Do we live in a dictatorship of values?
Universalism not only claims a universal truth of an underlying objective reality, but also proclaims general ethical and moral values based on it, such as those enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Who wouldn't sign phrases like, 'Human dignity is inviolable'?
Universalism describes various approaches in philosophy, politics and society that aim at universality and universality. At its core, it is about the fact that certain principles, values, norms or rights apply to all people, regardless of individual characteristics such as origin, culture, religion or gender.
Political universalism emphasizes the universality of human rights. This means that all people, regardless of their origin or situation, have the same basic rights.
There's just one catch. The human rights proclaimed by the French Revolution are directly linked to a certain form of society, which in turn is linked to a certain form of economic activity, namely the capitalist one. The freedom of the individual to exchange his commodity labour-power on the market requires his individual freedom. In this respect, the concept of freedom is directly linked to the capitalist mode of production.
Now one may ask what is wrong with that. First of all, nothing. But this excludes from the outset all other modes of production which are not based on the valorization of the commodity labour-power. Thus, the universalist idea does not apply per se to all human beings. Your claim in this regard is therefore wrong in principle.
Or to put it another way, there may be forms of social and economic coexistence that define human freedom differently than through the isolation of the individual.
Universalism is an expression of Western moral philosophy. The claim that it should apply to all people reflects the way of thinking that existed in colonialism and neo-colonialism and continues to exist today.
The moral imperative is carried in front of it on a shield today, just as the dogmas of the Church were in the past, to justify the expansionist efforts to develop markets and resources. This is morally sanctioned when foreign countries and cultures have been and are being (neo-)colonized without consideration.
The so-called Western values are always invoked when it comes to expanding economic and political influence and justifying aggressive means in the process.
If we look only at the military and paramilitary interventions of the USA after 1945, it becomes clear that this is not about morality or the defense of Western values, but exclusively about economic interests. John F. Kennedy fell victim to these interests when he wanted to end the Vietnam War. By ending the war, he would have done too much damage to the military-industrial complex in the United States. Oliver Stone's film on the subject bears witness to this.
At the beginning of the 20th century, cultural relativism was proclaimed as an alternative to universalism by anthropologists such as Bronislaw Malinowski or Margaret Mead. It was difficult for them to hold his own against the prevailing universalist idea. The accusation that it can lead to tolerance of inhumane practices was contrived, because the principle of respect for other cultures does not include tolerating inhumane practices and does not exclude help for people affected by them.
In the meantime, the universalist discussion of values has taken on dictatorial features. The greater the potential for social and political global conflict, the more vehemently these values are demanded, and their relativization is more rigorously sanctioned. It becomes curious when an attempt is made to deconstruct these values with recourse to them, the values are not to be questioned, but merely to be renewed. The gender debate is a prominent example of how small groups fight for the sovereignty of interpretation, how the mainstream gives in for fear of shitstorms, and thus results in a randomly controlled construction of values that is dependent on the most influential groups at the moment.
Ultimately, universalism is based on an idealistic assumption that came into the world with the Enlightenment and, above all, with classical German philosophy. After that, there is an objective world that exists independently of man and contains the famous Kantian thing in itself, whether knowable or not. This creates an idealized world and uses the term cognition to create the impression that an ideal machine called man stands in opposition to it and that it would be a purely quantitative question to decipher it.
This idea ascribes to man qualities that he does not and cannot have as a biological being. Rather, like any entity, we transform the world into a modality that suits us, which thus becomes a subjective one. In our case, it is a neuronal modal world that we do not recognize in the transcendental idealistic sense, but to which we are adapted in the course of evolution.
Our values arise from the reality of our lives and from our understanding to live peacefully with other peoples and cultures.
Epistemic relativity recognizes that there are many subjective realities that need to be respected. None may be preferred. Freedom of expression is thus not only on paper of interest-based calculations in connection with specific social and economic conditions, but is also independent of ideological ideas.
In Germany, this kind of freedom of expression is currently miles away. Opinions and values are embedded in entrenched ideologies, the non-compliance with which can result in economic and social disadvantages for the individual. Today it feels as if we are living in a dictatorship of values, although their intrinsic value can hardly be lower.
You have to ask yourself the following questions:
How free do you feel to express your opinion without facing direct or indirect sanctions?
Is there enough room for controversial discussions, or are the outcomes of discussions already determined?
Are certain values taken more important than others, such as those of one's own culture compared to other cultures?
The answers show the degree of tolerance of a truly democratic society.
Values are often used as weapons in ideological warfare to disavow the adversary. They can be used in any way and prostitute themselves in this way. They are then empty shells and have nothing to do with the values that have developed in cultures over years or centuries.
What is freedom, equality and fraternity supposed to mean in a country where a person needs three jobs to avoid starvation, fraternity lives on handouts at best and there can be no talk of equality, where racial discrimination prevails and fascist ideas are spread?
They are ideals that lack real ground and are easy to say.
They can be used to silence people, they are traded like any other commodity.
If you look at the so-called Western values from this point of view, they seem meaningless.
Peace becomes a dirty word, and those who demand it are vilified.
The West thinks that its interpretation of values is the only correct one and tries to impose them on everyone else.
True values arise from the culture of individual societies, they are relative and must be linked to each other in a globalized world by being translated like languages. Universalist values are a means of power to an end.
Universalism describes various approaches in philosophy, politics and society that aim at universality and universality. At its core, it is about the fact that certain principles, values, norms or rights apply to all people, regardless of individual characteristics such as origin, culture, religion or gender.
Political universalism emphasizes the universality of human rights. This means that all people, regardless of their origin or situation, have the same basic rights.
There's just one catch. The human rights proclaimed by the French Revolution are directly linked to a certain form of society, which in turn is linked to a certain form of economic activity, namely the capitalist one. The freedom of the individual to exchange his commodity labour-power on the market requires his individual freedom. In this respect, the concept of freedom is directly linked to the capitalist mode of production.
Now one may ask what is wrong with that. First of all, nothing. But this excludes from the outset all other modes of production which are not based on the valorization of the commodity labour-power. Thus, the universalist idea does not apply per se to all human beings. Your claim in this regard is therefore wrong in principle.
Or to put it another way, there may be forms of social and economic coexistence that define human freedom differently than through the isolation of the individual.
Universalism is an expression of Western moral philosophy. The claim that it should apply to all people reflects the way of thinking that existed in colonialism and neo-colonialism and continues to exist today.
The moral imperative is carried in front of it on a shield today, just as the dogmas of the Church were in the past, to justify the expansionist efforts to develop markets and resources. This is morally sanctioned when foreign countries and cultures have been and are being (neo-)colonized without consideration.
The so-called Western values are always invoked when it comes to expanding economic and political influence and justifying aggressive means in the process.
If we look only at the military and paramilitary interventions of the USA after 1945, it becomes clear that this is not about morality or the defense of Western values, but exclusively about economic interests. John F. Kennedy fell victim to these interests when he wanted to end the Vietnam War. By ending the war, he would have done too much damage to the military-industrial complex in the United States. Oliver Stone's film on the subject bears witness to this.
At the beginning of the 20th century, cultural relativism was proclaimed as an alternative to universalism by anthropologists such as Bronislaw Malinowski or Margaret Mead. It was difficult for them to hold his own against the prevailing universalist idea. The accusation that it can lead to tolerance of inhumane practices was contrived, because the principle of respect for other cultures does not include tolerating inhumane practices and does not exclude help for people affected by them.
In the meantime, the universalist discussion of values has taken on dictatorial features. The greater the potential for social and political global conflict, the more vehemently these values are demanded, and their relativization is more rigorously sanctioned. It becomes curious when an attempt is made to deconstruct these values with recourse to them, the values are not to be questioned, but merely to be renewed. The gender debate is a prominent example of how small groups fight for the sovereignty of interpretation, how the mainstream gives in for fear of shitstorms, and thus results in a randomly controlled construction of values that is dependent on the most influential groups at the moment.
Ultimately, universalism is based on an idealistic assumption that came into the world with the Enlightenment and, above all, with classical German philosophy. After that, there is an objective world that exists independently of man and contains the famous Kantian thing in itself, whether knowable or not. This creates an idealized world and uses the term cognition to create the impression that an ideal machine called man stands in opposition to it and that it would be a purely quantitative question to decipher it.
This idea ascribes to man qualities that he does not and cannot have as a biological being. Rather, like any entity, we transform the world into a modality that suits us, which thus becomes a subjective one. In our case, it is a neuronal modal world that we do not recognize in the transcendental idealistic sense, but to which we are adapted in the course of evolution.
Our values arise from the reality of our lives and from our understanding to live peacefully with other peoples and cultures.
Epistemic relativity recognizes that there are many subjective realities that need to be respected. None may be preferred. Freedom of expression is thus not only on paper of interest-based calculations in connection with specific social and economic conditions, but is also independent of ideological ideas.
In Germany, this kind of freedom of expression is currently miles away. Opinions and values are embedded in entrenched ideologies, the non-compliance with which can result in economic and social disadvantages for the individual. Today it feels as if we are living in a dictatorship of values, although their intrinsic value can hardly be lower.
You have to ask yourself the following questions:
How free do you feel to express your opinion without facing direct or indirect sanctions?
Is there enough room for controversial discussions, or are the outcomes of discussions already determined?
Are certain values taken more important than others, such as those of one's own culture compared to other cultures?
The answers show the degree of tolerance of a truly democratic society.
Values are often used as weapons in ideological warfare to disavow the adversary. They can be used in any way and prostitute themselves in this way. They are then empty shells and have nothing to do with the values that have developed in cultures over years or centuries.
What is freedom, equality and fraternity supposed to mean in a country where a person needs three jobs to avoid starvation, fraternity lives on handouts at best and there can be no talk of equality, where racial discrimination prevails and fascist ideas are spread?
They are ideals that lack real ground and are easy to say.
They can be used to silence people, they are traded like any other commodity.
If you look at the so-called Western values from this point of view, they seem meaningless.
Peace becomes a dirty word, and those who demand it are vilified.
The West thinks that its interpretation of values is the only correct one and tries to impose them on everyone else.
True values arise from the culture of individual societies, they are relative and must be linked to each other in a globalized world by being translated like languages. Universalist values are a means of power to an end.
Comments (110)
Paradoxically, this 'cultural-value relativity' is ancient (i.e. pre-modern, pre-"Enlightenment", pre-capitalist) yet also universalist: cosmopolitanism. A horizontally-integrated (i.e. municipal-centric pluralist > "bottom-up") order contra the prevailing vertically-integrated (i.e. hegemonic / nation-centric globalist > "top-down") order why throughout "official" history such flourishing milieux have always succumbed to (domestic / foreign) tyrannies of one kind or another and not have prevented or withstood them (and the subsequent "emancipatory" need for the (republican yet imperialist) "Enlightenment" project of "Human Rights" universalism)? And if neither cosmopolitanism nor human rightsism, then what international communism? anarcho-syndicalism? transnational corporatism? autocratic / theocratic populism? :chin:
Quoting Wolfgang
The West does not think, and all the people who live in this undefined western region do not think with one mind. Nor do they all share the same values, or even interpret specific values in the same way. "The West" is a diverse, incoherent and frequently self-contradictory human construct.
Capitalism is the currently dominant world economy and all of our infrastructures, both physical and political, are dedicated to capitalist pursuits. But there are strong religious currents in most cultures, which dictate unprofitable values and are at odds with efficient commerce. They are also at odds with one another and inimical to universal human rights and freedoms. The UN declaration would still be valid if both capital and religion went deservedly extinct - and then it might have a chance of prevailing.
And this should be noted when these values are excepted by for example by members of the United Nations. Many members aren't Western, don't share similar history and have different starting points for how they understand their society from the way Western individualism understands societies. And that does say a lot.
We often point out our differences and remind ourselves how different others are, but many things are indeed universal. Perhaps the error we make is that when these values are universal, we then deduce that our understanding of these rights and where they come from is "universal" too. Not so. North Korea starts from a different ideology, China starts with a different ideology and Muslim countries naturally start from the faith which isn't Christian.
The power of the factual is immense and prevents us from taking on other perspectives. It also prevents you from wanting to take on different perspectives and from wanting to learn. People resist any epistemological change. That is more than understandable.
This is not in any way obvious. US foreign policy is the result of values, personal ambition, internal politicking, economics, strategic concerns, and accident. I don't think any attempt to reduce it to one thing, be it "economics," "values," or the personalities of key figures is going to paint a very accurate picture. But it's especially hard to justify this view if the key evidence you point to is a heavily fictionalized, conspiratorial, Hollywood account of events.
As to the overwhelming influence of the MIC, given their ability to dispatch presidents at will and cover it up through a series of assassinations and widespread manipulations, it is strange how such an omnipotent cabal so steadily lost market share in the US economy over the years, or how they were able to assassinate JFK, but not Oliver Stone.
At any rate, the relativism you're advancing seems by far and away most popular in the West, and quite popular to boot. I'd imagine its the most popular conception of morals, at least with the younger generation. I do not think you could say this was the case in say Egypt or China.
It is always comical to me this "Western" label. French, German, or generally (Western) European values have nothing to do with Yankee values. Does anyone think that Hollywood and Biden's government is promoting anything that has to do with Europe when they do this?
Yankees use this "Western" label to associate themselves with European history while bombing the continent for their personal interest when it suits them.
Let's not even forget that their war on terror (more like war for oil and for Israel) has indirectly caused heinous crimes in Europe.
If you believe Stone's film is accurate, my guess would be you think De Palma's The Untouchables is as well.
Be that as it may, my feeling is there are no rights which aren't legal rights. Unless claimed universal rights are enforceable by law, they may be proclaimed by anyone and will mean nothing, in fact. It happens certain legal rights are useful in limiting the power of government. Others can be misused, and promote little more than selfishness. It becomes a question of judging which rights should be made law.
We haven't judged well, in many cases. That's all, folks.
Kudos on attaining that Olympian perspective!
OTOH, is it not possible that there are conditions that all human beings - or possibly all sentient beings - desire for themselves? While the 'values' of many cultures dictate that autonomy, security, wellness and opportunity are distributed unevenly among the members of society, nevertheless those members aspire to what their culture denies them. This is why the bravest and most desperate among them escape to what they hope are less oppressive cultures. It seems to me that the UN charter (Which is not a uniquely western idea) names some of these conditions that all people hope for, even if they are not permitted to aspire to.
Evolving values make sense, and are probably requisite of a decent society, in general - but I think when conversation is a no-no you have to start questioning your premises.
Won't they mean [I]something[/I] in that we can point to the evil being done in their violation? Rights, as the defense of the good, seem like they should exist outside of any given system of laws. Molesting children isn't just bad in contexts where it is illegal, or only in cases where there will be punishment.
Oil has always played a big factor, but so did 9/11. It was a tremendous shock to the system. Much of America's policies, including torture, were to make sure another 9/11 didn't happen again. We didn't invade Afghanistan over oil.
Ah yes, the war to control the vast oil exports of Afghanistan and control the ever potent Afghan-Israeli rivalry. The "war for oil and Israel," makes a little more sense if one looks at Iraq in isolation, but it's hard to imagine that the Iraq War would have happened without 9/11 and Afghanistan. And at any rate, it makes far more sense to replace "Israel" with "Saudi Arabia," given both who the benefits of removing Saddam immediately served and the relation to oil. But the disaster that was Bush II era foreign policy had more to do with hubris and ideology than anything else. Trying to set up liberal democracies in both nations worked directly against the interests of US oil firms, and allowing Iran to dominate Iraqi politics was hardly a win for Israel.
Plenty of people have thought there was something wrong with this ( with very limited freedom present) hence unions and progressive parties and reformers in most capitalist lands.
Id say the dominant value in the west is probably neoliberalism and as for values like rights and inclusion, etc arent these often just for decoration? They are the stories we tell ourselves. Isnt hypocrisy and conflict what lubricates culture?
How do you tell the difference between theoretical values and what happens in practice?
The refusal of Westerners to follow so-called Western values and the hypocrisy that results in their behavior isn't much an argument against the values themselves. It's true: human rights and their universal application are routinely violated by those who express those same values, and this has largely been the case since their conception; but their double-standards and misapplication proves only that they do not believe in such values, not that the values are at fault. The fact that there are slaves, for instance, is no argument against abolition.
At any rate, It reads to me that instead of applying universalist values to individuals you are applying universalist values to societies and cultures. Societies, not people, have the right to freedom, speech, conscience, respect, and so on. Societies, not people, are sovereign. Societies, not people, should have rights. We should not impose our values upon the society, but the society has the right to impose its values on other people. As such, these values are a means of power to an end, but only to the end of state power.
The law is one thing; morality is another. A law will be a law regardless of whether it's moral or not; regardless of whether it prohibits immoral conduct or allows it by not regulating it.
Molesting children should be illegal (prohibited by law). If it isn't, though, then it won't be a crime. It won't be subject to punishment by the state, nor will it be subject to civil action. In such cases, we may say "there oughta be a law." We may say what we claim are universal rights, or natural rights, should be recognized by the law, but if they're not that's all we're saying.
So, documents or pronouncements like the U.N. Declarations of Human Rights, or the Declarations of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen adopted by the French National Assembly, may indicate what people think should be the case, be need not be the case. The Consulate and the First French Empire weren't very faithful to the Declarations of the Rights of Man in practice. Many members of the U.N. disregard the Declaration of Human Rights with some frequency.
This seems to beg it's question. The 'evil' seems to consist in the violation of a right. If so, without hte right, there is no evil.
We can just look at different rights afforded in different jurisdictions to note that there is, at the very least, different conceptions of what a right "outside of law" might consist in. Ultimately I think it is a fact that rights are a legal tool for enforcing moral norms, and naught else. It would be great to know about some inalienable rights, not conferred from on high - but that seems incoherent to me too.
No it isn't.
P1: Violating natural rights is evil.
P2: It is (relatively) easy to determine when natural rights have been violated.
Conclusion: Natural rights are useful in identifying evil because it is easy to identify when they have been violated.
Your objections seem to be to P1 and P2, but the premises don't assume the truth of the conclusion.
How so? It's incoherent to say people can't sever moral individual's obligation to treat them with some basic level of dignity? To be clear, the question posed by natural rights theorists has never been that natural rights cannot be violated, it's that they should not be violated. E.g., "people have in inalienable right to freedom so they should not be taken as slaves or allowed to sell themselves into slavery." Seems coherent to me.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Israel and oil are metonyms for whatever wicked interest it is at the time. Whichever example we choose, no matter how ludicrous, is still more sensible than the Adam Sandler-tier comedy that the biggest war criminal in the world is drone striking Lybia to generously spread the values of democracy and sexual liberation values that were hammered upon Europeans in WW2. I don't think it can get more evil than that, "we are bombing your civilians because we care about you!".
Categorical proof that that they maliciously and dishonorably lie through their teeth: https://twitter.com/NuryVittachi/status/1762363106922049973
Let me make this clear enough: European do not step and dance on their own flags, Europeans do not kneel to social minorities, Europeans do not tear down their own statues, Europeans do not bring children to cross-dresser strip clubs, Europeans do not think social well-being is "socialism", Europeans do not look down upon other cultures, Europeans know how many continents there are, Europeans do not think sexual and racial classification is based on feelings. If these values are "western", fine, but remember then that Europe is a far far eastern continent.
Question: Begged.
There are no natural rights.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
That's the only possible source for 'natural rights'. Hence, it's incoherent to pretend we have some kind of alienable right... from... nowhere.
Yep, truth keeps getting in the way.
I can only recommend looking up what question begging actually is. In your first post, you seem to have mistaken my pointing out a use for natural rights theory as a justification of it, but even there the problem you seem to think you've identified is circular reasoning, not question begging.
What's the only possible source for natural rights? Natural rights theory is old and diffuse and they are justified in many ways. E.g., when natural rights are established in the context of social contract theory, the claim is that the rationale that justifies the social contract is such that it is impossible to justify the alienation of certain rights. Or the classical justification is that such rights are established by divinely mandated natural law, in which case enforcement is carried out by primarily through damnation rather than through political means.
Historically, natural rights aren't only enforced by existing law. They were often used as justification for abrogating existing law, e.g., the Declaration of Independence motivating new enforcement mechanisms.
You have no clue what I mean when I say 9/11 was a big factor in American policy and it's not all just about oil? What is confusing about that?
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
This may be true... You've given no reason to take 'natural rights' seriously, so teh rest of the syllogism isn't apt (in my view.. just outlining clearly what my objection is).
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
God or similar.
I have to say, the use of a theory isn't particularly interesting if it's trying to justify something which on its face, is absurd (on my view). 'natural rights' isn't a coherent concept, so I'm unsure how I'm supposed to get on with theories that begin with something I can't understand how a rational person would involve.
Its quite simple. You consider human nature and the natural world and derive a set of rights therefrom, for example, rights that would allow one to survive and live a life of dignity and happiness. You confer these rights and defend them in others. Pretty easy stuff.
Ok, so we're just thinking about subjective stuff, okay... with you so far...
Quoting NOS4A2
This is, entirely, a non sequitur. Making up things people should and shouldn't do is a non sequitur here.
Quoting NOS4A2
So, again, subjective stuff. Where's the 'right' coming from? Your mind? And enforced by?
A right is something enforceable. As Ciceronianus has made clear, the idea of a right in lieu of an enforcing authority is either redundant or incoherent. I take the latter. Like - it literally doesn't exist. It isn't there to be 'derived'. You're just looking at stuff, and thinking about what you'd like.
Yes, rights come from men, believe it or not. Yes, men can enforce rights. Are you not of the species? The idea that rights can only come from men of authority or officialdom is both ridiculous and obsequious.
I'm not sure you're grasping the immense problem for your account i've laid out:
If, as you note, rights only come from men (i.e the species Man) then they are artificial products of minds. A strong man is an enforcing authority - think of the family unit, circa 1950 or whatever time suits your conception.
SO, where are these 'natural' rights coming from? Well, the answer is the exact same place all rights come from: They are made up in the minds humans.
All rights come from men. Natural rights come from mans reason in consideration of nature.
Cool, so we're getting somewhere.
Natural rights theory states that these rights are derived, directly, with impugnity, from human nature - Universal, fundamental and inalienable. However, there is literally no such right.
Can you please make that make sense for me?
Thats right. For instance, I know human beings need to express themselves, so I confer upon on you the right to free speech. In doing so I do not censor you and defend you when others try to do so.
Hmm. Do you? How? What's the premise for this which is...
Quoting AmadeusD
You will need something a little better than "i know..XXX" for this to be applicable.
And alternately, how does the 'right to free Speech' relate to a 'natural' right derived from a human 'need' to 'express' themselves? These are all contingent and not in any way fundamental, universal or inalienable. You'd have to claim that any society who doesn't enforce the same rights you do, is wrong. I cant really see that happening... (by this I mean, you don't come across as either a Moral absolutists or someone willing to claim their culture is the 'right one' per se)
Luckily, I've just covered the reality: Society dictates rights based on the socially-bound behaviour of it's members. Nothing about 'human nature' exists in this.
Human nature dictates that sex is the paramount goal of being a human being. This comes closer to the three criteria than does 'free expression'... Yet, this is not a right. And only what we considered 'backward' cultures would deem it so.
I don't know what to tell you, lots of rational people have embraced the idea of natural rights. You seem to be hung up on the idea of enforcement, but no natural rights theorists claim that natural rights cannot be violated, it's that they should not be violated.
The natural right then is something you can point to when justifying political action. E.g. "we are justified in revolting and demanding a constitution because the king keeps violating natural rights," or "this new bill should not be passed because it allows the state to violate natural rights."
So, "children categorically have a right not to be sold off as sex slaves," is a bridge to far for you because it wouldn't be relativistic enough? Was there any grounds on which someone outside of American culture could have said that slavery or Jim Crow was immoral, or must they pass over it because to criticize chattel slavery would be to say that "someone else's culture was wrong?"
There is a place for particularism, sure, but particularism and relativism can become their own sort of absolute. And why stop the relativism at individual cultures and societies? Why not let it apply to the level of individual communities or even individuals?
Obviously, one answer would be that this makes any ethics impossible, no one can criticize anyone else on pain of "absolutism." But then why is the "society" the proper dividing line for determining when relativism should kick in? Natural rights theorists are simply claiming that society it isn't the proper dividing line for some issues.
The idea of according rights to every member of our society is far older that the idea of "human". It is therefore natural. The idea of depriving some members of a society of their rights, or bestowing unearned privilege on a few while placing the full burden of obligation on the less privileged is entirely human. It is therefore artificial. In all other social species, privilege is hard won and carries greater obligation.
The idea of according every member of every society the same rights that we all want for ourselves is also a human one, and is entirely rational on the grounds that it would greatly reduce stress and conflict in all societies.
Society dictates rights? Ive only seen men dictate rights. By society I assume you mean men in power. But it isnt true, in any case, that only some men can confer rights. And if you allow only politicians and lawyers the power to grant rights you make of yourself a slave or serf or some other subordinate, at any rate a sorry figure.
The language faculties are universal. The right to free speech itself has been battle-tested in its own arena, put to the grindstone of trial and error over thousands of years, and has proven itself morally right and socially valuable both in argument and in practice. What more does one need? Yes, anyone who doesnt confer the right to free speech on others and defend everyones right to speak is wrong.
Natural law, however, is different. The Stoics were the greatest proponents of it in the ancient world, probably. Natural law and natural rights are often considered one and the same, but are different.
According to natural law theory as developed in antiquity, from the study of nature and humanity's place in it we can infer that certain conduct is in accordance with nature, and human nature is such that we can infer that we have certain duties towards each other. Right conduct, duty and justice were far more important than individual rights. We should treat each other in a certain way, yes, but we didn't have the right to be treated in a certain way as we believe that to be the case now. It's a point of view I think preferable, personally. It's not all about ME and what I'M entitled to or owed.
For example, slavery was common in the ancient West. Slaves didn't have the right to be free, but they could be granted freedom. However, the Roman jurist Ulpian wrote that the the condition of slavery was contrary to nature. Nature tells us that humans should be treated equally, i.e. that we should treat each other as equals and shouldn't enslave each other. The focus is on what we should and should not do rather than on what each of us is entitled to.
Excellent points. And then the elucidation of certain natural rights gives us something ready-made to point to in order to show why a certain act is wrong. It's not unlike how civil rights legislation works. E.g., if the police act a certain way, you can point to the statute and say, "this is the right they have infringed," to make your case.
This doesn't mean the rights are always ensured. The same is true of civil rights. Often civil rights get violated in obvious ways and yet the justice system turns a blind eye to this. This was incredibly common during Jim Crow, when the rights identified in Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment were routinely violated.
However, when civil rights advocates wanted to point out the evils here, they were able to point to both the Constitution and natural rights. For, if you just point at the law of the land, people might say "well, maybe you're right, but that just means our laws are wrong." But, provided they accept a natural right, they will have no grounds for defending their actions even if the current laws allow them. In this way, natural laws also show lawmakers what the laws of their state should be.
This confuses me. I don't think that, haven't said that. Enforceability is what i've talked about. Not non-violability. A right wouldn't be a right if it wasn't violable. It would just be a state of affairs. A right is predicated on something being either given, or refused (i.e you have a right to 'something' or a right for others to not 'something'..). In this way, (and this is purely for your clarity) a right could only exist as a violable assertion of normative value.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Which, as I have mentioned, is entirely incoherent. It makes a claim that doesn't stand up to anything at all, best I can tell being "violates natural rights". Err, you're gonna need to justify THAT.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
While this is actually exactly counter to what I had said (my quote is charging NOS with being too relativistic), I am currently of the view that, while I could personally tell someone I thought what they were doing was wrong (this, if you need, can be that they want to sell their child into the sex trade) for x, y and z reasons but I have no right to enforce that opinion on them.
That's a bad example though, because I could defend removing the child from the scenario for other reasons than disagreeing with the vendor.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
It does. hehe.
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
Because that's where people have to get along. It would be counter to the aim of society (ie, practical, not moral) not to co-operate. So relativism has to breakdown here, to enable things like regulation to take any reasonable shape. This is basically business acumen at this point.
Quoting NOS4A2
That's odd. Almost all modern sets of rights are come to by deliberation among, what are meant to be, the best and brightest of that society. Which goes to the next point too...
Quoting NOS4A2
I disagree, and see no evidence to the contrary. More than open to it - but I would just be ready for it to be lacking, as this is, in fact, where rights come from presently.
Quoting NOS4A2
It's not up to me, If i am to take part in society. I think perhaps you think you're not subject to society's policies?
Quoting NOS4A2
While I totally accept, and find reasonable this take, it is nothing but your personal opinion of the states of affairs previously seen in the world. The 'right to free speech' isn't absolute, anywhere, really. So, what's the "universal" you're talking about? It doesn't seem to obtain. It appears we, at least, value free speech to the same level, if not for hte same reasons.
Quoting NOS4A2
I'm somewhat surprised, but I suppose given your position in this thread I shouldn't be. I just didn't take you as this type of thinker. Interesting. I'm fine with you feeling that way, as it goes.
Would you say that someone should have the right to call another person (who, aesthetically fits the description) a "Big, fat gay n***a" as a derogatory term intended to harm the person's psyche? This is not a gotcha, I just wanted an example that the answer to would be a clear commitment one way or the other.
Quoting Vera Mont
You are seriously suggesting that non-sentient animals have 'rights and obligations' rather than autonomous reactive behaviours limited by the survival tactics of the species? Interesting.
That is odd. Philosophers have been expounding and conferring rights long before any politician, bureaucrat, or jurist has codified them. Hell, some constitutions werent created until the disco era. Perhaps society is just a thief.
Yet I just granted you the right to free speech, entailing that I temper my own behavior in defense of yours. Should you be met with a censor I will be there defending you and your right to speak, so long as you aren't conflicting with his property rights.
It is an opinion derived from argument and evidence, all of which attests to the merits of rights. If you have better arguments and better evidence in favor of, say, censorship or theft or kidnapping, Im willing to change that opinion. Except no argument has been forthcomingthe fact that there is no free speech is certainly no argument against free speech, just as the fact that there are still slaves is no argument against abolition. The universal Im talking about simply means the right ought to apply to everyone.
Yes, Im an absolutist. Everyone should have the right to say what they want. Would you censor him?
A belief in natural rights may inspire or inform the decision to adopt a law (or not adopt one, or enforce or not enforce a law). Until there is a law, however, that belief is nothing more than a belief there should be a law, or a right recognized by law.
While I am somewhat sympathetic to the line you're taking, no. No one but an authority has conferred any rights, ever. Philosophers have discussed them, and pretended to them (in the face of an enforcing authority which does not recognise them). Think: Why did Socrates drink the hemlock ;) There are no other rights. There are ideals. Even 'natural rights' only ever come into being once codified by an authority. The argument that they are derived from some universal, i reject, but even if that were true, the rights themselves are formal enunciations of 'natural ideals' for lack of a better term.
Quoting NOS4A2
You absolutely did no such thing, in any sense of that word. If this is your conception of a 'right' I'd just say you're wrong and move on.. What you actually did was tell me you would do what you are now claiming you did do, and that was not to 'confer a right'. It was to act according to your moral outlook. That's fine. It is not a right, and you've conferred nothing on me. So, this was predictably lacking in anything establishing a right.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yet, it remains your personal, emotionally-informed opinion. It doesn't do anything but tell me that. I happen to agree on the 'merit' of enforceable rights, too. Says nothing for the disagreement we're having though.
Quoting NOS4A2
I literally have no clue what you are talking about. You're telling me that rights are derived from some objective, universal 'human nature'. This request has nothing to do with my objection to that.
I've not even tangentially made an argument 'against free speech'. I have no idea where you got that from.
Quoting NOS4A2
Then you now seem to have dropped your initial claim. I agree, the right to free speech should be afforded everyone.
Quoting NOS4A2
I would not. Again, it wasn't a 'gotcha'. I'm just interested - some of your responses have given different impressions. We seem to have similar values. I just reject your premise that rights exist outside of law (or analogous enforcement).
Quoting Ciceronianus
:ok:
Thats too bad, I did. And though you can refuse it and pretend I didnt, Ill still be there granting you the right and defending it.
Start small. Give your neighbor the right to borrow your lawnmower, or something.
Might makes right. Or was it the best and brightest make rights? I cant say Im a big fan of social Darwinism either way, but limiting social power in favor of state power is the going rate, so youre not entirely in bad company.
Hehe, this is a two way street. And that fact (illustrated in a moment) provides me ample evidence that your position is not stable: You can claim this all you want, but you have no authority or standing to do so. That is entirely the crux of why you are wrong. You are inventing, out of thin air, an institution that doesn't exist. "rights conferred by NOS4A2" is nonsense, and you know it. Your ideals don't matter to anyone else but you. No one accepts your 'rights'. Therefore, they convey and confer nothing but your opinion on another person. Try 'conferring' a right counter to the Law in your locale.
Quoting NOS4A2
That would be a dispensation (though, that's a somewhat imprecise word - trying not to employ legalese). If he's borrowing something of mine, he has no right to it. I have abrogated my legal property rights to him, temporarily which gives him what's called "effective control" where I live. Conferring a right is not something I personally have the power to either effect, or enforce. It is a result, entirely, of the Law which I allows me to abrogate my legal right to another person. You can also do this via 'nominee' when entering into a contract. My wants and needs are secondary to whether or not i legally can abrogate my rights in such a way. I concede, though, there is a second level to this - certain rights can be conferred by the right-holder, by proscription of legal right in the first instance. Meaning, my ability to confer that right is express within the right which I actually have had conferred upon my by the granting authority.
There are several that I cannot do this with (depending on Jurisdiction, the majority of them). Your logic seems to suggest I can also do away with my own rights, at my own leisure. That, in the vast majority of cases, is not true, on either of our accounts it seems.
Quoting NOS4A2
I'm not entirely sure what the quip underlying this passage is, so If i'm making a fool of myself, fine... They are not, on my view, very much related. Social 'power' is a power separated from legal power. Rights, are not social entities other than to the extent a legal proscription causes certain behaviours. But, that's an externality to the authority conferring a right of whatever kind.
This is well said. And to some degree, the same can be said when we begin talking about the X community or the Y community as if they shared the same brain. In some sense, a "human construct" is simply a useful "illusion."
I am not certain I agree with that. The law and morality are not the same and whether "evil" is outlawed by the former does not sever it from the latter. The absence of natural rights or the absence of law does not cleanse any behavior of its moral character.
Hmm, a few things to unpack here. Up-top, it's worth noting that this is not my position - It is my trying to clarify Timothy's. His account seems to suggest the quote you've used. I was pointing it out. I don't think its particualrly consenquential to the disagreemetn we were having anyway - it was just an external possibly objection that Timothy, if he can't make sense of it, might use to review his position. But, i take no position on whether i'm correct.
Quoting Arne
That might be true, but it's moral character exists only in the minds of those experiencing it (on my account/s) so i can't see this as at all relevant. An act, without causal an emotional valence in a sentient being does not have moral character, to me. So, I think it's not true, because of that. But, prima facie, I don't disagree with what you're getting across - i just don't accept objective morality.
Then you are correct, we have little to talk about.
Are you suggesting that "only" those "experiencing it" can grasp the moral character of "it"? And even if that is correct, what is the basis by which their grasp of the moral character of "it" is to be rendered null and void?
And I concede in advance that natural rights, if they exist, are the rights of beings with minds and that is certainly where they are to be found.
So, this isn't meant to be the usual dig it would be in a face-to-face conversation: Im not 'suggesting' anything - exactly what i wrote is my position. I'll reiterate:
Quoting AmadeusD
It doesn't exist outside of those minds (directly inferred from the above). It's not a suggestion: the above is my position. Morality does not obtain except as a thought of relation between a sentient observing subject and an action (to be verbose).
I asking for a elucidation of how you view morality obtaining outside of that parameter? Is it an inherent physical property? Is it a non-physical property floating around, or like an aura attached to certain events ? Im not being facetious - I'm interested.
A sense of "evil" is a physiological phenomenon not limited to only those who experience evil. I have never experienced evil yet nonetheless have a sense of what it is. An evil act is repugnant to nature.
I am going to bed now.
For practical purposes, an initially democratic society will eventually develop into a more homogeneous one.
It's simply not economically or socially viable to be different, unless one's kind of "different" can be monetized readily enough.
Of course.
Rather, the solution seems to be for the world to become significantly less globalized, less connected.
Nine eleven was not for any reason by the way, 9/11 was only surprising because they managed to hijack and hammer 3 airplanes into VIP locations without being taken down. But that someone (be the Taliban or the Al Qaeda) would try to retaliate is completely expected. Yankees and the Soviets used and abused the Middle East for a long, long time before nine eleven happened. And then they play victim. Whatever the motivation was, it is evil through and through.
Anything that tries to rationalise 9/11 probably shouldn't be taken very seriously.
It was not a rational event, or action to take.
Britain was there before them, and France and Italy... Europe dragged its two big wars across those lands, plundering the resources and exploiting the population, altering the division of territories with no regard to national identities or needs. And it was Britain that shoehorned modern Israel in there.
The US just took over the European franchise when its own power waxed as theirs waned. That's why it keeps trying to put an alliance front on the wars it wages there: they're all part of the colonial legacy.
Of course it was logical, from the POV of generations of smouldering resentment and suppressed rage, to attack the biggest empire's centers of financial, military and political power with its own weapons - if successful, it would have been a significant symbolic act. As far as it got, it was merely destructive and the US government was able to both spin it as victimhood and suppress commentary on the rationale. And an immortal capitalist slogan was born: Go shopping or the terrists win!
Right, let's just ignore how the CIA literally trained the members of the al-Qaeda and the rise of ISIS was a direct consequence of Obama's policy. Stuff just happens for no reason.
Quoting Vera Mont
If you are talking about colonialism, everybody did that or tried to before the 20th century century, that France or Portugal were so good at it is a point of virtue, not of vice. Yankees didn't, they were colonised instead until the 18th century, so I couldn't possibly be talking about colonialism.
Other than that, I completely agree with all the Britain slander, they are the cause of many of the modern world's problem.
Quoting Vera Mont
Without Europe's colonisation of sub-Saharan Africa, do you think the countries there would have developed to be able to exploit the Molybdenum mines that are important for refinement of petroleum?
It is always interesting how people say Europe "plundered" Africa's resources and then, after watching a DW documentary on Youtube, they fill up their chest to enlighten us about how France currently has a hidden empire in West Africa. Curious, I thought the resources were plundered.
If anything, it is some American countries that should complain to Spain that their gold was plundered, but yet we don't see them doing so.
You could, if you looked at the history of US involvement. Both in the middle and far east, the US took over power in European colonies, just as it did in North America and indirectly in South America. Quoting Lionino
Were we talking about the plunder, disarrangement and corruption of sub-Saharan Africa? I thought this was about the series of Middle East crises that resulted in the 9/11 attack, and all that insane, costly, ineffective warfare resulting from the US response to that.
Quoting Lionino
My reference to plunder was in the context of Mesopotamia in the two world wars. As to the 'peacetime' plunder of Africa, that's been ongoing since c.1650 and will continue yet a while, now China's in the game.
Quoting Lionino
The extinct hardly ever complain.
That doesn't imply colonialism, at most imperialism.
Quoting Vera Mont
I don't know enough about the exploitation of resources during imperialism in the Middle East to comment on that.
Quoting Vera Mont
When you said plunder I immediately thought of Africa, not of the Middle East, so never mind it.
Quoting Vera Mont
There are millions of pure Amerindians in Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, etc. Europeans rarely promoted deliberate extermination campaigns, that was something more up Pacific Islanders' and sub-Saharans' alley.
Which is why I called the US an empire. Quoting Lionino
And they're not complaining about their and their ancerstors' treatment by the current and past European regimes? Maybe they do - to the European God. It's not like anyone else could hear them.
Imperialism does not imply empire, it implies hegemon, otherwise it is an etymological fallacy. The view of Biden's land as an empire is particularly silly when one considers the fact that an empire's people enjoy some benefits from the supposed empire, while that country's people is completely subject to international corporations and Israel, undermining to some extent the idea that it is sovereign or at least that it is democratic. Also, there is no emperor. A country without a king is not a kingdom. Brazil and Mexico were empires, they had emperors emperors from European noble houses, by the way.
Quoting Vera Mont
What current European regime? Spain's arrival was a great thing for Mexico, for example, otherwise in a case of isolation from the rest of the world¹, they would not be too far past the Iron Age today and likely still be conducing human sacrifices.
1 Which we, the so enlightened of the 21st century grant to the North Sentinelese.
In that case, I need a Newspeak dictionary. Nobody promised that economic and military imperialism would never backfire. Ask the Islamophobic French nationalist political faction, and they'll say the present ethnic problem in their country was caused by the EU's magnanimity. Ask a historian, and you'd get a very different answer.
A French dictionary instead, as those two are French words. Empire is a type of government and also speaks to the make-up of the State, imperialism is foreign policy, one does not imply the other, but the other implies one.
Quoting Vera Mont
The Muslim issue in France evidently has a strong link to Merkel and the EU. Historians don't tend to get stuff right when it comes to things that are not events far into the past my history teachers would boast that they can't manipulate fractions, which is 3rd grade mathematics.
It wasn't a rational thing to do. You seem to want to be in this category of rationalising 9/11. That is your choice.
Being anti-USA enough to think that 9/11 can be rationalised is (particularly in light of the intervening years and what effect they ahve had on the region) to say the least, a random view to take.
Quoting Lionino
Nevermind.
I am not rationalising 9/11 especially because I don't even know what that could mean. I am sure the jihadi had reasons in their mind to do it, but I don't care about it. There were reasons why 9/11 happened and one of those reasons was the country's involvement in the Middle East. 9/11 did not randomly happen. That much should be obvious, unless one believes in spontaneous generation.
The events of the past have little to do with manipulating fractions, but the events of the far distant past did precede the events of the recent past, which preceded the events of the present, with no evident line of demarcation between sets of events.
One might even conclude that they constitute cause ----> effect.
Indeed, Bartolome de las Cases provides a contemporary description of the many great things done for the indigenous people of Mexico by the Spanish after they arrived.
Surely this has to be sarcasm.
Busted. I console myself that at least my co-sarcaster got away with it.
https://archivo.eluniversal.com.mx/nacion-mexico/2014/impreso/la-guerra-secreta-de-la-dea-en-mexico-212050.html
https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/01/12/why-is-the-united-states-backing-mexican-drug-gangs/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/03/us-bank-mexico-drug-gangs
Without bringing the involvement of the CIA in the rise of cartels.
Like medicine, modern infrastructure and agriculture, and technology in general that allowed them to multiply further than it could ever been possible within the Iron Age.
Well, consider what was written by Bernal Diaz del Castillo, one of the conquistadors accompanying Cortez, regarding the Spaniards first impression on arriving at the city of Tenochtitlan:
"When we saw so many cities and villages built in the water and other great towns on dry land we were amazed and said that it was like the enchantments (...) on account of the great towers and cues and buildings rising from the water, and all built of masonry. And some of our soldiers even asked whether the things that we saw were not a dream? (...) I do not know how to describe it, seeing things as we did that had never been heard of or seen before, not even dreamed about."
Later, of course, the conquistadors destroyed that city and much else. It's estimated that about 8 million of the indigenous people died in the immediate aftermath of the Spanish conquest primarily due to the diseases they brought with them (so much for medicine). The Tudor court in England, during the 16th century, constantly moved from place to place when the accumulation of human and other waste made whatever location they were at unbearable. I suspect that things weren't all that different in Spain at that time. At Versailles, in the 17th century, it was common for courtiers and others to urinate and defecate in convenient corners or under staircases, there being no facilities to use.
Don't be too hard on the Iron Age. Roman infrastructure during the Iron Age, particularly when it comes to the use of water but in other areas as well, wasn't matched in Europe until the 19th century.
So, don't waste your time. Your arguments and comments are very interesting, but regarding this topic... it is like discussing with a moocow. Our time is priceless. Qué les den a estos fodechinchos
Am I among the "numerous members" of this forum you mention?
In fact, I'm very much a man of the West, and am fond even of Spain, except for its time under El Caudillo; nor am I a fan of the Hapsburgs.
Western civilization is admirable in many respects, but sadly it's been tainted by the exclusive and intolerant Abrahamic religions.
But I will not waste mine and your time discussing this... I gave up. I already know what the common sentiment and position are regarding this topic.
I'm not sure which members you are thinking of. But I do agree that these days there is significant self-loathing in the West - we are often self-described as patriarchal, misogynist, war mongering, colonizing fascists and I can see why some people embrace 'strong men' and forms of nationalism, just to escape to a place of certainty and confidence, no matter how bogus.
Hey Tom - fwiw, my responses in that thread in which we had a disagreement are somewhat pursuant to the aim of not heading down this path of pathologising disagreements into 'bigotry' and 'moral failure'. Not in any way trying to resurrect that disagreement, just thought this a good, cooler scenario to point that out :) I had 'felt' we were somewhat close in terms of how to approach those issues, and this tells me I may have been right, and it was 'on the facts' that we had crossed wires.
That is fine, some explorers saw cities of gold inside the Amazon, never to be found ag- speaking of. It does not mean that Tenochtlan was a nice place, especially to the non-Aztecs who got captured and were sacrificed alive.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Disingenuous much?
Quoting Ciceronianus
Same as above. Sidenote, if you are referring to Roman aqueducts and concrete, those were from after the Iron Age, which ended in the 7th century.
At the end of the day, among the Spaniard who colonised America, there were many very good people and very bad people, but most were inbetween. Bottom line, and my point, is that the Iberian colonisation of America left the place much better than it would have been otherwise, and most Americans that I see are grateful for their Latin and Catholic heritage. Nonetheless, there are still many that speak indigenous tongues Mayans and Aztecs are not extinct, despite what Joe Rogan Podcast invitees and the movie 2012 say.
On the specific case of Mexico, it is that most people there today would not be alive if it were not for the Spanish, as their populational boom was only allowed by European technology. Spain's contributions far outweigh its damage. Which is not to be compared to Yankees, whose negatives are financing cartels and spreading anti-traditional values, and positives... uh...
Quoting javi2541997
I think Angola, Kenya, and Mexico don't deserve to fall with Cuba and Venezuela, which are true socialist dumps.
I suppose no answer is a kind of answer, though a poor one.
As I say, I'm a man of the West, but we shouldn't limit ourselves. Here's what another Spaniard said:
Non sum uni angulo natus, patria mea totus hic mundus est (Seneca, Epistles 28.4)
I disagree. The first aqueduct was the Aqua Appia, erected in 312 BCE. Others were built during the Roman Republic, third to first century BCE. Roman concrete was available during the Republic as well. The most impressive use of it, in my opinion, was in the construction of the Pantheon during the reign of Hadrian in the second century CE.
Quoting Ciceronianus
Quoting Ciceronianus
Quoting https://www.history.com/topics/pre-history/iron-age
Sorry. I had in mind the so-called Roman Iron Age, which it seems is believed to have taken place between 1-400 AD or CE.
Spain being no better generally than most other nations, its common cultural heritage may be said to include some less than admirable things, e.g. fascism, civil war, slavery, the Spanish Inquisition (which nobody expects) and, some would even say, genocide in the Americas. Is it therefore the case that only its central government may prohibit such things? Probably not.
Regardless, though, I wonder whether the Spanish people are well served by a court ruling that bullfighting is part of their common cultural heritage. A heritage of gaudy, gruesome torment of animals wouldn't seem something to be proud of. https://theblogofciceronianus.blogspot.com/search/label/Spain?m=0
It's a beautiful city [Barcelona] of great, wide boulevards and fountains, and an impressive seafront graced by a statue of Columbus majestically pointing to the India he thought he would encounter in 1492. I would think a statue of that great man shrugging his shoulders or scratching his head would be more appropriate.
Oh yes! You are very fond of my country! How can I think otherwise?
And here I was, under the impression that's it's an open thread! Sorry to intrude on your private business of resenting someone's 'tone' in their own blog.
Neither was I, frankly. But "Google" Rome and Iron Age and there it is.
A person can't be fond of Spain unless also fond of bullfighting and adverse to poking fun at a Genoese? You surprise me. I suppose admiration for such as El Greco, Velasquez, Goya, Picasso, Cervantes, Santayana, Las Cases, and Ortega y Gasset (sometimes)--not to mention the famous Romans born in Spain, like Seneca, Trajan (optimus princeps) and Hadrian--doesn't quite match up to enthusiastic attendance at la corrida.
No. You didn't refer to just bullfighting. I dislike it and most Spaniards do. You also pointed out in your blog that we are not better than most other nations because our 'heritage' is Fascism, the Spanish Inquisition, Franco, Genocide, etc. You literally wrote: Spain being no better generally than most other nations, its common cultural heritage may be said to include some less than admirable things... [and then you wrote all that crap]
The sense of your words is like that's just Spain, no more. When we have eight Nobel laureates and other interesting stuff, which I will not post here because I will not change the mind of someone who already has negative prejudices on my country.
Quoting Ciceronianus
And many more... a thousand old country has a lot of personalities and culture.
It is just frustrating that nobody rants about Germans (for example) because of their Nazi past. They are only known for good things, like philosophers, engineering, economics, etc.
No way we are known thanks to Cervantes or Goya. The people quickly reminds us that dark period of our history. You are an example of that.
The fact I think that Spain is "no better generally" than most other nations doesn't mean I think it worse than other nations. Most nations are no better generally than others.
I'm not aware of any nation which hasn't had dark periods in their history.
I'm not sure what you mean about Goya. In his time, Spain was made a battleground by France and England acting in their own interests. That "dark period" was imposed on Spain by other nations.
You shouldn't assume my aversion to the conquest and subjugation of indigenous people means I'm adverse to all nations (which includes my own) who engaged in that practice.
But Jesus... We are not monsters... Nor retards. We can write books or paint on canvas too.
I will not regret any second being Spanish in my life. It is not about a question of nationalism but self-respect. Yes, none nation is perfect but we receive more mockery than others. Again, I don't usually read criticism on France or Germany...
I won't complain if you say he wasn't a very nice man, or that this is not a very appropriate monument.
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437693657509256942/
And I don't mind who says what about the present government (ugh!)
Nevertheless, Budapest is beautiful and many Hungarians are worth knowing.
This one is a poet - and a better statue.
You certainly shouldn't be mocked for being from Spain, and I didn't intend to do so. I hope to return there, as I only spent a brief time in Barcelona, and there is much I'd like to see.
Attila was one of the great figures of the late Roman Empire in the West; Flagellum Dei (the Scourge of God). I'm not familiar with the poet.
I've heard great things about Budapest and would love to visit. When I was younger, I fenced using the sabre, recreationally. Hungarians are legendary swordsmen, especially with the sabre (swordswomen as well, no doubt).
I looked up "hungarian swordswomen" and the only thing that popped up was men.
I tried Googling "swordswomen" and a bunch of anime characters was the result. Even so, it seems Hungary's women's team won the sabre fencing championships in 2022.
Wow, Trump truly is an all-encompassing, omnipresent, orange god-emperor.
The Indians are so right.
Sport fencing is odd, not at all like traditional fencing is thought to be. There are some clubs, though, that teach traditional European martial arts with swords, including sabres.
I participated in some tournaments. Unfortunately, the rules are such that that the typical bout, particularly in sabre fencing, consists of two rushing each other and a single clash of swords--no swordplay, no parry and riposte, except now and then. Speed is all important; very little skill.
Just a matter of time until we start seeing it here in God's Favorite Country.
You are Brazilian? Or maybe God is not a patriot.
Not Brazilian, no. But all too aware of the conceit of many of my countrymen in the USA.