Multiculturalism is dead

Originally Posted by alh_p

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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.

Originally Posted by Hax

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).

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.

Originally Posted by alh_p

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.

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?

Originally Posted by 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?

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.

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?

It is directly relevant in that Muslim scholars continuously refer to past scholars and events to justify their fatwas and stuff like that.

Originally Posted by Hax

It is directly relevant in that Muslim scholars continuously refer to past scholars and events to justify their fatwas and stuff like that.

Why should we care about any of that? Screw their fatwas, it's not relevant to us we have different laws. I don't care if it upsets them. The more upset the better really when it comes to Islam, the sooner they are used to seeing Mohammed being raped by a donkey the better (disclaimer non-Dutch won't understand this). Puts getting the finger over something trivial gently in perspective.

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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".

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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.

Originally Posted by alh_p

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".

So what?

Originally Posted by alh_p

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.

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, that was the Assyrians and Summarians, both groups conquered by the Arabs after the coming of Islam.

It's just another layer on the cake. We're all like that.

You're saying that Egyptians didn't build the pyramids.

Originally Posted by Vladimir

It's just another layer on the cake. We're all like that.

You're saying that Egyptians didn't build the pyramids.

No, it isn't because the Egyptians actually built those Pyramids (they aren't Arabs either, btw), the Arabs themselves didn't invent agriculture, law or cities, they took all those things from other people. The primary Arab invention is Islam, along with a few forms of curved sabre that might actually come from the Greeks originally anyway.

Saying the Arabs invented agriculture is rather like saying the Romans invented geometry.

They still came up with the greatest mathematic invention ever, the number zero, and in consequence algorithms. To give the arabs no credit at all.. Assyrians and Sumerians were also conquerors they didn't invent it, they were pretty developed already.

Why does it matter what 'race' invented what? It's not like we would suddenly have to view Islam more highly just because Arabs poineered civilisation. The Koran is pretty much just a plagiarisation of the Bible anyway.

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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

How else would you explain Hitler and a good part of the Nazi party holding such views? Surely they formed their opinions that this was a “good” thing to do in the same way as you and I have arrived at the contrary position –through experience and reflection based on a framework of values.

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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. Resentment 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.

Of course I personally "accept morality" and naturally concur with the intended sense of your exposes. However, I recognise that to those with opinions as strongly held as my own, the truth of their derived beliefs is as great to them as mine is to me.

Yet, I also recognise that in practice, society must work out a way to accommodate these differing views for the greater good. I kept banging on about mutual understanding etc because that is the only thing that allows two conflicting views to begin to be peaceably reconciled; and tolerance because where possible, its easier just to live and let live.

I concede that by such reasoning, even such issues as equality of race, sex etc are questioned –but so they are throughout the world today, and so they have been throughout history. For example, it is fruitless and almost meaningless for people to state things like “human rights are universal” when they quite patently are not universally considered to be so in significant proportions of the world.

Originally Posted by Fragony

They still came up with the greatest mathematic invention ever, the number zero, and in consequence algorithms. To give the arabs no credit at all.. Assyrians and Sumerians were also conquerors they didn't invent it, they were pretty developed already.

No, the number zero comes from Indians (or at least first well known use of it). And you can have algorithms without zero. However 0 and 1 are exceedingly important in unifying frameworks in mathematics.

But Rhyfelwyr is right: none of these inventions have the remotest bearing on the cultural relevance/superiority of the various Arab nations today.

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Why does it matter what 'race' invented what? It's not like we would suddenly have to view Islam more highly just because Arabs poineered civilisation.

because some of the members of this august forum are culturaly chauvinist. Following the earlier comments about India being better for British rule, it is certainly true that Britain is even better off for having ruled India, and indeed christendom for the crusades and outre-mer.

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

The Koran is pretty much just a plagiarisation of the Bible anyway.

..and considers its lineage rather important.

Originally Posted by Fragony

So what?

Well, while the west may have moved on to the point where "crusade" just means a concerted effort to do something, it still basicaly means "religious war against us" to some Muslims. So it's relevant to them and so is indirectly relelvant to you, as you probably wouldnt have so much to post about if some Muslims were not so sensitive about external attack.

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

No, the number zero comes from Indians (or at least first well known use of it). And you can have algorithms without zero. However 0 and 1 are exceedingly important in unifying frameworks in mathematics.

OK but surely shoarma, with garlic-sause, damned tasty

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

Originally Posted by alh_p

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.

And we still blaming today's generation of Germans for their ancestor's mistakes for what reason again?


Oh, because they don't like having Muslims in their nation? Because they want people to learn German when they move to Germany?


Well if you are moving to the US, I expect you to learn English.

1) is not a moral fact it is an empirical fact.

so if 1) is wrong than hitler would be wrong for persecuting the jews, because his reasoning would be flawed, he would not be morally wrong, atleast that is still debatable.

of 2) it is the question whether it is objectively true or whether it is an opinion. (the fact that people disagree indeed doesnt mean there arent moral facts, it only means that it is hard or impossible to determine whether there are and if there which there are.)

Originally Posted by AntiKingWarmanCake88

And we still blaming today's generation of Germans for their ancestor's mistakes for what reason again?


Oh, because they don't like having Muslims in their nation? Because they want people to learn German when they move to Germany?


Well if you are moving to the US, I expect you to learn English.

who is we?

and why do you expect someone learn english if he moves to the us?

Originally Posted by Fragony

They still came up with the greatest mathematic invention ever, the number zero, and in consequence algorithms. To give the arabs no credit at all.. Assyrians and Sumerians were also conquerors they didn't invent it, they were pretty developed already.

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

No, the number zero comes from Indians (or at least first well known use of it). And you can have algorithms without zero. However 0 and 1 are exceedingly important in unifying frameworks in mathematics.

But Rhyfelwyr is right: none of these inventions have the remotest bearing on the cultural relevance/superiority of the various Arab nations today.

According to wiki zero is first mentioned by a Persian about 950 AD *shrug*. As you say though, it has no bearing today.

Originally Posted by alh_p

How else would you explain Hitler and a good part of the Nazi party holding such views? Surely they formed their opinions that this was a “good” thing to do in the same way as you and I have arrived at the contrary position –through experience and reflection based on a framework of values.

Values which assumed a subsection of humanity was worthless, that was wrong, and I think it's a judgment you can make absolutely.

Of course I personally "accept morality" and naturally concur with the intended sense of your exposes. However, I recognise that to those with opinions as strongly held as my own, the truth of their derived beliefs is as great to them as mine is to me.

This to me sounds like you not being willing to stick to your guns, rather than a coherent philosophical position. At the end of the day you can't call me a "cultural chauvanist" because I dissagree with pointless ritual murder.

According to wiki zero is first mentioned by a Persian about 950 AD *shrug*. As you say though, it has no bearing today.

Who, al-Khwarizmi? Yeah, Persian. And Muslim, at that.

I mean, Persian, Arab, Berber, I don't care. It has no bearing today, certainly, but then there are also people who say that "the Islamic golden age did not exist, it were all non-Muslims who did all the work", which is about as bad as saying that only Muslims did anything.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

It isn't beside the point, this IS my point. You are consistently trying to talk about something else.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

1 is wrong if you can provide him with evidence to counter his reasoning that jews were "the problem", but it would not obviate his underlying anti-semitism. You would not counter his anti-semitism, I think that animosity runs deaper than macro-economic explanations.

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

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.

My point is that while we may have the moral fact that the holocaust was "wrong", others didn't -and don't. Why? Simply because they have a different moral scale or valuation -that could be to do with acceptance of the methods of genocide for use against a perceived enemy, or anti-semitism. This is what makes it impossible to assume that morality is uniform accross cultures. While you've picked an extreme example, I'm sure cultures could and have existed where murdering children for fun is acceptable.

I'm also not saying that everything is ok to me as long as its cultural! Rather, while I or you might disagree with something, it could well be ok to someone else because their culture tolerates or values it. Furthermore, because that agreement/disagreement is based on culturaly determined values, it is not a matter where there is an absolute measure of truth to either position -so neither party is legitimised in simply saying that the other is "wrong".

In the case of the holocaust, don't you think the victor has set the moral argument, and that had the victor been different, our views on the holocaust and Adolf might be rather different than despisal?