Multiculturalism is dead

[The Stranger]

But I feel like we've moved the yardstick...before we were talking about whether we can know an absolute truth without being absolutely certain, not about "absolutely knowing". Just plain knowing is fine. Like, I can be justified and believing something about the sun. And if it's true I know it, if it isn't I don't. Whether the scientists can prove it or not is not important.

it actually is important, because when you think you know something for certain reasons, and it happens to be true for different reasons, than you do not actually know it.
and about the absolute part i think we have been talking on different levels all along. you talk of knowledge of something which happens to be an absolute truth and ive been talking about knowing something to be absolutely true. you can indeed be justified in believing an absolute truth and by the daily definitions of knowing you can also know an absolute truth.

Well, morals as we are talking about have to do with humans, so I guess we have strayed.

Although, I am generally cynical about the style of philosophy that focuses on trying to show that we can't know anything, can't prove anything, can't be absolutely certain etc. It just smells like they aren't engaged with any real world problems, or are using it selectively to argue against something they don't like.

mind you that i'm actually not defending my own point of view, im more a common sense kinda guy but i think that for the sake of clarity and consistency on this philosophical level we should be more rigoruous.

and the entire problem of not being able to know anything beyond all doubt has to do with the prerequisite of truth in order for someone to know it. ive been trying to develop a notion of knowing which only involves justification because we can also know things which are not true (even though you could just read that as a negative statement of a positive fact). its a tough challenge.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't mean to revive a semi old thread for kicks, but I figured this article I read would be a nice revival of conversation about the subject and by posting here maintain a continuity that would be broken if I just made a new thread about it.

French interior minister says that not all civilizations are equal.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe...625127900.html

[Fragony]

You disagree with that then? Of course some civilisations are inferior to others.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You disagree with that then? Of course some civilisations are inferior to others.

No, I don't disagree at all. I think interactions between civilizations is important so that good ideas can be shared and bad ideas identified, but I don't particularly care for leniency towards bad ideas from other cultures to promote harmony.

[Papewaio]

You disagree with that then? Of course some civilisations are inferior to others.

Fragony is correct and it can be easily proved.

After all isn't the society of today in most countries better then it was a hundred years ago in that same country. Longer lifespan, higher education, more freedoms, greater range of foodstuffs, less infant mortalities.

So whilst it might be impolite to compare societies on a spatial level, it is ok to compare our own society over time.

[rory_20_uk]

There are no metrics that would be agreed by everyone from all times, and no weighting of metrics. It is better based on what you have described, but there might be those who would think it worse by other measurements.

[Husar]

There are no metrics that would be agreed by everyone from all times, and no weighting of metrics. It is better based on what you have described, but there might be those who would think it worse by other measurements.

That.

Ask a capitalist about it and then go and ask a greenpeace activist.

It depends on what equality you want to test for.

Most civilizations aren't equal in most aspects but if you can weigh up military prowess with environmental protection, some bushmen may be right up there with the US culture.
Could you even say the US has/have (is it one state or 50?) one culture or is it multicultural?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That.

Ask a capitalist about it and then go and ask a greenpeace activist.

It depends on what equality you want to test for.

Lol. Ask evangelical christians whether gay marriage was good, and then ask gay people! They won't agree! How significant!

WHAT METRIC COULD WE POSSIBLE USE

[Fragony]

So whilst it might be impolite to compare societies on a spatial level, it is ok to compare our own society over time.

Imho you can absolutely do that. it's just an equation of benefits to conclude that western civilisation is superior to others.

[Husar]

Yes, of course, it's easy to take my own values and then judge everybody else by them, and then what's the point?
They can judge me by their values and then we bash eachother's heads in or discuss it until the end of times?

Sure not all cultures are equal, but he might have just as well said the sky is blue and everybody would agree.

[gaelic cowboy]

Not all cultures are equal the same as not all viewpoints are equal.

You certainly have the right to live in a certain culture or hold a certain view but thats the height of it.




go on Dara explain it for everyone (some cursing)

[Fragony]

Yes, of course, it's easy to take my own values and then judge everybody else by them, and then what's the point?

Does there have to be a point to a mere observation? Who is really making a point with cultural relativation, it simply isn't true that cultures are equal we are in various degrees of development. Had he said that that cultures CAN'T be equal it would have been something different entirely. The outrage over this is absurd although I don't intend to have a beer to the people he said it to

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yes, of course, it's easy to take my own values and then judge everybody else by them, and then what's the point?
They can judge me by their values and then we bash eachother's heads in or discuss it until the end of times?

If they are equal the banning the burkha was wrong. If they aren't, then that kind of legislation can be justifiable. So there's certainly a point to it.

[Papewaio]

Imho you can absolutely do that. it's just an equation of benefits to conclude that western civilisation is superior to others.

We are not the happiest. So whilst on average we have the longest lifespans and most freedoms western nations aren't the happiest.

I still think life span is a good rule of thumb. But if we could cherry pick from cultures around the world lifestyles as we do food stuffs I think we could have a much better set of societies.

multiculturalism is dead. long live multiculturalism 2.0

This is where we don't assume all aspects of any culture are equivalent. We also don't assume ours is the best. What we do is enable people to have informed choice and freedom to have the best of all and take responsibility for the consequences.

[Furunculus]

I don't mean to revive a semi old thread for kicks, but I figured this article I read would be a nice revival of conversation about the subject and by posting here maintain a continuity that would be broken if I just made a new thread about it.

French interior minister says that not all civilizations are equal.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe...625127900.html

he is right.

Question: What does it matter if people don't agree on a metric to measure by?

not much, the fact that it is difficult (for reasons mentioned above), does nothing to dissuade me from the principle of weighing merits of different cultures.