Multiculturalism is dead

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yes.


Quite. And again, where have I given you (and Sasaki) the impression I don't believe in absolute truth? My divergence from absolute truth to perceived truth is because cultural and social beliefs (perceived truths) are too complex/biased to be absolute.


Only if you measure cultures against each other.

If you have accepted the above then some cultures are morally and practically better than others. So measuring them is not only possible, it is also litterally a philosopgical imperative.

As I am at pains to explain, multiculturalism is not about measuring one culture or society against another. It is about mutual toleration based on understanding and negotiation.


Whatever. If your purpose IS to blend cultures and identities into the best composite, then clearly multiculturalism is useless. My point is that that is not what multiculturalism is for -nor is it why its proponents like it!

As I said, multiculturalism doesn't work - as has been demonstrated time and again.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Maybe you could argue that multiculturalism does have some philosophical use in terms of promoting some absolute truths, since the value of peace that comes from harmony between different cultures is greater than the conflict that would be caused by allowing inferior cultures to be assimilated.

For example, when people feel their way of life is under threat, they often take it to an extreme to protect their identity. And this polarisation is what gives us Wahhabis and Jihadists etc.

Just a thought, couldn't leave without arguing with you PVC.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Maybe you could argue that multiculturalism does have some philosophical use in terms of promoting some absolute truths, since the value of peace that comes from harmony between different cultures is greater than the conflict that would be caused by allowing inferior cultures to be assimilated.

For example, when people feel their way of life is under threat, they often take it to an extreme to protect their identity. And this polarisation is what gives us Wahhabis and Jihadists etc.

Just a thought, couldn't leave without arguing with you PVC.

Except.... not everyone shares our Christian desire to see man in a state of universal peace and love.

Such cultures must be struck down with righteous fury!

Ahem.

Sorry, I had a medieval moment there.

Still, India would be a much more miserable place today were it not for Western interference.

[Beskar]

For example, when people feel their way of life is under threat, they often take it to an extreme to protect their identity. And this polarisation is what gives us Wahhabis and Jihadists etc.

Just a thought, couldn't leave without arguing with you PVC.

Nope, only ignorance does that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nope, only ignorance does that.

I dissagree, one can feel threatened because of one's ignorance but ultimately it is the percieved threat, not the ignorance, that provokes the violent reaction.

Although, the New Atheists are pretty ignorant about Christianity and violently oppose it - so I suppose you do have a corralation in fact.

[Fragony]

Although, the New Atheists are pretty ignorant about Christianity and violently oppose it - so I suppose you do have a corralation in fact.

How so? Violent no disrespectful yes, imho you should just deal with that, asking me to alter my daily business out of respect for your imaginary friends is much more intrusive than mocking said intrusion could ever be.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How so? Violent no disrespectful yes, imho you should just deal with that, asking me to alter my daily business out of respect for your imaginary friends is much more intrusive than mocking said intrusion could ever be.

Not physically violent, but if you look at the invective that Dawkins, "religion is the cause of most wars" Hitches "religion ruins everything" or Pullman "I want to destroy the foundation of Christianity" you get the distinct impression this is more than just reasoned dislike, or even disdain.

Do you not think?

[Fragony]

Not physically violent, but if you look at the invective that Dawkins, "religion is the cause of most wars" Hitches "religion ruins everything" or Pullman "I want to destroy the foundation of Christianity" you get the distinct impression this is more than just reasoned dislike, or even disdain.

Do you not think?

Obvious attacks, but I agree with them, and they can go in with a stretched leg I don't mind really

[Rhyfelwyr]

Nope, only ignorance does that.

This ignores the reactionary nature of almost every extreme political/social movement.

How so? Violent no disrespectful yes, imho you should just deal with that, asking me to alter my daily business out of respect for your imaginary friends is much more intrusive than mocking said intrusion could ever be.

With you 100%, atheists should be free to hate on me all they like and I should be free to be a Bible-bashing lunatic. If I hear one more person talk about the importance of 'respect' between different people then I will go and pimp-slap the **** out of them. I feel the urge to pimp-slap people a lot these days...

'Respect' is one of those buzzwords the left likes to use to guilt-trip everyone into thinking like them and loving the people they do. There is no force more unstoppable or followed so blindly than "leftist moral outrage", my favourite term that I havent' used for a whlie now.

I hear people talking a lot about Christians moralising but I don't see it, it always seems to be a leftie that has to find something to be offended about. And worse they have to control everyone so that they can't offend them.

Bear in mind though, these are the attitudes not just of actual lefties, but also the centre-right. They're going to start pushing me to the old-style "far-right" as it is inappropriately called if things continue...

[Furunculus]

With you 100%, atheists should be free to hate on me all they like and I should be free to be a Bible-bashing lunatic. If I hear one more person talk about the importance of 'respect' between different people then I will go and pimp-slap the **** out of them. I feel the urge to pimp-slap people a lot these days...

'Respect' is one of those buzzwords the left likes to use to guilt-trip everyone into thinking like them and loving the people they do. There is no force more unstoppable or followed so blindly than "leftist moral outrage", my favourite term that I havent' used for a whlie now.

this is why i prefer the ye olde' english ideal of; "Does it really matter what these affectionate people do — so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses!"
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mrs_Patrick_Campbell

don't interfere with my life, and i won't interfere in yours.

[al Roumi]

If you have accepted the above then some cultures are morally and practically better than others. So measuring them is not only possible, it is also litterally a philosopgical imperative.

So you would measure these cultures on what scale? The scale of how western and liberal they are? Their technological creativity? Wealth? How much they value religion and how devout they are? How they treat strangers? How they treat women? How they treat the weak?

Please do provide me with an absolute measure for the "worth" of a culture, which can be disambiguated from any cultural values themselves -and hence not dictated by your own personal valuation of things.

[Louis VI the Fat]

So you would measure these cultures on what scale? The scale of how western and liberal they are? Their technological creativity? Wealth? How much they value religion and how devout they are? How they treat strangers? How they treat women? How they treat the weak?

Please do provide me with an absolute measure for the "worth" of a culture, which can be disambiguated from any cultural values themselves -and hence not dictated by your own personal valuation of things.

Which culture do you deem morally superior:

A) Democratic Germany
B) Nazi Germany

I shall spare you from providing a list on just which aspects A is better than B, and suffice with the observation that if one accepts that one is better than the other, then one is not an absolute cultural relativist.

[Hax]

Your wrong, from the beginning there was the house of war 'Dar al Harb' and 'Dar al Islaam'. Don't know if it came from Abu Hanifa, but I do know he lived 500 years earlier. I think you are confused with the age of humanism where there was discussion on changing it to 'Dar al Salaam' and 'Dar al Kaffir'

Not Dar al-Islam, dar al-Salaam. Although the root of both Islam and Salam are the same, the meaning is somewhat more elusive. And it did not come from Abu Hanifa, but from Ibn Taymiyyah, who did indeed live in the thirteenth century.

The concepts existed, certainly, but what did and did not constitute dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb wasn't made clear until the thirteenth century, when it (apparently) became vital for Muslim states to survive. Interestingly, this can be correlated with the end of the Islamic Golden Age.

Seeing how the principles of dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb weren't built during Muhammad's lifetime, but rather during a time of political turmoil is very important when it comes to the designation of the West in the eyes of the Islamic world.

[al Roumi]

The concepts existed, certainly, but what did and did not constitute dar al-Islam and dar al-Harb wasn't made clear until the thirteenth century, when it (apparently) became vital for Muslim states to survive. Interestingly, this can be correlated with the end of the Islamic Golden Age.

...and slap bang in the middle of the period of greatest threat to Muslim states by foreign aggression and occupation -crusades/outre-mer and the Mongols (who were to a degree Nestorian Christians).

[Fragony]

The Qu'ran being written during Mohammed's is controversial, and the Hadith being written after his death is an absolute certainty, dates are not terribly important unless you let someone live 500 years after he did. No it's very much Dar al-Islaam and that can be interpreted as Dar al-Salaam (no need for war in the House of Islam, lotsa infighting for historical perspective, things were falling apart) with which islamist reformers tried to replace it with, somewhere in the period you mention.

[Rhyfelwyr]

How is all this stuff about medieval Musims scholars directly relevant to us today anyway? Isn't it like arguing Christianity today is a threat because of the Crusades?

[Fragony]

How is all this stuff about medieval Musims scholars directly relevant to us today anyway? Isn't it like arguing Christianity today is a threat because of the Crusades?

Sure but the history of the Islamic world just happens to be fascinating and discussing it is always fun. Of course it's irrelevant but we are on page 6 most OT has been said.

[al Roumi]

Christianity today is a threat because of the Crusades?

Ahem, that's more or less EXACTLY what Al Qaida say... Or at least they point to the crusades and say "see, there is precendent! What the Christians are doing now is the same -more crusading".

How is all this stuff about medieval Musims scholars directly relevant to us today anyway?

Well, it's pretty relevant to Muslims because much in Islam looks back to the prophet. The Hadith is (in some ways) essentially a book to help you live your life like he did.

[al Roumi]

Which culture do you deem morally superior:

A) Democratic Germany
B) Nazi Germany

I shall spare you from providing a list on just which aspects A is better than B, and suffice with the observation that if one accepts that one is better than the other, then one is not an absolute cultural relativist.

Of course, as a liberal lefty A, but that it is MY OPINION, because I value some of what A has over B according to my own personal valuation of things. But now that you've asked me, why don't you ask Panzerjaeger*, for instance? Or, someone whom might identify with the far right?

Your post is the equivalent of asking a six year old who likes sweets but not cauliflower, whether they would prefer sweets or cauliflower. This isn't quite the elegant fencing I'm used to from you Louis

*picked only because I assume (possibly quite incorrectly, in which case I appologise in advance) that you might have a different opinion to Louis and msyelf in this.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Of course, as a liberal lefty A, but that it is MY OPINION, because I value some of what A has over B according to my own personal valuation of things. But now that you've asked me, why don't you ask Panzerjaeger*, for instance? Or, someone whom might identify with the far right?

Your post is the equivalent of asking a six year old who likes sweets but not cauliflower, whether they would prefer sweets or cauliflower. This isn't quite the elegant fencing I'm used to from you Louis

*picked only because I assume (possibly quite incorrectly, in which case I appologise in advance) that you might have a different opinion to Louis and msyelf in this.

Really? Is it only a personal opinion - like a preference of sweets over cauliflower - whether or not six million Jews should be exterminated?

Do you accept any morality at all?
If you happen upon a fourteen year old girl, who fell of her bicycle, is there moral equivalence between the man who calls an ambulance then lends her his cellphone to call her parents, and the man who drags her into nearby bushes, abuses her, then murders her to destroy the evidence of his act?

Even if current post-modern philosophy can pinpoint neither absolute truths nor morals, absolute moral relativism is a practical dead end. Resenment of absolutes, of people and ideologies claiming absolute truths should not mean one should fall for the trap of going the other extreme, to deny any morality or truth at all.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Of course, as a liberal lefty A, but that it is MY OPINION, because I value some of what A has over B according to my own personal valuation of things.

Are you admitting though (after our earlier discussion) that it is either true or not? Your claim is just that you don't know whether it is true or not.

[al Roumi]

Are you admitting though (after our earlier discussion) that it is either true or not? Your claim is just that you don't know whether it is true or not.

I'm questioning the certainty that there is an absolute truth on the matter. There is no independant or mutually agreed arbiter, no absolute scale to measure belief/perceived truth in A or B against. Both parties are equally convinced by their own logic and reasoning that their belief/perceived truth is correct and the other unfounded.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'm questioning the certainty that there is an absolute truth on the matter. There is no independant or mutually agreed arbiter, no absolute scale to measure belief/perceived truth in A or B against. Both parties are equally convinced by their own logic and reasoning that their belief/perceived truth is correct and the other unfounded.

Well, obviously there is no mutually agreed arbiter. And "absolute scale" draws to mind the image of a giant ruler. But this is all beside the point. I thought we had got over the idea that people disagreeing make it so that there is no truth about the matter.

If hitler's reasoning is:

1) the jews made germany lose WWI and are responsible for the current economic situation, etc.
2) such people deserve extermination
3) therefore they should be exterminated

It is obvious that if (1) is false than he is wrong, regardless of whether he is convinced of his logic and reasoning. You are supporting a much broader conclusion than you claimed to earlier. Your argument fits better to claiming that we can't know whether (2) is true or false, which has been much more debated in philosophy than whether (1) can be true or false. You agree that Hitler can be absolutely wrong about the Jews having caused Germany to lose WWI, etc.

But you have not made a case for the claim that we can't know moral facts. You have only said that we disagree and then talked about how it is better for society if we tolerate ideas we disagree with. That is separate from whether there are moral facts or not.

Would you say for example that we can't know whether it is wrong to murder innocent children for fun? That it's just our opinion etc?

I have the very frustrating suspicion that your going to say something like "oh yes well of course there are moral facts like that old chap, but obviously it's chauvinist to expect all cultures to have the same moral ideas about food" and then a week later you'll be talking about how you don't know whether the holocaust was wrong again.