Multiculturalism is dead

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Are you not interested in the world and understanding the people and things around you? I know how trite that sounds but if I'm totally honest, that's about the most basic level of "valuing diversity".

Have you ever travelled outside of the US? We can stop this conversation right here if you never have and have no interest in doing so, but that would (IMO) be a pretty sad indictement on your view of the world.

It's perfectly understandle that one might prefer familliar things, but familliar things are only so by dint of er, familliarity -built up over time. Don't you get bored of them either? On the most basic level, are you never tempted to try a different beer, just to mix things up a bit (maybe the one in the odd bottle with the strange writing)?

You don't have to take "valuing diversity" to the level of anthropology (or turning the world into a cultural zoo) but, for my part I find it fascinating to understand how and why people live in differnt ways -precisely because they are and have been affected by such a range of circumstances.

Neither do I think valuing diversity is turning one's back on one's "mother culture", to drop another cliche, you appreciate things more when you come back to them. Having a strong grounding in one's own culture also helps to contextualise another -it also gives you more to share (i.e. not just the dope or LSD I'm clearly taking to get this - far out, man).

Well we are back to semantics again, but I think that's the key (it's no the trivial kind of semantics). It seems to me that the multiculturalist movement starts from what you are saying here and then by using poor language to argue for it gets itself all mixed up.

I enjoy a wide variety of things, and the anthropology type stuff is interesting (history falls into this category too I think, one of the most fascinating things about it is getting a glimpse of a different time), but none of that is valuing diversity. It's always the thing itself that's valuable. I think you take this as a trivial criticism but how is it trivial? It seems important to me to be clear on what it is we are valuing. In America we have a kind of amusing thing where in a cafeteria we might have an italian food stand, a hot dog stand, a taco stand, and then to add some "diversity" we add vietnamese food. Because pizza, hot dogs, and taco's are all american food now due to being so popular. They were valued because of their qualities as food. The appeal of diversity just seems to be that people feel good about not being western-centric or whatever it is they think is so terrible. It's akin to how they market certain products as environmentalist and people buy them for that. I feel strongly that if I am reading a book of philosophy from another culture, it should be because I want and expect to learn something that will change my life--it shouldn't be because it's different. Because if I value it just because its different then I don't care if it's true or false. But the author cared if it was true or false, he cared very much!

Well, that is why I think the semantic difference is important. One way of talking about it verbally lends itself to relativism and a purely anthropological view of other cultures. It's not my belief that all the people who call themselves multiculturalists go that route, but the language leads them that way. How we talk reflects how we think. I think the other way of talking treats other cultures on the same level that we treat our own.

[al Roumi]

I enjoy a wide variety of things, and the anthropology type stuff is interesting (history falls into this category too I think, one of the most fascinating things about it is getting a glimpse of a different time), but none of that is valuing diversity. It's always the thing itself that's valuable. I think you take this as a trivial criticism but how is it trivial? It seems important to me to be clear on what it is we are valuing. In America we have a kind of amusing thing where in a cafeteria we might have an italian food stand, a hot dog stand, a taco stand, and then to add some "diversity" we add vietnamese food. Because pizza, hot dogs, and taco's are all american food now due to being so popular. They were valued because of their qualities as food. The appeal of diversity just seems to be that people feel good about not being western-centric or whatever it is they think is so terrible. It's akin to how they market certain products as environmentalist and people buy them for that. I feel strongly that if I am reading a book of philosophy from another culture, it should be because I want and expect to learn something that will change my life--it shouldn't be because it's different. Because if I value it just because its different then I don't care if it's true or false. But the author cared if it was true or false, he cared very much!

Maybe the difference is that you want to know what is "true", where I'm more interested in understanding how someone else thinks something can be "true" -whether I agree with them or not. You seem to be keen to ascribe a sort of absolute value to diverse things, whereas I think that there is no absolute, especially when you consider the multiplicity of perceptions and how our own perceptions change according to experiences and exposure.

Fascinating. What tribe did you say you were from?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Maybe the difference is that you want to know what is "true", where I'm more interested in understanding how someone else thinks something can be "true" -whether I agree with them or not. You seem to be keen to ascribe a sort of absolute value to diverse things, whereas I think that there is no absolute, especially when you consider the multiplicity of perceptions and how our own perceptions change according to experiences and exposure.

Fascinating. What tribe did you say you were from?

But, some things are true and some things are false. Surely our perception of something can't change what's true? It can only change things that have to do with our perceptions. It may be our perception that the sun goes around the earth, and there may be a multiplicity of perceptions about it, but there is still an absolute truth about astronomy. If you were reading Aristotle, and he argued that a certain way of life lead to happiness and not living that way led to less happiness, wouldn't you be interested in whether what he was saying was true?

[al Roumi]

But, some things are true and some things are false. Surely our perception of something can't change what's true? It can only change things that have to do with our perceptions. It may be our perception that the sun goes around the earth, and there may be a multiplicity of perceptions about it, but there is still an absolute truth about astronomy. If you were reading Aristotle, and he argued that a certain way of life lead to happiness and not living that way led to less happiness, wouldn't you be interested in whether what he was saying was true?

Well, for one I think there are times when many things can be true -even at the same time. Secondly, I think that -using your example of astronomy, things can be and are disproven, then replaced by another "truth".

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, for one I think there are times when many things can be true -even at the same time.

Yeeeess, 1+1=2 is true at the same time as 2+2=4 is true and so one to infinity. I don't think that's what you are talking about. But you agree that 1+1=2 is true and it is not true that 1+1=3?

Secondly, I think that -using your example of astronomy, things can be and are disproven, then replaced by another "truth".

You mean, sometimes we think something is true and it turns out it isn't? Ok. Is that a reason to doubt that the earth goes around the sun?

[al Roumi]

Yeeeess, 1+1=2 is true at the same time as 2+2=4 is true and so one to infinity. I don't think that's what you are talking about. But you agree that 1+1=2 is true and it is not true that 1+1=3?

The fact you are using maths to define your logic is illustrative of your absolute way of seeing things, while I'd perhaps not dare be so absolute. While obviously I'd be hard pushed to argue that 1+1.5 also equaled 2, that is kind of what I'm saying -it just depends what 1, 1.5 and 2 actually are to you. Maths is not the tool to explain this, just as its also not the best tool to use in approaching the massively complex issues of real life.

Basically, what I'm saying is that to so someone who has grown up believing in god and the bible verbatim, creation and god's existence will be "true" to them, as sure as 1+1=2. Equally, to someone who has grown up without religion -but with science, the absence of god and theory of evolution wil be "true" -also as 1+1=2 to them.

You mean, sometimes we think something is true and it turns out it isn't? Ok. Is that a reason to doubt that the earth goes around the sun?

Well, we believe something is true untill it is proved otherwise. Our opinions change -as may our beliefs, according to external circumstances, basicaly according to new information. Science is only as robust as the evidence it uses. Even then, the brain can make one individual disbelieve things in the face of what to another might be apparently overbearing evidence to the contrary.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The fact you are using maths to define your logic is illustrative of your absolute way of seeing things, while I'd perhaps not dare be so absolute. While obviously I'd be hard pushed to argue that 1+1.5 also equaled 2, that is kind of what I'm saying -it just depends what 1, 1.5 and 2 actually are to you. Maths is not the tool to explain this, just as its also not the best tool to use in approaching the massively complex issues of real life.

Basically, what I'm saying is that to so someone who has grown up believing in god and the bible verbatim, creation and god's existence will be "true" to them, as sure as 1+1=2. Equally, to someone who has grown up without religion -but with science, the absence of god and theory of evolution wil be "true" -also as 1+1=2 to them.

I am using: true
you are using: "true"

But those are not the same. Saying that it is

"true" to them

Is just another way of saying they believe it. So what you said is that someone who believes in god believes in god, and someone who believes that 1+1=2 believes that 1+1=2. And as you say, someone may believe that 1+1.5 =2. But that is false.

Basically I am talking about truth, and you are talking about belief, except you call belief "truth". Don't do that.

1+1=2 is a standard example of something that is true. I used it not because I'm not aware that human situations are more complex, but rather because I'm still not sure whether you think it is true or not. Truth is different from perception or belief. When I get my eyes checked and they show me the list of letters, I may perceive an F as an E. But the truth is that it is an F. I may believe it is an E. But the truth is that it is an F. And I don't think the scaling is that drastic into human situations. I may perceive that someone is insulting me, and I may believe it, but the truth can be that they weren't insulting me. I don't think you have any grounds for claiming that the difficult is impossible.

Well, we believe something is true untill it is proved otherwise. Our opinions change -as may our beliefs, according to external circumstances, basicaly according to new information. Science is only as robust as the evidence it uses. Even then, the brain can make one individual disbelieve things in the face of what to another might be apparently overbearing evidence to the contrary.

Yes.