Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Grames

Notes and Comments on "The Virtue of Nationalism"

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, human_murda said:

Including this culture?

I don't see what you're trying to provoke, or why. Culture is complicated, and even if you find one thing bad about a culture in its current state, or can identify something in a culture that leads to bad events, it doesn't follow that there is nothing in that culture to value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Culture is complicated, and even if you find one thing bad about a culture in its current state, or can identify something in a culture that leads to bad events, it doesn't follow that there is nothing in that culture to value.

Which is the entire point. Culture is too broad a concept and too much of a package deal. Even if some country has a better economic/political system, it doesn't necessarily follow that all aspects their culture are superior to countries with an inferior economic/political system. Even the poorest country in Africa/Asia probably has some aspects of their culture that are better than the richest countries in the world. You can't really compare cultures, not because all cultures are equally good (or other forms of moral relativism), but because culture is too broad of a concept. Just because United States is more capitalist than other countries doesn't mean that other countries don't have a superior culture (in certain aspects).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

You're the one who spreads racialist bile every time he/she visits, no?

Literally, nobody is talking about race. I don't know how you even got the concept of race from my comment. Get your head checked and STFU. India isn't a race. USA isn't a race. Nobody gives a shit about your precious race.

 

(Besides, you're the one yapping about how an attack on nationalism is an attack on christian culture).

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is it, human_murda? Culture is too broad a concept and too much of a package deal? or countries can be ranked by cultural (cherry-picked) aspects?

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dream_weaver said:

or countries can be ranked by cultural (cherry-picked) aspects?

 

 

On specific aspects of culture, you can rank countries. Based on the totality of a country's culture, you cannot rank countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, human_murda said:

On specific aspects of culture, you can rank countries. Based on the totality of a country's culture, you cannot rank countries.

Sure, I don't think anyone claimed that there is an absolute ranking system to use. What you said is a good reason to be against imperialism. The disagreement in the thread isn't about that, it's about the ways Hazony's sense of nationalism is valid (the previous article I linked argues that it's not valid) and how it violates principles of liberty.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, human_murda said:

Literally, nobody is talking about race. I don't know how you even got the concept of race from my comment. Get your head checked and STFU. India isn't a race. USA isn't a race. Nobody gives a shit about your precious race.

 

(Besides, you're the one yapping about how an attack on nationalism is an attack on christian culture).

So what was the intent of showing a photo of a racist attack in the US? Just for fun?

You are lying, you saw my comment as racism, being a racialist I've had dealings with before, and now you're covering up. 

There are better cultures than others, period. And if you'd had an idea of what was going on, you'd know that individual freedom and rights was my single criterion. Not food and dress and music or any superficial cultures.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looked like the picture was about gun control and therefore a comment on American culture involving guns. 

Anyway, as I was arguing before, food and dress and all that stuff is not superficial but actually very important to the concept culture. To the extent that liberty is in a culture, it will show up through the food and dress. We're talking about political culture at this moment anyway, so the cultural comparisons we are making have to do with that. There's no point in being extremely hostile here, for either of you.

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

It look like the picture was about gun control and therefore a comment on American culture involving guns. 

Anyway, as I was arguing before, food and dress and all that stuff is not superficial but actually very important to the concept culture. To the extent that liberty is in a culture, it will show up through the food and dress. We're talking about political culture at this moment anyway, so the cultural comparisons we are making have to do with that. There's no point in being extremely hostile here, for either of you.

I've already gone over the concept of 'cultural hierarchy' in a society. From the superficial and perceptible, down many layers to what's fundamental. First, when it comes to culture w.r.t. nationalism, the surface 'cultures' are not "very" important. While the "variety" of them, I mentioned are enjoyable - as it's certain most agree - remember? No, for this subject one needs to dig deeper. Second, and I have said, giving an example of my early impression of America, that I sensed like many others outside, the deep culture of individual liberty beneath, the cause which had as consequence, the music, dress, etc. 

I'll be "hostile" to whomever was gratuitously hostile to me (in an earlier thread) The poster was quick to attack me as "racist' unjustifiably. He came in here with the same motive, clearly. Replying to me, personally, and apparently resentful of my comment about some cultures being better, which he definitely presumes is covert racism.

You want, you be nice. Not me, he's a bad faith debater.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made an argument that the apparently "surface" features aren't so surface level anyway. Argue it if you want, or ignore it. We didn't go over it very well at all. I remember what you said, but that was before I made that longer response to Grames, which also applied to you. On top of that, the hierarchy you speak of isn't a very accurate description. It makes sense fine if you want to rate what's most important for a certain purpose. Politically speaking, a measure of freedom is most important, which lends itself to liberty. But you could also speak of culture relating to how people promote life or not, as in, aesthetic culture. That's not any more or less important than politics. Food and meals are deeply related to the ethical culture of a nation, which says little about the political culture.

He didn't call you racist, or even say the word racist. He wasn't referring to race. Read his response to me. It's completely about culture in the nonracial sense, which goes to show that you have a hard time separating race and culture. I view race as irrelevant, so it never even crossed my mind. 

Edited by Eiuol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

I made an argument that the apparently "surface" features aren't so surface level anyway. Argue it if you want, or ignore it. We didn't go over it very well at all. I remember what you said, but that was before I made that longer response to Grames, which also applied to you. On top of that, the hierarchy you speak of isn't a very accurate description. It makes sense fine if you want to rate what's most important for a certain purpose. Politically speaking, a measure of freedom is most important, which lends itself to liberty. But you could also speak of culture relating to how people promote life or not, as in, aesthetic culture. That's not any more or less important than politics. Food and meals are deeply related to the ethical culture of a nation, which says little about the political culture.

He didn't call you racist, or even say the word racist. He wasn't referring to race. Read his response to me. It's completely about culture in the nonracial sense, which goes to show that you have a hard time separating race and culture. I view race as irrelevant, so it never even crossed my mind. 

I "have a hard time separating race and culture"? Really? I hope you're not also being insulting, Eioul. You haven't the facts. I said now it was in "an earlier thread" that I was accused of racism. You have a bias for this poster, apparently.

A contradiction. First you speak of the cultural importance of foods, etc., now you don't seem to know where they come from.  You "view race as irrelevant" but emphasize food cultures like they magically sprang up from nowhere. What do you imagine we're talking about, but "a melting pot" of cultures - many ethnicities and several religions - which make up a nation - and - who hold their own traditional customs, foods, music, dress, etc., if they so wish? 

If anyone believes that nationalism is selective in favor of a single race, they'd better be disabused of that notion. 

Also, evidently I'd think, the "political culture" is dependent on the "individual freedom and rights, culture".  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

showing a photo of a racist attack in the US?

Which part of the photo was racist? The racist water spilling out of the bottle or the flex tape? There are plenty of mass shootings in USA which are not motivated by race. But you only see race, I guess.

 

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You are lying, you saw my comment as racism

 

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

which he definitely presumes is covert racism

Projecting much? You were the one who took my comment as covert racism. Get a life.

Literally, nobody talks about race in India. I really couldn't care less. Once in a blue moon, I come on this forum and everybody and their grandmother wants to talk about race.

 

Quote

The poster was quick to attack me as "racist' unjustifiably

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

being a racialist I've had dealings with before

Interesting. You call me a "racialist", but you're the one who's getting attacked? I suppose it must all make sense inside your head. By the way, what's a "racialist"?

 

9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

And if you'd had an idea of what was going on, you'd know that individual freedom and rights was my single criterion

And gun culture is definitely part of the culture surrounding individual liberty and USA's gun culture is not that great. Even then, if that was your "single criterion" for comparing cultures, that's pretty reductive since culture is not just politics.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I "have a hard time separating race and culture"? Really?

 

8 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You "view race as irrelevant" but emphasize food cultures like they magically sprang up from nowhere.

Separate race from it, then it will make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, whYNOT said:

I'll be "hostile" to whomever was gratuitously hostile to me (in an earlier thread) The poster was quick to attack me as "racist' unjustifiably.

Never happened (calling you a "racist" part).

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

Separate race from it, then it will make sense.

It cannot make sense that I can see. You are aware I know, that our senses are the essential  first contact with reality -- so while you speak of different food cultures that have varieties of dishes that please one's taste and smell - the ethnicities of the people who produced them are invisible to your vision? How or why does anyone do that?

When one meets anyone, I reckon, one is aware of their varying, and distinct physicality. What they look like, etc. ... and unusual dress and  their unusual accents, perhaps. The first sensory contact is necessary in *knowing* the person, who, if one converses with him, reveals his personality, then much later, maybe some of his character, and the matters he thinks about.

Naturally, his physical features, skin color, build, and so on, are what we'd call "inessential characteristics". But they are -still- his/her characteristics, which usually fall away in importance as one gets to know better him/her.

I maintain then one cannot "separate race from ...", it is a denial of an individual's physical identity - and denying your own percepts and identification, so, self-censoring or stifling one's mind and reason. 

But distinct from identification - absolutely one should not, morally, and cannot, logically, make or pass judgments *of value* based on his skin-deep, ethnic identity onto a person, nor equally onto his ethnic 'group'.

That's the worse denial: of a person's individualism, individual mind and character.

Edited by whYNOT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, whYNOT said:
5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

Separate race from it, then it will make sense.

It cannot make sense that I can see. You are aware I know, that our senses are the essential  first contact with reality -- so while you speak of different food cultures that have varieties of dishes that please one's taste and smell - the ethnicities of the people who produced them are invisible to your vision? How or why does anyone do that?

Notice your conflation of "race" and "ethnicity." When you look at your food-preparer, do you see his "ethnicity"? What does that mean? Which aspects of his "ethnicity" are hitting your sense organs?

"Ethnicity" is an anti-concept that has ruined your thinking on this subject. It doesn't exist in reality. It's destroying your conceptions of race and culture, like "gender" ruins conceptions of sex and personality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

ethnicities of the people who produced them are invisible to your vision? How or why does anyone do that?

You've already made one error here by changing the subject to ethnicity.

Secondly, the concept ethnicity already conflates race and culture, such that a culture is a race.

Thirdly, the cultural practices involving food don't come as a result of a person's race, in the same way that language isn't a result of race. 

Example:

Look at the recent avatar I picked. It's the flower that symbolizes Hong Kong, on a black background. It represents the protests against the communist government of China. I can't say that these people are one political culture by virtue of being Chinese (in terms of race/being Asian). The Hong Kong political culture is different than mainland China political culture. Being Chinese or not has nothing to do with it. The same goes for the language. They speak Cantonese, not Mandarin. The Chinese government doesn't really like that, and they push to treat Mandarin as more important, or treat Cantonese as a dialect even though it is a full language of its own. 

 

Edited by Eiuol
Fixed a word

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, human_murda said:

On specific aspects of culture, you can rank countries. Based on the totality of a country's culture, you cannot rank countries.

You can if you believe in a hierarchy of values. Any culture that values science and reason over mysticism and faith immediately climbs to the top ranks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

You can if you believe in a hierarchy of values.

In which case, you'd still be still be comparing a single aspect of culture that's most valuable to you (other aspects of culture would not sway your evaluation one way or another and are hence irrelevant). This hierarchy of values would help you to make a decision (about which country you would like to support or which country you would like to live in) but it's an incomplete comparison between cultures.

A hierarchy of values is mostly related to decision theory (optimizing decisions; making choices and evaluations based on incomplete information). It cannot help you make comparisons between cultures that don't leave out lots of information. It would be an incomplete comparison.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Notice your conflation of "race" and "ethnicity." When you look at your food-preparer, do you see his "ethnicity"? What does that mean? Which aspects of his "ethnicity" are hitting your sense organs?

"Ethnicity" is an anti-concept that has ruined your thinking on this subject. It doesn't exist in reality. It's destroying your conceptions of race and culture, like "gender" ruins conceptions of sex and personality.

Nit pick. https://www.thoughtco.com/difference-between-race-and-ethnicity-2834950

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, human_murda said:

A hierarchy of values is mostly related to decision theory (optimizing decisions). It cannot help you make comparisons between cultures that don't leave out lots of information. It would be an incomplete comparison.

We make judgments within the context of our available knowledge. Lack of omniscience should not be a concern. If you think a relevant factor has been overlooked, then point it out. We're not trying to assign point values to cultures. We're simply trying to rank them better than others. For that we only need to evaluate the most important factors. And we determine those according to an objective standard of values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, human_murda said:

. By the way, what's a "racialist"?

 

 

Racialism

(n.) The mindset of consistently acting under the assumption that the actions of others are racially motivated whenever they concern members of separate races. In order to act in a racialist perspective, one must first make sweeping stereotypes about the character of the person that they are judging, often in a racist manner, thus making one a racialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

We make judgments within the context of our available knowledge. Lack of omniscience should not be a concern.

This isn't about lack of omniscience. This is about conscious omission of information that are less important.

 

56 minutes ago, MisterSwig said:

We're simply trying to rank them better than others. For that we only need to evaluate the most important factors.

And we'd still be ranking them on the basis of the most important factors. I already said that you can rank countries based on one aspect of a culture. If you pick the most important aspect of a culture, you can roughly/primitively compare countries based on their culture. However, it's still an incomplete comparison of culture, not because of a lack of omniscience, but because a culture doesn't have just important aspects, it has other aspects too which is not captured by the comparison.

You can roughly compare countries based on the most important aspect of their culture, but it's still one aspect. You cannot compare the less important aspects of culture and more important aspects of culture (the totality of a country's culture) all at the same time.

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Racialism

(n.) The mindset of consistently acting under the assumption that the actions of others are racially motivated whenever they concern members of separate races.

 

23 hours ago, whYNOT said:

You are lying, you saw my comment as racism

 

Edited by human_murda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, whYNOT said:

Why did you link to an article that contradicts your usage of "ethnicity"? You associated it with "skin-deep" physical traits... 

7 hours ago, whYNOT said:

But distinct from identification - absolutely one should not, morally, and cannot, logically, make or pass judgments *of value* based on his skin-deep, ethnic identity onto a person, nor equally onto his ethnic 'group'.

Yet your article associates it with cultural or regional characteristics.

I'm more interested in your answer to my question about what aspects of "ethnicity" you perceive directly when you see someone. That'll help me grasp your concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...