno-religion, and sort of misconstrued the Jewish approach to itself. The cities of Jerusalem, Hebron, and Safed were very important centers throughout the history. At various times (post-Roman occupation, Biblical times, and Jesus circa 100s-600s CE) there were Jewish centers in mainly the Galilee (Sepphoris, Tiberias, Yavne, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmudic_academies_in_Syria_Palaestina) Certainly, some Jews almost fully integrated into French and European societies as was the case into the 20th century. But the Dreyfus Affair started questioning whether assimilation in European nation-states was ever fully possible. The ongoing pogroms in Eastern Europe, and the Holocaust provided more evidence of this.
So the Nakba came about from internal conflicts that were ongoing right before the UN 1947 declaration, and after that turned into a regional war. And indeed it is about land rights, and whether to acknowledge a Jewish state. Israel can always say it's about security and the right to even exist (if right of return was admitted, would that mean Israel would just be dissolved? Would there be more internal pogroms and conflicts but in a smaller land-space now?). But let's discuss this in your next paragraph because I'm leading to something...
Quoting javra
More-or-less, yes. That is to say, the way history unfolded, the reality is these "nation-states" are fully European in origin, not a sort of political entity indigenous to X (regions in the Middle East, Africa, Asia, etc.). So excuse my language, but WTF would one be talking about when discussing "self-determination" when it is already confined to YOUR (yes YOU Western person who claims to be pro-underdog) who has thus defined it to be self-determined in YOUR Westphalian/Atlantic Charter/Post-Colonialist way?
But you see, there is NO GETTING OUT of the system either. You cannot turn back post-colonialism to so pre-colonization time. So what is one to do? And that is where I say that if the country already exists, it has some of the technology at least, and infrastructures, etc. you mine as well try to incorporate the liberal democratic principles that also went along with those Western things. Japan may be an example of a country that successfully did this. We can parse out why them and not others, and why that can't work in other areas, but I am giving more of an offhand possibility rather than a model, if that makes sense. I am not saying X country is like the circumstances of 19th century Japan, for example. Interesting enough, just like newly formed "Germany" and "Italy", it too went from possible parliamentary democracy to straight up fascist-style regime, decimating its neighbors. But the realities on the ground much of the time is a strongman takes power, keeps power, and gives it to his family, and that is the politics. The end. Oddly enough, this may be preferable to the illiberal democracy of voting in religious extremists which curtail many rights so it's then run by a holy man or council of holy men. Yet here they are in a "nation-state", dealing with the world as a "nation" (given to them by the West), using "Western" technology, but not taking on some of the values that may make the nation good for its citizens. It might just be "good" in some universal sense to have freedom of speech, religious expression, freedom to assemble, freedom to peaceably disagree with the government, freedom to form political parties and have free and fair elections.
Quoting javra
Yeah, I can agree with that. I guess I was using "apocalyptic" as both its idea as esoteric vision, and some of the content of what that vision is (often how the end of the world is to look like). So I think we can both be right on that, but if we look at how it is used in different ways. I think providing context helps to pinpoint how it is then being used.
I don't yet understand how the Holocaust and the history of antisemitism justify the Nakba. To make myself better understood, it so far seems to be affirming that because the Nazis (and many others) considered Jews as "sub-human", Jews in Israel have had the right to consider Palestinians as "sub-human" in relation to their own worth. But I so far doubt this is what you're intending to say.
Quoting schopenhauer1
OK, but back then Jews as a people did not have their own nation. (Having heard, lets say, plenty of bias against both, this is the one thing that Jews and Gypsies have traditionally held in common as otherwise two very different peoples: they were nomadic peoples.)
Another very touch topic, but is a Jew defined as Jewish - this throughout history - by an ethnicity (something that, for example, can thereby be traced with mitochondrial DNA nowadays), by the specific religion of Judaism, by a nationality, or necessarily by all three simultaneously? I've heard of or encountered plenty of Jews that are either not religious or else hold onto different religious convictions (this, particularly, in the modern neopagan community; e.g. Starhawk), but Jews they nevertheless are. As to a Jew being necessarily defined by a nationality, namely that of ancient Israel (as in Israelite), this is to me strongly connected to religious convictions themselves. Which in part gets to the quote you've provided (given its proper historical context) and, in part, gets to many a non-Zionist Jew who do not identify with any nationality other than that nation in which they have grown up in (this not being that of modern Israel).
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yet, that the establishment of a Jewish state after WWII happened to be within not-so-long-ago Palestine, this rather than somewhere else in the world that was not already populated in an established way, to me, at least, directly coheres into the very messianic prophesy I initially brought up.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Speaking for myself, I don't favor underdogs on account of their simply so being. And true, there is no going back. Something that Native American Indians (First Nations) know all too well, for example. The issue isn't about how do we go back to the way things once were but how do we move forward from here on out.
But to be blunt: My little mind foresees a lot more hatred of Jews, hatred of the USA, and hatred of the West at large if this conflict can only be resolved via the extermination of the Palestinians from their current land ... or else gets turned into the largest concentration camp the world has yet to witness. This increased inter-cultural hatred is not something that I want. But the world at large is watching. And every Palestinian child that escapes death and will grow into an adult will likely not hold kind thoughts regarding the three populaces just mentioned - to which I pertain. This as just one little - but maybe all the same significant - example of what will await in our future. This apropos a ceasefire that stands relatively little chance of occurring anytime soon as in, right now.
So, at to "what to do", from where I stand, those who are more quote-unquote "civilized" should be the first to stop the killing of innocent people - on the streets, in shelters, in hospitals, etc. - and this for their/our own future interest in both the short-term and the long-term.
Jesus Christ man, I did not say or imply that, just the formation of Israel. I knew you were going to bad faith argue by technically saying the "Nakba" which went hand-in-hand with the 1947 UN Resolution and the formation of Israel. So you are forcing the two together by phrasing it like that. It's a loaded question and I don't appreciate it. It's bad faith arguing such that I have to justify the "Nakba" when I am really just justifying "Israel" as a nation-state. No, one doesn't mean the other, but one went down in history with the other.
Quoting javra
Do Gypsies have a tradition that always points to a homeland that they mention daily in prayers, in traditions, etc? If so, perhaps they should get a nation-state. If not, perhaps not. Each group can have different circumstances. From what I know, it's exactly the traditions of not having a homeland that has been the root of much of Roma practice. But I may be corrected. Certainly recent historical and genetic evidence indicates that they came from Northern India/Pakistan area and spread out from there after a battle.
Quoting javra
I would argue, by-and-large "Jews" define themselves more as an ethno-religion, and it is exactly Enlightenment movements (especially Reform Judaism) that made it less about the ethno and more about the religion to match their Christian peers.
Quoting javra
Not-so-long-ago Palestine wasn't a thing. It was a province of "Palestine" (not a nation-state) under the aegis of the Ottoman Empire. There were no nation-states in the Middle East really prior to Picos-Sykes. So I think this is a cudgel we are both going to put our flag down at. You are going to argue this is semantics, but I am going to argue this is actually not. If Israel shouldn't exist, either should Palestine, Iraq, Syria, or anything else drawn up in Europe for that matter, and perhaps they should have just given it back to the Ottomans if we really want to start parsing historical "should of would of could ofs". But apparently in these debates, the die has to be loaded for whatever favor you want to have rather than what occurred which was the colonization of the Middle East into European style nation-states.
Quoting javra
Nice. That seems to be the sentiment around these parts.
Quoting javra
Yep.
Quoting javra
You may be right. I have no idea what the Israeli government plans to do with Gaza, the West Bank. But I also have no idea what the Palestinians are gonna do. Here is the thing though, clearly based on October 7th, Gaza run by Hamas also wasn't working out, so we have shit past, shit present, and maybe shit future. Maybe not though.
Quoting javra
And indeed, that is really the real questions. What does a nation in wartime do? How does one "get rid of" an enemy? You can't get rid of an idea, but you can get rid of the known perpetrators. But then, what do you do when you conquer the region utterly? Hopefully Netanyahu gets kicked out. Hopefully some sort of coalition can be formed and put Abbas or some "moderate" in power. I think it was someone else on this forum that said that if this is like Europe's past wars (everything from the Thirty Years War all the way up to WW2) then there is a lot of death to make a sort of "peaceful ennui" that currently Western Europe enjoyed. Unfortunately, if we just take something like WW2, it took a tremendous amount of civilian deaths for the current world order we have today. I rather it be Gandhis talking it out peacefully with Gandhis. Not the civilian deaths. Apparently no one chooses this option and it is indeed disheartening.
All ad hom. Nothing of substance. Bad faith arguing and poisoning the well. Clearly you have no substance to add. I can call you all sorts of names based on your arguments that would simply label for rhetorical effect, but I have refrained, in order to argue substance. You should try that some day.
I asked for clarification in what of the Holocaust and of historical antisemitism justified the Nakba (as per Wikipedia, aka, the violent displacement and dispossession of Palestinians, and the destruction of their society, culture, identity, political rights, and national aspirations which is a lot easier to express by use of one term). It wasn't a "bad faith argument". I also don't personally know you, and so I made it clear that I assume in good faith that what I expressed is not your view.
Your reply in no way addresses the issue.
To be clearer in where I presently stand, I can definitely see how the messianic traditions in both Christian and Judaic cultures would justify the establishment of a Judaic nation in the region from an overall Western pov. But I, again, so far fail to understand how the Holocaust and antisemitism in general does. Again, for example, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 could have established plans for a future official Judaic homeland in an area that wasn't already populated with an established peoples - thereby not requiring a Nakba or anything close to it for a Judaic state to occur.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Definitely not. Please let me know how this relates to what I previously stated regarding the Jewish people historically being nomadic for the greater portion of the past two millennia on account of not having a homeland (and of how a fair sum of antisemitism relates to this).
Quoting schopenhauer1
Hm. Though I'm appreciative of the reply, this take on Reform Judaism conflicts with both my limited experiences and with what Wikipedia states:
Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reform_Judaism
Quoting schopenhauer1
My bad. I should have said "Mandatory Palestine". Which was not "under the aegis of the Ottoman Empire" for nearly 30 years, this after the Lawrence of Arabia days during WWI. A complex historical issue, true. But that the Arabs were betrayed by the West, specifically by the United Kingdom and France, in not being granted autonomy after helping in driving away the Ottoman Empire as they were promised is a staple aspect of this history.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Well, to run through the some of the options that come to mind:
a) One can completely kill off "the enemy", in full (man, woman, and child) when the enemy is a populace, so that the enemy no longer is. Which to me is reminiscent of what the Holocaust attempted to do. I.e., this would be a deplorable thing to try to do for various reasons.
b) One can completely subjugate and segregate the "the enemy" to ones despotic interests. This, however, tends toward perpetual revolt toward and animosity for those who subjugate.
c) One can find common ground with "the enemy". As one very simplified example: the enemy is pissed because they don't have water to drink; you then give them water in exchange for something you want (hostages for example); then there is a commonly understood situation wherein "the enemy" gets to drink water when needing it and you don't have hostages taken from your group. When either side breaches this commonly promised situation, then you can again stop their water supplies and they can again take hostages violently. Or something along these lines.
In addition, according to The Art of War, there's also this: the best way to win a war/conflict is the get what you want from "your enemy" before any war/conflict commences, this so that no war/conflict occurs. But it's a little too late for that.
I'm personally strongly in favor of option "c".
It's bad faith because it's bad history. The "Nakba" went along with the infighting and 1948 war, so you cannot pry those apart, so it is an impossible way of asking the question without saying there should be no Israel either because it happened at the founding events. In other words, would I rather the Palestinians also accepted the 1947 resolution and that the infighting that happened prior to that and that the continuation into a full scale war between Israel and the Arab nations of the region had not occurred? Yes, absolutely. But that's not how that happened so again, it is an weasely way of framing that question because the history went hand in hand with an Israel as reality and the Nakba.
I'll answer the rest later.. I haven't looked at it sufficiently yet....
This thread has increasingly come to be about the Israeli-Hamas war. It's such a tedious and exhaustingly pointless subject, I find it gets rather boring to go over the same arguments that have been floating around for decades...over and over with no end in sight. :yawn:
The generational rift that explains Democrats angst over Israel
It's such a complex issue, it's almost hubris to take a final position on it. However this article does tie back into the topic here, and it brings the contradiction of the left back to the forefront.
The Israeli-Hamas war is an interesting case study of a Western culture (at least Western adjacent) colliding with a decidedly non-Western culture. It brings up many interesting issues such as how the West should relate to those cultures which have antagonistic dispositions toward Western values. To what extent is the West expected to extend its standards towards those non-Western societies that will reciprocate nothing? And if the West is willing to refuse its standards to non-Western societies, is it possible to justify such a betrayal of values?
Another issue, the one relevant to this thread is how the woke-Left, the self appointed champion of social justice, can support a group that abhors Western values like social justice. As of yet, those on the Left (who support groups like Hamas) have not once attempted to justify why a group that openly denies its people fundamental rights and liberties deserves any power over anything. They just get angry like lunatics and scream lame insults like "You also get half of history wrong because it's like you read exactly one book in high school or something." They never proffer anything of substance or value. Whatever the case, it is certain that the woke-Leftist would never tolerate a party like Hamas in his/her own society, this is where the contradiction becomes hypocrisy.
This contrasts with the rare Leftist support for Israel. Israeli citizens enjoy many of the same rights and liberties as those in Western Europe and America. In this position, we may need to occasionally justify the betrayal of our Western values, however, ideally in the end, these Western values will triumph through non-Western means, and be extended to traditionally oppressed people of non-Western societies. Someday, we may have a world where there is no necessity for utilizing non-Western means, but until then, we may find it necessary from time to time.
Another standard is climate change policy. The only group that the Left condemns for their climate change policy are Right-wing conservatives in Western societies. Where is the cry over those non-Western industrial societies that pay little-to-no attention to the Green agenda? How does the Left justify applying its standard to one but not the other? It doesn't.
Your answer does not answer the question. But why even discuss with someone who's "weaselly" to begin with.
I've been more than forthright all along. Have a good one.
Yeah this didn't explain much as to how it "conflicts" with your limited experiences. But to that extent, even most reform Jews see Judaism as an ethno-religion. If anything I was understating this sense of identity. See here if you need a reference I guess:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnoreligious_group#:~:text=In%20general%2C%20ethnoreligious%20communities%20define,as%20religious%20%E2%80%93%20of%20its%20own.
In this sense, they are a group that had a history of being from a homeland and have always oriented themselves towards practices, traditions, stories, and physical artifacts that go back to that land. In fact, because of Christianity, it might be one of the most well-preserved historical identities in the Western tradition (certainly before anyone had a sense of being "German", "Finnish", "Dutch" "Syrian", "Iraqi" and "English" even). So in that sense, they are rooted in more than just "religious beliefs" like perhaps someone who purely professed Islamic or Buddhist or Christian belief. This doesn't mean conversion wasn't a thing. It just means converting to Judaism was more about adopting a cultro-history (a sort of "civilization"). One might liken it to intermarrying into a Native American tribe and taking on various religious and cultural traditions. They become as if they were simply an adopted Native American tribal member, and treated no differently. They have taken the steps to be a part of that tribe's cultural identity and traditions, which are intertwined with religious traditions, ceremonies, and beliefs. In that sense, you can have a strong backbone component of tradition and identity whilst even having various biological infusions from various groups who intermarry into the group.
Quoting javra
So I think to that extent, most reasonable people want to live without violence. But I think your cause and effect is off. Who is causing what for whom? Israel doesn't like Hamas, Hamas is/was in control of Gaza. Israel doesn't like Hamas because Hamas wants to see Israel vanquished. It has not only stated as such, but shown it. So Israel put an embargo on Hamas, because they don't like that Hamas wants to vanquish them. Did they show their violence before they became head of political arm in Gaza? Yes, they blew up hundreds of people in waves of attacks in the 90s and 2000s and their stated goal was to not accept the two-state solution and Oslo, and to wipe the Jews out of the region (from the river to the sea...). So, yeah, it's a reasonable move to blockade them.
Then Hamas funneled billions of dollars to their leadership but mainly to military operations like missiles and building tunnels and weapons rather than making Gaza into some thriving resort city. Okay... And then Hamas didn't let other elections take place since... Okay...
Now, you can completely blame Israel for this (that seems to be the trend in this forum). But that doesn't seem to add up. So the response from Hamas, to its own poor leadership in Gaza was to rape, behead, and mutilate Israeli civilians. And then Israel responds... So who is the enemy of whom here? It seems Hamas is he enemy of any person who simply wants to live a life where one thrives in a modern economy and have peace with its neighbors.. So, again, what does Israel do with such a hostile group?
My hope is that Hamas just leaves and says, "Okay, we have caused enough chaos in the world. Goodbye everyone...". And then Gazans realize that if life is preferable to death, that this violence cannot continue and that moderates and non-violence should prevail. Israel should facilitate this transformation in any way possible. I don't know what that looks like. How did the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki think of Americans? Certainly that was far more people who died, but Japan had healed, even with scars, as horrible as that was.
The extra layer here is that "Palestine" (what presumably might be) is a direct neighbor and historically (over 100 years now) hated enemy of Israel, so it would be more like Japan and China after Japan's "rape of Nanking" and both will now think the other is Japan here...
Perfectly stated. I personally think that there are many antisemites on tpf (including some of the mods), and I've directly called out a few and received "nothing" but their silent antisemitic cowardice. They are total pussies.
What do we see here? These woke-leftists are NOT actually concerned about the geopolitical question of a Palestinian State living in harmony with an Israeli Nation; after all: "from the river to the sea!!!!" Wooo wooooooo!!!!
Nope...Woke-leftists ARE condenming Jews as classic oppressors, while supporting Hamas. Ironically , they support an oppressive regime that has an indisputable record of inflicting immeasurable oppressive tyrrany on its own people. There is not a single Leftist that would tolerate anything that Hamas has to offer. Yet they support them unconditionally against a Jewish state which only exists as a last refuge for a people that has been endlessly oppressed everywhere since the historical exile from their motherland.
Yes, the woke leftist has claimed to defend the oppressed by upholding the principles of Western liberalism, but the Israel-Hamas Wars has forced them to show their true colors. They could have condemned the Holocaustal acts of Hamas and supported Israel as a new hope for Palestinian people to achieve true sovereignty over themselves in an adjacent land, but they chose to throw their hat in with one of the most horrible oppressors of all time: Hamas. There is no excuse for such a blunder...it is a Freudian Tell. They are deconstructionists, not progressives... it is evident that they would rather see the destruction of Israel, than the creation of a free and prosperous Palestinian State next-door.
Well, I can agree and disagree with this very conservative account of things. I agree that organizations promoting free speech must be impartial, but we have to be careful what that means. In the US, the Supreme Court defines speech. They have defined things such as hate speech and "inciting speech", speech that causes a "clear and present danger". And those are there for a reason.
Generally speaking, it makes sense to be wary of groups that try to establish religious speech through government (as many conservatives seem to want), as well as groups that if their policies came to fruition would limit the rights of others (Nazis, religious nationalists, supremacy groups, you name it). So, what do you do when you are protecting their right to speech, but their right to speech is advocating for the abolishment of everyone else's freedoms of speech or otherwise?
That being said, the article is right in the fact that this can happen on the left as well as on the right. The left can and does muzzle rightwing ideas, calling for their being cancelled, disbarred, fired, or pilloried. It silences the other side with a de facto point of view, much like, as Helen Andrews points out, the Communists used to do in the Eastern Bloc. This is certainly seen in academia where guest speakers are heckled and not allowed to speak. The administration often doesn't punish these students and some might promote it. They don't allow for decorum and respect for the rights of guests to make their case. They don't wait to the end for the question and answer session. They often make it so hard to get a guest speaker they have to cancel their even coming onto campus. There are "trigger warnings" and such for supposedly college-level students! If college campuses cannot be a place for full-throated diversity of opinions, then there is something certainly wrong. Surely, they can give roughly equal time to all sorts of points of views to expose students to the realm of ideas. It should also teach people to tolerate differences of opinion respectfully.
And then with Trump saying that he is going to go after the "vermin" leftists, etc. and settle personal scores.. Does that mean he is threatening to limit speech against him or his views as somehow seditious speech? Which is ironic as it could be argued that during the January 6th riot, it was he who was inciting seditious speech against the government's functioning in a very literal way. So, there you have it. Weird stuff all around.
I think Western Culture dates back further into history to Greek and Roman civilization. Hence it's not wonder philosophers view Greco-Roman heritage important. Christianity evolved to an already existing Western culture and adapted to it. Hence the Greco-Roman heritage is quite important, even if it's extremely popular to emphasize the 'Judeo-Christian' heritage... especially when talking about a certain nation in the Middle East.
Well if you watch those videos, contra this notion, if anything its trying to get people to think LESS like that and more about the heritage of philosophy started by the Greeks and the long historical influence of them in the values of the Enlightenment thinking.
But Western culture is founded on Greek and Roman culture. It's difficult to argue anything else. Especially after the Renaissance, this heritage was found universally even in parts of Europe that never were part of the Roman Empire. And Christianity blended in perfectly to the Roman Empire, both in the West and also in the East, actually. The last remnant of the Roman Empire might well be the Pope, even if the ecumenical patriach of Constantinople is also still around.
Did you watch that recent Maher video I posted a few posts up?
Several historians have argued that Christianity played a large role in bringing down the Roman Empire through fostering a nobility/aristocracy class of wide-eyed mystics. Jesus and the Jews are both enemies of the Romans, but imho Jesus/Christianity is more effective at bringing down the Empire than any Jewish military revolt. I would say western culture comes down some mix of Enlightenment ideas with religious Judeo-Christian ones. But yes I understand how the Romans used Christianity for their own means. IMHO as best as they tried to control it, Christianity ultimately led to their downfall as their value system (the one which helped with their rise and success) was replaced with another. The Empire couldn't stomach Jesus. :rofl:
In what sense? I guess what I mean is that at least in that video, the point was that Western Civilization, since the time of the Enlightenment, at least in America, has revolved around a separation of church and state (the Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment), and not about establishing a religion.
I will say though, as a historical aside, Maher tried to use the Pilgrims to his point but they can also be used contra his point. Yes, the Pilgrims were a type of Puritanism (Calvinist and Reformed), that wanted to escape the dominance of the Anglican Church (High Church), but when they came to America, it wasn't like when they established their settlement in Plymouth, that it was some bastion of tolerance. Once they were settled and not killed off by the Wampanoag and the harsh New England climate, and once they were taught how to grow crops properly... They established a brutally restrictive government, governed completely by their brand of Puritan Church (which ironically has over time become the Congregationalist Church which has a large extremely liberal mainline Protestant faction that even led to some churches adopting Unitarian beliefs by the time of Emerson and Thoreau in the 1800s).
They were so restrictive, Rhode Island was basically founded by Roger Williams as a place for religious tolerance (which is why a group of Sephardic Jews formed their Tauro synagogue early on there). So you can thank more Roger Williams and not the Pilgrims for the very beginning of that pluralism...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Williams
Of course, slightly later you had the developments of William Penn's colony (Pennsylvania) and the religiously tolerant Philadelphia (which harbored the Quakers). Don't forget too, Maryland founded in the name of Lord Baltimore who was a Catholic and became a Catholic haven.. And thus the beginning of the pluralistic religious society in America.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Penn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecil_Calvert,_2nd_Baron_Baltimore
How cool would have it been if Finland retained its Finno-Ugric religion.? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_paganism The Slavs had their Slavic religion? The Celts had their Celtic religion, and the Germanics had their Germanic religion (and all the variations thereof)? Instead, the unifying ideology became a useful tool of Rome, and then various kings and Church leaders in the Middle Ages. Yes, it can be argued that it was the Latin/Greek monasteries and early universities preserved the pagan philosophical writings (along with Arabic and Persian philosophers when that was tolerated in the Islamic Golden Age), but that wouldn't have been necessary if the Church did not systematically destroyed the Greco-Roman philosophical schools (last one was forced to shut down in 529 CE in Athens). And if Christianity wasn't so good at converting tribal kings to the religion (thus converting their populations), there could have been a much more interesting mosaic of European and Western pagan traditions. I believe it was the Lithuanians who held out the latest; their population didn't convert until the 1300s! That's even later than the Vikings (and Finns) in the 1100s!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianization_of_Lithuania
I don't see anything European there, I only see another iteration of when Haitians killed all the French colonists and started wearing their clothes.
Yes, the "West" is Canada, Burgerland, and maybe Australia. But let's not pretend those are European.
Indeed, when we say "Western" what does that mean? I take it to mean a thread of history running from the Greco-Romans (as pointed out), running through Christendom in the Middle Ages (by way of preservation of these writings and carrying on in the format in a diminished fashion), with a sort of "rebirth" in the Renaissance/Scientific Revolution of Aristotle (with renewed ways for empirical observation combined with mathematical predictions such as Descartes/Galileo/Bacon and sans Aristotle's teleological science), Neoplatonism, in the 1400s-1600s, and carried forth socially and politically with the various religious and political revolutions of the 1600s-1700s (aka the Enlightenment with hearkening to Greco-Roman democratic ideas, more analytically studied as separation of powers, infused with ideas like "common law" and precedent in law, things like this, and religious pluralism, rights theory, scientific mindset to laws of nature, industry and technology, and secularism).
Now interestingly enough, another strain, that of cultural relativism, and opening up to new ways of living (communal societies, libertinism..) also was a part of this tradition. Some of it was influenced by cultural diffusion with various other cultures that were contacted (and then colonized) during this period. And certainly, American culture is an amalgamation of ideas not only from Europe, but cultural practices and traditions stemming from Native Americans and Africa as well. No doubt there is a certain idiosyncrasy to American version of "the West" that is not shared in Europe. But much of the structure and backbone is fully a continuation of the Western tradition with various cultural infusions from non-Western colonized cultures such as food, music, knowledge in farming practices, language, place names, etc.
And not sure the point of pointing out largest Jewish community as again @ssu pointed out:
Quoting ssu
Quoting schopenhauer1
Very uncool, I'd say. A disaster for the people in my view.
We would have been attacked by crusaders well into the Renaissance, I guess. And afterwards we would have been second rate people. Good luck then trying to make those crucial trade links to Europe when you aren't a Christian, not even Orthodox. There are some Finno-Ugric people that still have still few pagans in Russia, like the Mari. Well, just like other Finno-Ugric people in Russia, they don't have much else than barely retaining their old language and customs and the 'Russification' of these people is obvious and in plain sight.
Christians aren't the nicest people towards especially those who they see as pagans.
Yes, Lithuanians held out for the longest, and had to fight the crusaders in the form of the Teutonic Knights. In the end this left in the Baltic States a German elite which was detached from the local populace. And this hindered social cohesion in the Baltic states even in the start of the 20th Century.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Much more reasons for having religious wars also! The first example that comes to my mind is how an 'interesting mosaic' Lebanon is with it's various religions and people. Beautiful country with not-so beautiful history.
Yet indeed an 'interesting mosaic'.
I think the Roman empire was doomed long before the Christian religion became dominant. Really what's interesting is not that it fell, but how long it took. It simply was not viable given larger population dynamics.
Quoting schopenhauer1
That honestly sounds pretty off to me. The Christian heritage in western culture is huge. The enlightenment was not a rediscovery of ancient wisdom, it's heavily influenced by Christian theology of the middle ages. It is also quite possibly influenced by experience with the American peoples, whose often specifically anti-authoritarian political arrangements may have given Europeans a few ideas.
The separation of church and state, specifically, likely has it's precursor in the christian concept of "religion" as something distinct from the rest of your tribal / family identity (which is not at all a given). And also, of course, goes back to the special role of the catholic church as a supranational organisation.
Wow, cool video! Yeah, I am pro-pagan generally, so I'm glad to see one small pocket still retains the pre-Christian traditions/beliefs!
Indeed, what would you say was the biggest factor for populations to convert to Catholic or Orthodox versions)? In other words:
1) What was the process (kings/leaders first then their populous or one-by-one?)?
2) What was the reason for it? (the ability to trade with Christians? they really "believed" in what the missionaries were selling? It created ties with other powerful kingdoms?
But I disagree with you here:
Quoting ssu
It is precisely because those religions in Lebanon are monotheistic (and by this I mean mainly Christian and Islamic) that they have those problems. The way ancient Near Eastern and European paganism generally worked, it was MAINLY pluralistic, syncretic, and "live and let live". Actually, that is precisely why, Rome didn't really give a shit when they conquered a new peoples, what they necessarily believed unless it was actively hostile to Rome. As long as they acknowledged some Roman things (which most pagan religions didn't mind doing), they could carry on. There are always exceptions, but that was largely how ancient paganism worked. Religion was not so much an ideology. Arguably Zoroastrianism might have been the first where that became an issue, but that was contained to mainly Persia. But it wasn't until Christianity that you had the use of religion as ideology and "right belief" (especially in terms of a multi-ethnic region tied together by proximity, trade, and history) as part of the power structure. Notice I said "right belief" not just religion! Religion has always been part-and-parcel of various power structures since Neolithic man!
Sure, I did not emphasize the "Christendom" part in the Middle Ages. It wasn't just a vessel for prior beliefs. Indeed, the various Celto-Germanic practices (Anglo-Saxon "common law" for example), and the supranational organization of the Church versus the state is no doubt a part of that tradition. It's arguable there was universalism in the Judeo-Christian belief system that contributed to it as well (universal rights, equality, etc.). But arguably, this has contributed to MORE division as peoples were seen as better (those who were converted) and those who were not (the heathens), which then leads the way for inequality.
But, it should also not be discounted that the Church suppressed pluralism, differences in belief, and many freedoms of thought, though it infused various other things. I mean, there were brutal killings and inquisitions and crusades, but at least they didn't have the Colosseum and a huge slave-system undergirding Christian societies (until colonialism). That was mainly the job of the peasants and serfs!
But, arguably, the fact that we even think about inequality as a problem is part of the Christian tradition. Greek and Roman pagans would not have considered inequality a problem in its own right. For them, people simply were not equal and that was just a normal fact of the world.
Christians certainly perpetrated inequality. But, for the christian elites, the teaching of Jesus would always be a nagging uncertainty.
Imho, one of the biggest success stories of western culture is that it turned the Christian "equality in the eyes of Christ" into a secular principle of human rights.
It's best not to paint too broad a picture as there was more pluralistic beliefs in ancient Greece...But yes, it was taken mainly as a matter of course that some deserved power based on birth or fate. At the same time, as far as beliefs, this didn't generally create the hierarchy as much as birth. However, this really still carried on in Christian thought in terms of the Middle Ages idea of a Great Chain of Being (God, Christ, Church, Kings, Vassals, Peasants). It can be argued it was rather, the notion of a middle class that got rid of this notion and the Protestant Reformation breaking away the Great Chain and handing it over to the congregants to figure out for themselves. This of course was driven in large extent to being able to read and the Gutenberg Press.
Quoting Echarmion
Possibly. One can argue the Stoics started this notion of this but it was carried into Christendom with the idea of being united in Christ. It can have its place in Pauline setting of all that are initiated are the same etc. From SEP:
Quoting Equality
So based on this, it would have to be shown that Hobbes and Locke and Rousseau were explicitly pulling from those ideas, which I'm sure one can if they follow the thread to one extent or the other. A lot of it had to do with ideas of humans are equal in a "state of nature" more than Christian equality.
True. There's always the danger of getting too enamoured with the big, sweeping narrative.
Also we can't really say that these ideas are necessarily unique to Christianity. It's always possible they'd have come up some other way regardless. But they are part of the historical sequence of ideas.
Don't most aspects of Western civilization predate Christianity in some near-Eastern traditions anyway?
Oh I'm sure that if you can find various aspects that predate it. That doesn't mean that their specific combination wasn't relevant though. I think it's plausible that the combination of the roman legalistic tradition with the anarchic undercurrent of Christianity made the western civilization more flexible.
It is a tricky situation. I believe free speech goes hand in hand with the right to peaceful assembly. As long as the "peaceful" part is honored and obeyed, I see no reason why we shouldn't encourage free speech to the fullest extent. Obviously, any group that would use their freedom of speech to call for violence (qua "hate speech") should be flagged, monitored and dealt with appropriately. Barring such radicalism, there should be no restrictions on free speech, it is our best weapon against flatterers, liars, and charlatans.
As for establishing religious speech in government, I dont see it as a problem, as long as the government doesn't appeal to some religious authority as a way to arbitrarily apply the law. I can totally agree with the religious speech like: "thou shalt not steal"...especially if it is codified into fair and impartial law. And not only that, all governments are insecure by default and need that lofty language in order to project that air of authority, and since all governments are about as creative as a sack of turds, what better source to copy from than religious doctrine.
Freedom of speech has not traditionally been a particularly conservative issue. Indeed, it is very much a liberal issue.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't think much care is required when we are talking about censoring books. The Supreme Court criteria for impermissible speech is incredibly stringent, such a shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater (beginning with Holmes' dissent in Schenck v. United States). The Court recently reaffirmed that hate speech is permitted (Matal v. Tam, 2017).
Quoting schopenhauer1
The difficulty here is that organizations promoting free speech should promote free speech. The reason the ACLU is making their new hires delete official tweets is because the tweets are opposing free speech.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't find your overtly political reading of the article a propos. It is not controversial that the ACLU should not censor speech. The ACLU readily admits this. I think the article is about the homogenization of leftist causes, even where this homogenization creates institutional incoherence (e.g. the ACLU); it is about the difference between rule of law and equality under the law; and finally it is about the trump card of fiduciary duties, which existed long before liberalism and communism. Andrews is basically saying, "The left is obviously content to snowplow liberalism out of the way, but we really should put our foot down when it comes to fiduciary duties."
I'm sorry, but that article did have a political bias and I was speaking to that from where my perspective was coming from. That whole online publication seems pretty conservative, so it makes sense it was a conservative article. Unless a story is literally about "This happened. We heard it from this. This is what was stated." most things are going to have a POV, no? Even those that are "factual" can be omitting, not provide the context, etc. So it gets tricky.
Quoting Leontiskos
I actually don't think this at all contrary to what I eluded to here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Clearly, the rightwing views have a duty to be represented in court just as much as leftwing and vice versa. Every view should be represented fairly by their lawyer. The ACLU indeed used to be famous for taking all sides in the name of free speech.
My broader point was, what if the speech you are representing is trying to silence the other points of view in the name of X (religion, tradition, hate, etc.)? That is a tricky one to defend, no? But one can argue that no matter what the speech, as long as they are not physically restricting other people, then it is permitted. Look at the Westboro Baptist Church and their despicable way they protest at funerals of dead soldiers. That is protected speech, if they are respecting the privacy of the funeral, but they can be pretty close if I am recalling the case correctly. So yeah, the First Amendment protects your right to be an asshole in whatever shape that takes.
I think a close read would disabuse this stereotype. It is a conservative article, but not in the way you seem to imagine.
Quoting schopenhauer1
True, but her point isn't so much that the left should be liberal, but rather that the ACLU should not infringe civil liberties. It's a tighter and less partisan argument. She is more or less conceding that the left need not be liberal. The whole conclusion is, "Even if the left wants to abandon liberalism, it should not abandon fiduciary duties."
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think our approach is summed up in the adage, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." If the ACLU examples in question were dealing with conflicting civil liberties, then I think this question would be more relevant. The Westboro example would then be more appropriate.
For example, I could write a book that argues for a change to the first amendment, restricting all ballerinas' rights to free speech. The book is protected by the first amendment. It is not legally tricky.
That may be legally tricky actually depending on the modes of enforcement your book called for.
I get it. I'm on board with that, but I think we have to look at it as a series what we mean by "abandon fiduciary duties".
If we mean
1) A specific lawyer is doing things like dropping their clients or misrepresenting them in court intentionally, then this is an obvious flagrant violation of fiduciary duties.
2) An organization chooses to no longer represent "free speech" on all sides that used to do that. Less egregious, but agreed that it is troublesome that it has shifted to only taking on leftist causes and not ANY speech, free or otherwise. But technically, if it is not part of the government, it can decide to change policy. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is more about how the organization is deciding to take on cases at that point, which oddly enough, is their "right" to do.
I can technically have a society called "Free Speech society" and have it be a clever name that seems to indicate free speech for all sides, but really only mean when it comes to agreeing with my points of view. That is misleading, but not necessarily unlawful.
Quoting Leontiskos
Indeed, correct. I guess I mean problematic at what degree it reaches. At what point is it actually affecting other people's rights? I would say at the point that judges actually take those positions and agree with it and make it part of the common law in which case hopefully it could be appealed and overturned. Also, if the people are inciting physical overturning, or a mob to imminently do so, this is also problematic as inciting speech is not protected.
I'd say she means (1). The argument she makes pertains to expertise, vulnerably entrusting yourself to an expert in a sphere in which you have extremely limited knowledge. She gives the examples of doctors, lawyers, etc.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sure, but at this point you have moved from considering legal rights to considering natural rights, and it is here that legal precedent and even positive law itself becomes less relevant. That's a much larger conversation.
But thanks for reading. I kept forgetting to post it, so it is inevitably belated. Oh well!
I don't think so. Not after Holmes' dissent in Abrams won the day.
I don't have the article right in front of me. Did she cite specific examples of that happening with the ACLU? I think she did, but I can't remember the details. I believe someone was dropped, right? It seemed to me the article was more lamenting what the ACLU used to be about mid-century. But I do remember her explaining the fiduciary argument. I just don't remember the egregious examples, other than the organization has become generally taken over by the "woke" politics that many academic/legal institutions have become with quotes like this:
The one instance she provided of (1) seems to have been here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think the ACLU is a set piece, used in the early part of her article. My interpretation is that the article is proposing a strategy for addressing "wokeism," and the ACLU served as a useful example. It is the idea that upholding fiduciary duties and professional standards is a better approach than the more recent debates on liberalism, communism, and integralism.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Others include the Dobbs leak, investment firm quotas, racial Covid supply rationing, medical ethics and malpractice, and things related to attorney-client privilege.
Quoting What Happened to the ACLU? by Helen Andrews
My legal training is in the British/New Zealand system - but that case doesnt deal with definitions of imminent lawless action in the context of a peace time society, as best my memory and cursory skim of it's text tells me. Noting i may be over my head, This is genuinely fun for me as a legal professional.
What i think I would consider operative here, is Holmes treatment of 'intent' and 'imminent'.
It is plain that 1A doesn't protect incitement to violence, as to imminent lawless action.
I don't think Holmes dissent outlines any kind of carte blanche - It merely outlines the limits of the charges (well, the third charge (relevantly, anyhow)). There is a huge amount of daylight between the facts of this case, and the charges laid that I can't see it as relevant, really, to cases of actual incitement. I don't think Holmes did either. Indeed, it seems to me, passages such as this:
"Of course, I am speaking only of expressions of opinion and exhortations, which were all that were uttered here.." - Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Abrams v US at 631
make it known that his Honour understands that there are limits, that those limits rest upon interpretations of the above (imminence and intent) and that in this case the limits weren't reached. I would agree. But i can't see this making any issues for the example - Let's say the book was understood to convincingly address itself to less-intelligent yard-workers who have a chip on their shoulder and a history of mobilizing for untoward causes - and the intent is to incite, essentially, a slow-drip but country-wide attack on ballerinas, physically. Particularly in light of Jan 6, I cannot see the judiciary having anything but contempt for similar speech. My opinions withheld there :P
:smile:
Quoting Leontiskos
I see it more that she was using the ACLU to say that legal organizations that promote free speech should take all cases. I think fiduciary duties is a meta-legal thing. That is to say, it is orthogonal issues. One is about whether these legal associations should take on free speech cases deemed "right wing" in the first place, and one is about if a lawyer does take on these cases, whether one is representing that person fairly and with fullest trust. Thus, I think conflating these two things was rather suspect, to be fair.
Quoting Leontiskos
The Dobbs leak was suspected and we don't know who did it. But yes, that was a violation. The Covid supply rationing, again was back to the issue of what kind of cases ACLU should represent, which as far as I read it, is not about fiduciary (so not 1).
But I think again, if the claim is that the ACLU should try as much as possible to keep its members as impartial in matters of speech (don't start using Twitter for various causes that might conflict with future clients and their cases), then yes, that makes sense. I don't think she quite helped the case by adding the fiduciary element, actually. It seemed more of a stretch.
AH, i f'd up on this one. I did fully misread your direction.
You are correct.
I think this is an important mistake in reading the article. She says just the opposite:
Quoting What Happened to the ACLU? by Helen Andrews
In my opinion you are focusing too heavily on the ACLU. The ACLU isn't central to the argument. But I literally kick myself off the internet in one minute, so that will have to be sufficient for the time being... haha
Yeah, I just didn't see as a matter of fiduciary... PERHAPS a matter of "professionalism" (no Twitter stuff supporting various political causes).. But again, that is more a matter of fairness.
She seems to assume that legal organizations cannot take on preferred political sides in constitutional law cases. For example, doubtful you will see the Heritage Foundation taking on various leftwing causes. That doesn't mean they have "fiduciary issues". It just means they are choosing to specialize in a certain political view when choosing to represent clients.
So in that case:
1) there is ACTUAL malfeasance (fiduciary failures)
2) There is professionalism issues (supporting various niche causes in social media accounts lets say).
3) There are fairness issues (supporting one side of a political issue versus the other).
She seems to conflate 1 with 2 and 3.
Missionary work and people turning into Christianity (or any religion) voluntarily happens in only few occasions. Many times it has been a political decision by the elite and the political leader. Christianity finally took over once a Roman Emperor converted to the religion. Then of course there is the way they did it Spain (convert or leave or die).
Quoting schopenhauer1
In Lebanon's example, yes. However I think that religious intolerance is quite universal and doesn't only apply to the Abrahamic religions. You have for example Hindu nationalism:
The view of Antiquity about religion has really disappeared: Even the Pantheon is a Catholic Church today (and hence still intact).
Quoting schopenhauer1
Don't forget the oldest religion of the Abrahamic ones, Judaism. Ancient Israel didn't control great areas, but I guess if they had, they wouldn't have been as tolerant as the Romans in religious matters.
.
Yes, the Roman Empire part, I am more aware of. But even then, it wasn't "all or nothing". Even with the next emperor Constantinius II, the Empire's army was pretty evenly split between pagans and Christians. Julian even in 361 CE, the last pagan Roman Emperor, could have had a chance to preserve some of the pagan sites and pushback the tide for a bit if he didn't die in battle (probably by Christian insiders) in Persia. So really it probably wasn't until after the Roman Empire, the whole area was fully "Christianized".
But I am not talking about the initial Christianization of the Roman Empire as much as I am the Germanic, Celtic, Norse, and Slavic regions (respectively). That is to say, how was the process of Christianization in regions that were not under the Roman Empire? It seemed to be about the 500-600s that the Germanic peoples were fully Christianized. This process was mainly about kings converting and thus over time, their populations. But habits die hard, and the Church didn't mind much if you smuggled in former practices if you declared your allegiance.
See here:
Quoting Christianisation of Anglo-Saxon England
She is saying that wokeness results in all three, but that (1) is the most important thing to oppose. (3) is not even a contention of the article except insofar as the ACLU historically attempted to avoid it.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I don't think there's any evidence for such a claim. The whole argument flows from the specific nature of the ACLU, namely its relation to civil liberties and its historical opposition to communist logic. Andrews is surely aware that the argument would not work against any and all legal organizations.
This is one of the essays in the print edition of the journal. It's not a blog post. I don't think you read it carefully enough.
Being factually established that they have less to do with Europe than a speck of dust flying in another star system being that the speck of dust has nothing to do with Europe and its culture and history, while Yankees are the absolutely antithesis of it, 0 is closer to 1 than -1 is , they have nothing to do with Rome or Greece. They should claim ancient Israel or Timbuktu as their cultural heritage instead, but they insist on talking about Rome and Greece as if its ancient inhabitants would have anything but disgust for them (that much is attested in ancient sources), promptly being sent to the slave market, possibly because their basic education is notoriously poor and it simply mimicks whatever is chosen as the basic history curriculum of England or France, whatever the source of inspiration was.
Call it what you will: "we are Jupiterakandweastern". It does not mean European. But I suppose someone would say that is what it means, as, to the "intellectuals" of that country, 2+2 can equal 5, A = A and A = not A.
Im sorry but you havent established why the basis of the American political system is not specifically connected to English and broadly European history, especially as it relates to the Enlightenment, the scientific revolution, the Protestant reformation, and the colonial economic system of the 1600s and 1700s.
As to Yankees, whose sovereignity lies more in international corporations and Israel, not in Vespucci's America, even if its law code is descendend from England (which is and has been a far cry from general European culture), it does not make it alike the English law. If I come from my parents and I look like them, I can still go all sorts of cosmetic surgeries in order to look unlike them. The same principle applies: genotype ? phenotype.
Even if the written law is 1:1 equal, it is not worth much, as that country constantly violates and reinterprets its own law. Where you have constitionally granted free speech but society is free to basically kill you if you happen to use a rude 6 letter word on twitter.
Well yeah, I didn't make a claim it is exactly the same as English, just that they are derived from the same set of ideas. Clearly, the USA is more deliberately developed from written Constitutional principles (aka the US Constitution), and undergirded in philosophy by writings such as the Federalist Papers to understand the "Founders" intent. But all of these deliberations were part-and-parcel of the broader Enlightenment taking place in the "Western" (European and North American) milieu. English law and custom, though somewhat deriving from deliberation (1689 Bill of Rights for example and various acts of parliament), many of the customs were based on tradition (the idea of common law itself using precedence to decide former cases, Parliament itself was more organically formed from the Medieval period, the executive branch technically comprises a monarchy, there are still titles of nobility and a House of Lords, etc.).
No response here? Or was it pretty comprehensive? :smile:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/858550
One of the largest distinctions in law is the difference between the US system and 'British' which the colonies took on. Canada's law system is closer to England than is the US. Likewise with Australia, New Zealand and many other 'British' countries. The mere existence in the US of Federal and State law sets it aside in a rather extreme way.
It seems to me this was purposeful. While i'm not an historian of Law, i do understand that the War of Independence probably influenced the US legal system and bases as much, if not more, than the pre-loaded British mechanisms of law which were necessarily, at least initially, mimicked.
For a brief period right after the American Revolution, there was an even more extreme "states rights" federal document called the Articles of Confederation. This gave supremacy and powers almost solely to the states, and had almost no executive branch (being they just fought to get away from a king). However, this proved difficult to coordinate trade agreements and put down rebellions, etc. so that's when they called for a Constitutional Convention in 1787 in Philadelphia. This is of course well known American history, but just giving you how it went from extreme states independence to a more federal version of government with three branches of clearly defined powers, bicameral congress, etc. For a time, the senators were voted on only by proxy of state legislators, not the people directly as in the House of Representatives. This changed with the 17th Amendment when the citizens directly could vote for senators. But, anyways, in order for the Constitution to be ratified, they needed 9 of the 13 states approval in separate ratification conventions, which they almost were not going to get. The "Anti-Federalists" were strongly against any form of government above and beyond the individuals states.
Articles of Confederation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
The Federalist Papers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/full-text
The Constitutional Convention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)
More than i thought then.
Thank you for that informative response!
Quoting schopenhauer1
It surely took a lot of time.
The 'Westernization' of European, or the continent to become 'European' as we now know, surely is the interesting process here. Hence even if there is the Greco-Roman heritage and the Judeo-Christian heritage, a lot more happened that molded what is now called Western. Lithuania indeed might be the last kingdom to become Christian, but it's interesting that history doesn't paint pagans and their Christian neighbors being actually so much different.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Let's not make the error of thinking that 'nationalism' was only invented in the 19th Century! And did exist as long as there were nations and kingdoms even outside Europe.
Legitimate historical question that is quite complicated...
When studying Germanic tribes during the late Roman Empire and early Middle Ages, the characterization is mainly of pastoral and village-based agriculture. That is to say, the main subsistence was raising livestock, not so much farming. How did the Germanic tribal social order with roving bands of warriors, with a king turn into a more sedentary society, that became the hierarchical feudal order of the high and late Middle Ages?
Wiki has a small paragraph here, for example:
Quoting Early Germanic Culture
The overlay of Christianity did create a framework for shared ideology in Europe that was beyond the tribal. It also created an eschatological framework, where history was moving to an End of Times (that was often seen to be immanent).
However, I just wanted to bring home that Christianity is often seen as some determined thing in Europe. It did not have to go that way. Imagine if rather than the theological meme of Christianity was spread to the Germans, Slavs, Finns, etc., it was straight up Greco-Roman philosophy through cultural diffusion to the Germanic tribes, or some other counterfactual history. People could retain their tribal customs and beliefs and still get the benefits of the inquiry and rhetoric of Greek philosophy. People argue here that the Christianity had to infuse with the "pagan" Greco-Roman philosophy for what eventually became the Renaissance and Enlightenment. But of course, we only seen it through hindsight. Imagine if there was no Christianity, but there was still a strong philosophical tradition, with flourishing Greek-style academies (likened to the Lyceum or Academy). Even so, it is sad that the Old Ways were lost and are simply trivialized as "Christmas trees" and Easter bunnies (Easter was a goddess of fertility in Anglo-Saxon paganism). With modern scholarship of course, we can also see the very roots of Christianity in Near Eastern paganism was also abundant. The dying-resurrecting Son of God that dies for humanity and is a sacrifice, and where one partakes in a sacrament of the god, etc. is all Mystery-Cult style tradition, appropriated by Paul of Tarsus for his new synthetic religion. So, Christianity was syncretic from the start. First it was pretty deliberately done and then just the course of how Christianity learned to adapt to the Germanic, Slavic, Celtic traditions.
I guess there is also a strong tradition that Christianity offered (by way of Jewish ethical monotheism), a way of adopting less violent means of living that tempered the more violent Germanic ways of life of the "warrior". What do you think of this theory, that Christianity was needed to be infused with the Greco-Roman pagan writings, otherwise, it would not have had the ethical component to "quell" the pagan warrior society?
For example, with the Vikings, who converted "late in the game", they are often portrayed as brutally killing their victims to inflict terror. This practice became "quelled" when their leaders became Christians, and instead of being Vikings, they now became pacified Swedes, Norwegians, Danish, and Finns. But is that the full story? Was it really Christianity, or the kind of networks that come along with being in such a widespread network of rulers, kingdoms, trade networks, and power structures?
Well, that kind of agriculture basically remained in Europe until the 19th Century. For example in Finland, basically subsistence farming finally died out in the 1950's and 1960's.
The Roman Empire and Rome had something that didn't exist later in the Middle Ages: globalization.
Rome having one million inhabitants in Antiquity is only possible due to globalized network of agricultural products being transferred from North Africa. All roads went to Rome. With Constantinople it was similar, then the grain came from Egypt. Once Rome lost Northern Africa to the Vandals and East-Rome to the Muslims, that was game over. For a very long time.
(My favorite graph explaining Antiquity. Although it should be 'Constantinople', not Istanbul)
Similarly you can see this well in the case of the Byzantinian Roman Army. It simply had to adapt to the changing environment and basically feudalism was the answer here. The East-Roman example is telling, as this was the famous Roman Army, it did even gain foothold back in Italy (under the general Belisaurius) and it did fall then to be a small tiny city in the 15th Century where you would have even fields inside the famous city walls where once a bustling megacity had once been. Yes, it lost some huge battles, but the it's downfall came with the downfall of the whole empire: slowly in many Centuries.
And since Byzantium was quite Christian, we perhaps give too much role for the religion for the transformation from antiquity to the Middle Ages. The way I see it, the transformation is simply the collapse of the globalized World. Once that globalized logistics falls apart, then you don't get any more urban highly paid advanced jobs like architechs, artists and so on. You have people simply leaving the cities and going back to subsistence farming. When there's no money or a money-based economy around, land itself comes to be the 'currency'. Hence feudalism is simply a logical answer. And once that feudalism takes hold, suddenly your armies become quite tiny compared what you had in Antiquity. Not because there wouldn't be people, but because there weren't anymore the political-economy systems around to support large standing armies.
As one successful general remarked: "an army marches with its stomach":
Hence when Renaissance comes around, you also have the growth again in international trade, more stronger nations. And when Islamic 'Renaissance' fails, even if one Caliph is all for science and similar issues, the religious sector wins and dominates Islam until...today, I guess. This perhaps happened because Islam is far more tightly knit to the government in Muslim states, let's not forget that the first leader of the Muslim state was Muhammad himself.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Yet the success of the monotheistic religions in the World is quite notable. So there's something with one God, one book and one set of guides on how to behave. It does create larger communities, be it Christendom or the Ummah. Yes, if we would be pagans, there would be many things that would be similar.
However, notice just how crucial these issues are for Western culture.
Max Weber is one of my champions, a truly smart person. His findings are very important. Just notice how crucial that 'Protestant ethic' is to capitalism: where greed is one of the seven deadly sins, once you make it that working hard makes you a good Christian and hence wealth simply shows that you have worked hard, then you get easily to the American mentality towards money and wealth. Also asking interest on debt was not tolerated at first in Christianity and isn't tolerated in Islam (although it now can be circumvented as "fees"). Hence the curious role of the Jews being the moneylenders.
In the end, it's "the economy, stupid". It makes one culture to seem to be dominant from others. And things that make an economy great, the institutions, the trade, the education and the military abilities etc. all make it seem so.
True, so this would more apply to the regions inside the Roman Empire like Italia, Hispaniola, Illyricum, Graecia, Byzantium, etc. As you stated well here after 410 CE (give or take) in the West, and the East conquered by the Arabs in 630s CE, and was a former shell of itself by its take over in 1453 as you mainly go over here...
Quoting ssu
Indeed, with the invasion of the Germanic tribes into the Roman regions, it disrupted various already collapsing cultural features such as large metropolitans and the largescale agricultural Roman estates. The Franks probably did best in trying to adopt some of these Roman practices, and it was this synthesis of Charlemagne's emphasis on seeing himself as a continuation of the Roman Empire (with his Holy Roman Empire), that became the template for later Medieval development in Western Europe. That is to say, that the Church provides salvation of the soul and intellectual developments with the ideal of a strong king who provided his army friends with vast tracts of land as Dukes, and then lesser vassals under them that gets smaller tracts. The subsistence agricultural village farmers became subsumed by greater forces confining them into basically collective peasant lifestyles that worked for their lords, whilst keeping a small plot for their own family.
So what is not discussed as much is how this early feudal system (let's say starting in the 700s), started making Germanic tribal populations more tied to a region and not just a people. It no longer mattered who was your tribal king, or that you were an Angle versus a Saxon versus a Vandal versus an Ostrogoth, but who was your lord. It was just a matter of course that you were more related because people in the same region tended to be from the same roving bands of tribes (the Germanic migration period that took place earlier and helped in the downfall of the Roman Empire).
Quoting ssu
Yep, I'd agree there on why the Islamic Golden Age did not lead to widespread tendency towards scientific revolution as in Europe or secularism in general.
Quoting ssu
I think this might be too much a "just so" theory if we are relying solely on the Protestant Work Ethic as a reason for the Western society we have now. I think indeed, it contributed to a particular form of capitalism perhaps, but not the whole thing. But even if we were to give it a huge portion of the West's development, that work ethic ethic was a contingent outgrowth, not a defining feature of the West's overall trajectory. Rather, my question was whether Christianity "pacified" the warrior-culture tendencies of the Germanic warlords (kings) that banded about in the late Roman and early Middle Ages? Some people want to think so. In fact, when missionaries went to various regions in the era of colonialism, they seemed to spread "the West" as packaged with Christianity first, and then Christianity conferred with it the technology that came along with working with the West.. AS IF Christianity itself was the arbiter of the technology and trade networks that created that technology. But obviously that wasn't the case. The clergy are by and large not productive in a technological sense.. That would be those pesky inventors and entrepreneurs and intrepid scientific types.. The only thing the missionaries are doing are selling their beliefs attached to a higher standard of living.. There is sometimes a case made that the Germanic tribes (Northern/Central/Eastern Europe) were basically converted in a similar way. Charlemagne himself and his ancestors (like Pepin), that benefitted from contact with Rome and Christianization because he now had access to a wide network of intellectual and material culture that might have been closed off if he was just a roving warlord in the hinterlands.
So stepping back a bit more, what do you think Europe would be like, if the Christianization did not take place to the extent it did in Europe? Let's say it remained only around the Mediterranean but did not move up north? What would a Europe that remained largely pagan look like in regions like France, England, Germany, Scandinavia, Baltic states and Eastern Europe?
Then, what would you think if Christianity never took over the Roman Empire? Was it Christianity or was it the philosophy of the Greco-Romans that would cause the influence? Was Christianity necessary to "pacify" the Germanic tribal way of life into more sedentary feudal lords or was Christianity superfluous to this movement in history?
Quoting ssu
Keeping that in mind, could the West have still retained something of the Greco-Roman spirit of inquiry without Christianity's religion which both shut down academies that competed with its own theology, yet still practiced a theologically-approved version of it, as well as keeping the writings somewhat safe in monasteries (after also burning down large libraries like in Alexandria of course so again, hugely mixed bag). Did Christianity add anything to the Westernization of the West through its pacification of the Germanic tribal way of life?
Not actually everywhere: for example in Sweden (which Finland was also a part of) the peasants remained quite independent and the aristocracy wasn't at all so powerful. In fact the last time the Swedes revolted against the authorities, it was against a Danish king in the 16th Century and the revolt was lead by Gustav Vasa, the founder of the Swedish monarchy. And no peasant revolts after that! Also Switzerland was quite different too.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Naturally not the whole thing and definately a "sole reason", quite if not even more important is the technological and scientific advances, all that Renaissance thinking to the Age of Enlightenment. But just to note that we are talking about a difference between Protestant and Catholic countries.
In a way perhaps we shouldn't focus on the awesomeness of the West, but the failures of the East. Religion's tight grasp hindered the Muslim countries whereas China suddenly chose itself to close itself after making it's dash for Exploration. Hence in the end you have these huge WTF moments for some civilizations like Japan when an Western armoured battleship enters their harbor and they have nothing to defend from it. As previously you simple were so ignorant about the technological and military capabilities of other cultures (as many times people weren't aware of them).
Suddenly, the US Navy:
Well, the Japanese fixed the defense issue and just in 52 years they could defeat a Western Great Power at the sea and on land, which was then a WTF-moment especially for those Europeans who believed in their racial superiority over Asians.
Admiral Togo had been four years old, when Commodore Perry had lead four US Navy ships into Tokyo Bay (picture above), which just tells how rapid the transformation, the Meiji Restoration, had been:
That many countries then couldn't do their own 'Meiji Restauration' is also telling. The few non-Western countries that basically weren't colonized are few in between: Japan, Thailand, Oman, the Ottoman Empire/Turkey (even if parts of the sick man were under Western control), Ethiopia. If I remember them all (perhaps then some Bhutan).
True, but then you are ignoring that I acknowledged the basic independence and "late to the game" aspect of Viking society. By that time, feudalism did not reach their society, and largely bypassed it which shows that you did not need to go through feudalism per se to get to "Westernization" in Europe. It adds another interesting element if we were to put the idea of "Christianity" "Greco-Pagan philosophy", and "Feudalism" as broad categorizes contributing to the West. Which one is more to do with its "essentialness", which one is accidental? I would say the Greco-Roman pagan philosophy was the core, that was carried through and indirectly influenced both feudalism and Christianity (to the extent of a unifying structure for feudalism and rhetoric and the foundation of inquiry for Christian theological philosophizing). However, some might argue that you needed Christianity and feudalism to contribute to pacifying the Germanic roving tribes into a different organization and with the literate influences of the Greco-Romans via Christianity and the sedentary nature of feudalism.
Quoting ssu
And yes, though I do largely agree with this assessment of the East, I am still focusing on the West, and so I will ask the questions in the last post again:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
That the Greco-Roman 'pagan' philosophy endured time and was accepted comes down to philosophers like Thomas Aquinas, but others too. Just how many have tried to prove God? And how many of our famous scientists have also extensively written about religion?
The real issue is that Western science and religion have actually coexisted quite well, even if Nietzsche was also right.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Very difficult to answers. Just as what if Kleopatra's nose wasn't as it was?
But here's my five cents:
Europe would have been easier pickings for Islam. If it wouldn't have been Abd al-Rahman ibn Abd Allah al-Ghafiqi of the Umayyad Caliphate that would have beaten Charles Martel at Tours in 732 and made France part of Islam like Spain, then it would likely have been the Ottomans that had picked of every Pagan bastion once at a time starting with Vienna. Nope, Christianity as 'Christendom' had it's place, especially back then.
It's even very doubtful that there would have been an Empire of Charlemagne without Christianity. And how tech savvy would have been these pagan kingdoms compared to the Ummah at it's best and strongest?
Paganist Northern Europe would have been far too dispersed: Odin worshippers had not much to do with the Celtic druids and so on. There wouldn't have been that 'Christendom' that put up a defense to the Muslim conquerers. And yes, the Umayyads or the Ottomans would have pushed all the way to the remotest places of Europe had they not been stopped. The Polish wouldn't have come to save the asses of the Austrians in Vienna (as they did now).
So what would have happened to the Greco-Roman heritage? Well, the Ottoman ruler that conquered Constantinople declared himself to be the Roman Emperor and it was the Muslims that kept the knowledge of Antiquity, hence it wouldn't have dissappeared. Only (Judeo)Christian heritage would likely have been there with the Zoroastrians of today.
Eh, you did answer the question, but I think this is a slight cop-out. Arguably, Islam's mishmash of pagan Arabic culture fused with the Judeo-Christian traditions would not have formed in the person of Mohammed if history was altered in that Byzantine period. So, let us say the Arabic invasion of the Middle East never took place in the 600s either.
You seem to be coy to discuss pre-Christian Europe and then seem eager to replace one lustfully expansionist Abrahamic/monotheistic religion like Christianity with another, similar lustfully expansionist Abrahamic/monotheistic religion (Islam), as if any pagan society is just waiting for an overpowering theological ideology to dominate it and keep it in line. Are you somehow embarrassed of a pre-Christian pagan Europe? Is it unseemly for a mosaic of European pagan-tribal religions to have existed and persisted? That seems pretty regressive and buying into the 19th century notion of the West as necessarily needing to be Christian overlaid on top of a Greco-Roman substrate.
You were almost getting at it when discussing the Odin worshipers and the Celtic religion, etc. Why can't they function relatively intact but with Greco-Roman philosophy? Would it not in fact, look like various syncretic (pluralistic/open) ethno-religions? Did Germanic tribal culture (and others) need some sort of belief system that inoculated them from their former ways? Would pagan Greco-Roman philosophy not have taken root without the vector of Christianity? Is a monotheistic ravenously totalistic theological framework necessary for it to be passed to these warrior societies? Surely, it developed and took root in pluralistic/syncretic/pagan Mediterranean society. It couldn't find its way north through diffusion? Were monasteries the only hope for the Greco-Roman ways to be preserved?
So you really didn't answer again, the main questions at hand, and I would like to know your 10 cents worth on it here:
Quoting schopenhauer1
Quoting schopenhauer1
You seem to be indicating, "Yes, an expansionist monotheistic religion needed to do this to 'pacify' the warlord pre-Christian Germanic/Slavic/Celtic societies". But perhaps you might have a different answer.
Because pre-Christian Europe is actually quite old. A lot has happened after that!
A lot in what has made Western Culture so significant has happened after Antiquity and the Middle Ages. In the Middle Ages the West wasn't so much important.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Sorry, but that happened. Paganism is quite rare today in Europe and in the World. Animism etc. isn't so much related with higher cultures. As the documentary of the Mari people showed, this is not a religion that has those zealots that you have in the Abrahamic religions. And I think it's quite clear why this happens: if I have my Gods and you have yours and I'm Ok with that, it's hard for me to be a religious zealot. But if my Bible says in Matthew 28:19 "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit", I guess I have a different attitude toward the religions of others.
Quoting schopenhauer1
We venture too far into the "What If's" if there wouldn't have been a Christian religion in Europe (and basically the only functioning international organization in Medieval Europe).
But Ok, let's assume the Roman emperors had been victorious and bloodthirsty in snuffing out Christianity. That could have happened perhaps when they demolished Jerusalem 70 AD had they done a thorough genocide of the Jewish too, which would have killed of a tiny Jewish sect and hence no Abrahamic religions anymore. Only some historians would now point out the killing of the Jews (which people wouldn't know much about) as one of the not so nice things the Romans did. Then likely we would be living in a Pagan Europe with the Iranians being those different from us fire worshippers with their Zoroastrianism. And we would have our old Gods and the Iranians Zoroaster.
Would that had altered the period of the Migrations? Likely not, the Huns and everybody after would likely have come. Would Rome be in a different state to defend itself? Likely not.
And then there's the question how paganism of Antiquity would have evolved. But it is likely that with Roman Gods in Rome, Odin worshippers in Skandinavia, "Ukko"-god worshippers here in Finland, there isn't an Europe as we now know it, because there isn't that Christendom, with Pope in the West and the Byzantine emperor in the East. We simply cannot know how things would have evolved.
And then there's the question of what if some other preacher of monotheism would have been successful later than a Jewish carpenter from the Levant? Let's say this had been a Celtic druid from Gaul that 'had seen the light' in the Middle Ages. Would our heritage that we are so fond of be then "Celtic-(add new religion's name here)" heritage? Yes, if it would have been successful. If then later colonialism happens, then that Celitic-X religion would have spread around the World. And we would have all those kind of small perks of Celtic religion in our monotheistic religion X. And the French would be even more proud about their heritage than now.
Christianity in the end didn't pacify Europeans. Talk about pacification through Christianity is simply nonsense. What finally 'pacified' us Europeans was WW1 and WW2, and still we have wars like in Ukraine just now going on, even if both Ukrainians and Russians are basically Orthodox. And we are just rearming now after the Cold War.
There was enough of that unruliness around that one Pope came out with the idea of the Crusades, which were so popular. But similar unruliness and infighting you had in the Muslim world too, even if it should be the Ummah there.
Hope to give an answer to you...
So it does bring up an interesting point. I think "higher cultures", meaning, "advanced technology, philosophical inquiry, etc." can indeed go with paganism, as it was practiced in the ancient Mediterranean. Indeed, all the flourishing of the diversity of thought and cultural exchange during the Greco-Roman period, attests to this. In the Greco-Roman world, only the very elite were probably "atheistic" in the way that the gods were mere superstitions to them, whilst philosophy could offer a "way of life" (like the Stoics, or Epicureans). And even those had various theistic ideas of Natural Reason, and a creator god. The majority however, held a variety of beliefs. The local farmer might only worship the localized deities and household deities. The merchants might have had those on top of the more civic-minded deities of the city-state (Athena in Athens, etc. Every city had their patron god). If you joined the army, you might need to pledge loyalty to Mars, or whatever it might be. Various mystery-cults which were like the "New Age" religion of its time, were somewhat more universal as they were not tied to localized patron gods, so were "portable". Thus Mithras and Dionysus cults became popular amongst the military.
So, I am not sure how much Abrahamic religions or even monotheism had to go hand-in-hand with so-called "higher culture". Even in the Abrahamic religion, the Yawhist religion of the ancient Jews, really was a development from the ancient Canaanite pantheon. El was the Northern Israelite version of the chief-god. Yahweh was a chariot-riding warrior god associated more with the South (perhaps even Midianite in origin?). At some point during the United Monarchy of David, there was probably a syncretism. And even then, other gods like Baal and Ashtereh and consorts of the gods were still being worshipped up until the end of the First Temple in Jerusalem. This henotheistic hodgepodge was only redacted later during the Babylonian Exile when scribes wanted history to look as if the original religion was monotheistic and then the Israelites "strayed" at various moments, causing "God's wrath". Really, you can say that the "Yahweh only!" crowd didn't form until about the 700s BCE around the time of King Hezekiah, when contingents soothsayers (prophets), gained prominence and had varying levels of influence. But even then, it was only centered around Jerusalem in the king's counsel. It was only after the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem, that the "Yahweh only!" crowd became THE main keepers of the ancient traditions of Israel/Judah, writing down what would become the Hebrew Scriptures (the JEPD theory, though now quite modified amongst biblical scholars). Also it was during the Age of Prophets (700s-400s BCE) and later scribes (400s BCE-200 BCE) in Jewish/Israelite history that you really had the emphasis on ethics being infused in various commandments and not just rituals performed for good harvests, etc. In the olden days of historiography, this rise of the importance of ethical writing in both the East and West (in Greece, India, China, and Israel, respectively), was called the Axial Age (500 BCE - 300 BCE give or take). Except for Israel, the others were basically pagan/polytheistic/animistic, or at the least non-monotheistic. They certainly weren't Abrahamic.
ANYWAYS, my point is you may be overemphasizing what happened as some sort of determined feature of history. Contra the examples of Christianity and Islam, you can have a fully functioning pagan society whilst still carrying forth principles of philosophy (like the Greco-Roman). In fact, Christianity, towards the 400s CE, was systematically closing down and retrofitting pagan temples and philosophical schools to become churches and monasteries. Not only did the Christian clergy physically take over these buildings, they took over the documents inside of them. Sometimes they were burned, misplaced, lost, and this might have mattered little being they were often contrary to the Church doctrine being formulated by the Church Fathers from the 200s-500s CE. Some philosophers were more emphasized and respected. Plato and Aristotle were retrofitted as "good" pagan philosophers that could be built off of using logic and reason, but it was absolutely incumbent about these churchmen to make it "concordia" with the Church. In other words, you could not study the philosophy alone without tying it to Church doctrine of the Christ.
To the credit of the scholastics and the universities, disputations and student-teacher questioning could take place which kept a tradition of free exchange. However, they could not stray too far from previous concordia, otherwise they would be branded as heretical. Either way, just the notion of "heretical" would not have been there without Christian concordia.
Quoting ssu
Perhaps, or perhaps not. Rome grew its empire not through ideological conversion of various kings, but by direct military conquering of cities across a vast region. They didn't much care for religious conformism. Thus, even a Celtic takeover from Gallia (modern France) could have went any number of ways whereby the Odin-worshipers, and the "Ukko"-worshippers, and the Slavic-religion could have kept their practices, but paid homage and taxes to their Celtic overlords. I mean, you don't even have to go that far back. Look at the Mongolian Empire. Many people have the misconception that the Mongol leadership was Buddhist. That was not so. They did rule over a large contingent of Buddhists in Asia, but they were actually animists. They didn't much care if the populations under their rule worshipped Tengri, Umay, Oz, or the ancestors of the Mongolian plain...
Quoting ssu
So by "pacify" here, I just mean to imagine the Germanic tribal societies being akin to the later Viking ones. Vikings Norse had subsistence village farms as you well described that existed even to the 20th century. Largely, this would have been Germanic tribes as well during the Migration Period. That is to say, they had to be portable enough a society to be on the move. And they weren't averse to pillaging and gaining resources from neighbors (like Roman, Celtic, or other Germanic tribes). Supposedly, the Christianization of this society where warriors were at a premium, (the king and his band of knights), they were open to a wider society (the Greco-Roman one retrofitted to the Church). However, Christianity need not have been the "vector" for this expansion of knowledge to the Germanic warlord societies.
If Christianity never existed, I could theorize that perhaps the Germanic warlords would have been exposed to Greco-Roman ideas through the natural discourse of cultural diffusion, trade, and intermarriage. It is often proposed the Christianity had to be there to "save" the Roman Empire from having its intellectual achievements from being destroyed by these Germanic tribesman. I don't think that necessarily would have been the case. Rather, by the time the Germans were really hitting Rome, it was simply that the "churchmen" had a MONOPOLY over the intellectual achievements. It could be the case that various pagan authorities, philosophers, and civic-minded people would have preserved the writings in their own way if the Church did not takeover starting with Constantine.
Yes, military capabilities surely matter. But those conquered lands that the Mongol Empire briefly held united, didn't start then worshipping Tengri. The follow-up states took up Islam or in the case of China, the melted into the Chinese culture.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Usually if people move, there is a reason for them to move. Usually if happy, people stay. And even if the people have had military prowess and capability but not much else, then they adapt as a ruling class to the local populace. Just think of the Normans in France.
Quoting schopenhauer1
Usually the barbarians were not so barbaric as Romans and Greek thought them of being. I think they were already. It's just that we see the Roman Empire as this light surrounded by darkness, but I don't think it was so black and white. I
That's my point! Paganism would have allowed for any number of pluralistic beliefs to flourish, just as the Germanic kingdoms of what became France, Spain, Germany, England, etc. (though probably something else if history was altered), could have cultural exchange with the Greco-Roman world of ideas, and it may have flourished, without needing churches or monasteries.
Quoting ssu
No, many Germanic tribes were already co-opted by Rome and were "Romanized" accordingly. That is again my point, that Christianity was not needed as some vessel to carry the values of Greece/Rome. In fact, if anything, it impeded earlier development of these ideas. The theory might go that Christianity made the "warring" Germanic tribes less "pillaging" and hence the formation of feudalism came about from the "ethics" that Christianity provided through the "values" of ethical monotheism. Christianity held the documents and the translations, and the universities and monasteries that continued these ideas in altered or suppressed fashion. But a flourishing of Greco-Roman ideas, and the switch from warring tribes to more sedentary feudalism with warring nobles under a king, could have happened anyways, simply by the settlements of Germans into more fertile land, and thus the yeoman village farmer, simply came under the control of various warrior-allies that then became dukes, knights, and other vassals that were loyal to the king. Or it may have taken a very different course, without the feudalism. Maybe it would have been confederations, proto-democracies, you name it.. The Middle Ages would have been something else. Maybe not so "middle" and simply more a continuation of Greco-Roman in a Germanic framework, straight up without the need for Church concordia and thought, retrofitted unto and hampering the natural development of Greco-Roman philosophy and sans the doctrine of the Christ and the orthodoxy and heresiology doctrines and debates that sidetracked it for a millennium.
Part 1:
Part 2:
If it isn't relevant to your point, your point was either extremely orthogonal or nigh impossible to grasp.
'tis no matter in any case.
OP tried to prove otherwise by saying Yankland is connected to England and England is connected to Rome, which is obviously fallacious. Hope it is clear now :up: