Racism definition & use - Page 43 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15157267
Pants-of-dog wrote:Let us take a stroll down history lane.

:lol: Or maybe take a trip down fantasy lane.
In Canada, one of the first things that Canada did in order to destroy Indigenous cultures was allow the near eradication of bison from the plains. This forced Indigenous communities to starve, and thereby relocate to reserves, where the government promised them (and then deprived them of) food.

Yes innocent environmental Indians, evil anti - nature "White" people. One of the problems was that when the natives got horses and guns, they would slaughter the buffaloes for their tongues, which were considered a delicacy, and leave the carcasses to rot.
By late
#15157269
Verv wrote:



1) It is impossible to have a full understanding of philosophy without understanding God's role in philosophical systems.

2) Usually, the first thing high school philosophy introduction courses do after covering guys like Heraclitus is talk about Plato's Cave, and then Aristotle, at which point it's impossible to talk about philosophy without discussing theories of God like the Prime Mover.
--

3) Include one word of religion and it stops being a science class? I do not really understand how that would work at all.

4) It just sounds like you really hate religion and would be forced into a rage if someone dared to mention something about the supernatural amongst the natural., even though this would only be in passing. Yet, I cannot imagine someone talking about biological differences between the genders without shoehorning some platitudes about equality, or talking about sexual reproduction without having a Hooman Rights Campaigner inform us of the wonders of gender & sexuality beyond the binary or something.



1) It's impossible to understand philosophy when you haven't studied it. There are philosophies with religion, take a look at Teilhard de Chardin. He did the prettiest writing in all of philosophy. But there has been a slow drift away from religion.

2) "They might have found something interesting to say about the essence of Truth. But in fact they haven’t. The history of attempts to do so, and of criticisms of such attempts, is roughly coextensive with the history of that literary genre we call “philosophy” – a genre founded by Plato. So pragmatists see the Platonic tradition as having outlived its usefulness. This does not mean that they have a new, non-Platonic set of answers to Platonic questions to offer, but rather that they do not think we should ask those questions any more. When they suggest that we not ask questions about the nature of Truth and Goodness, they do not invoke a theory about the nature of reality or knowledge or man which says that “there is no such thing” as Truth or Goodness. Nor do they have a “relativistic” or “subjectivist” theory of Truth or Goodness. They would simply like to change the subject. They are in a position analogous to that of secularists who urge that research concerning the Nature, or the Will, of God does not get us anywhere. Such secularists are not saying that God does not exist, exactly; they feel unclear about what it would mean to affirm His existence, and thus about the point of denying it. Nor do they have some special, funny, heretical view about God. They just doubt that the vocabulary of theology is one we ought to be using."
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subj ... /rorty.htm

3) Science is hard enough to learn without screwing it to hell before you even start. To anyone that knows the history of science, they know science has been under attack by religion since it's beginning in the Renaissance. That's what you are doing.

4) You are babbling. Pretty much everyone I know has religion. If they don't, they've never brought it up with me, and I don't hide my atheism under a bushel..

You apparently have no idea what you are doing here. Science is always under attack. Over the centuries, the success of science has resulted in most accepting it. But there's always somebody doing something like trying to force religion into the teaching of science. There was a movement to make the country sectarian, instead of secular.

My favorite bit of crazy was in the late 1800s when religious nuts started killing geologists.
Go figure.
#15157285
@Verv

I will assume this was addressed to me despite the lack of notification or crediting my text that you quoted.

Verv wrote:I had actually just thought it was sufficient to talk about how Christians have faced racism & bigotry before, as part of a larger discussion on racism & bigotry.


...and you made a direct comparison between Indigenous people and Christians.

Now that we have looked at the comparison, we see more differences than similarities.

I also thought it was interesting to talk about starvation as a means of committing genocide when it has, in fact, been employed against what were probably largely Christian dissidents, though I admit I do not know the nature of the rebellious among the Ukrainians prior to the Holodomor.


1. Yes, white people do think genocide is often interesting. For people who were or are targeted for genocide, the conversation is a bit more serious.

2. Yes, knowing history helps you understand when and how racism happens. So, if you know very little about Canadian or Ukrainian history, you will not make correct claims.

I am not sure that this matters since Canada has not been committing genocide against natives, and what genocide did occur was cultural genocide.


I can think of at least one past attempt at actual genocide and one past example of cultural genocide, and I can think of ongoing examples for both of these as well.

You have not only refused to support this claim, but you have refused to even Google it. You did explain to me why you thought you should not have to even look it up. And you ignored evidence for this that was brought up by @Godstud.

Your refusal to educate yourself about state racism does not make it magically impossible.

If what the Canadians did to the Natives was cultural genocide, then what the Communists did to their own communities was cultural genocide on steroids. Which, to me, indicates that the issues of racism need to be understood in a very big scope...

Race, itself, is a social construct, is it not?


If you now want to compare cultural genocide, instead of actual genocide, we can.

Since you are unaware of Canada’a efforts at cultural genocide, I assume you will present evidence about the USSR and I will then do the actual work of contrasting and comparing.
User avatar
By Verv
#15157338
late wrote:1) It's impossible to understand philosophy when you haven't studied it. There are philosophies with religion, take a look at Teilhard de Chardin. He did the prettiest writing in all of philosophy. But there has been a slow drift away from religion.


(a) You have taken four philosophy classes, right?

I have a Bachelor's and Master's in Philosophy -- I am not saying this to brag, but you are acting like I do not understand anything about philosophy and you are speaking as some authority above me. It's unnecessary.

(b) You need to understand the work of Rodney Stark -- he contends that much of Europe was never actually Christianized, and brings up historic church attendance rates as proof of it, and did some really excellent studies of Latin America which show that religiosity only increased via competition from Protestants, and these empty Cathedrals and churches started to fill up.

There is no 'drift away from religion' throughout history, but rather we are judging all of Western history as if it was like 1945-1960 America, a period in which the West went through a religious boom. Indeed, even in early 20th century West, atheism was rife. That is why you read about C. S. Lewis becoming a Christian, and G. K. Chesterton is constantly addressing atheists.

And what is 19th century Russian literature without atheists & Utopian leftists? They can scarcely write a story without worrying about God's existence. Even middle of the 19th century English writer Anthony Trollope hints about this.

2) "They might have found something interesting to say about the essence of Truth. But in fact they haven’t. The history of attempts to do so, and of criticisms of such attempts, is roughly coextensive with the history of that literary genre we call “philosophy” – a genre founded by Plato. So pragmatists see the Platonic tradition as having outlived its usefulness. This does not mean that they have a new, non-Platonic set of answers to Platonic questions to offer, but rather that they do not think we should ask those questions any more. When they suggest that we not ask questions about the nature of Truth and Goodness, they do not invoke a theory about the nature of reality or knowledge or man which says that “there is no such thing” as Truth or Goodness. Nor do they have a “relativistic” or “subjectivist” theory of Truth or Goodness. They would simply like to change the subject. They are in a position analogous to that of secularists who urge that research concerning the Nature, or the Will, of God does not get us anywhere. Such secularists are not saying that God does not exist, exactly; they feel unclear about what it would mean to affirm His existence, and thus about the point of denying it. Nor do they have some special, funny, heretical view about God. They just doubt that the vocabulary of theology is one we ought to be using."
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subj ... /rorty.htm


Philosophy has not provided a definitive answer to questions because it deals with questions that will never yield empirical answers.

This guy sounds like he thinks we could achieve some answers with a different lexicon, but that will never happen.

But I would argue that the truth has been clearly stated for two thousand years. It's just that people don't like it, so they do not embrace it.

What? Do you expect philosophy is capable of coming to some conclusion everyone will agree is true?

3) Science is hard enough to learn without screwing it to hell before you even start. To anyone that knows the history of science, they know science has been under attack by religion since it's beginning in the Renaissance. That's what you are doing.


Science is not under assault when you suggest the possibility of God as the creator of the universe.

Why would it be?

4) You are babbling. Pretty much everyone I know has religion. If they don't, they've never brought it up with me, and I don't hide my atheism under a bushel..

You apparently have no idea what you are doing here. Science is always under attack. Over the centuries, the success of science has resulted in most accepting it. But there's always somebody doing something like trying to force religion into the teaching of science. There was a movement to make the country sectarian, instead of secular.

My favorite bit of crazy was in the late 1800s when religious nuts started killing geologists.
Go figure.


How many geologists were killed?
#15157341
Pants-of-dog wrote:@Verv

I will assume this was addressed to me despite the lack of notification or crediting my text that you quoted.


Oh, do you think I was trying to sneak a comment under the radar? Lol, no, not at all. I know you babysit this thread and are present in half of the threads I comment on in this forum.

Indeed, after dismissing one of my posts as irrelevant in post #15,157,235, y ou came back 2 hours & 6 minutes later to address it in post #15,157,246.

I know you can't get enough of my sweet rhetoric -- I know you'd be back for more, POD.

I got you, don't worry. But I'll be careful to tag you if it'll make you feel better.



...and you made a direct comparison between Indigenous people and Christians.

Now that we have looked at the comparison, we see more differences than similarities.


You are actually missing the point: Christians have been killed and terrorized in many circumstances, often by other white people. Genocide does not stick to racial categories (and let's remember racial categories are entirely fake & constructed), especially cultural genocide.

1. Yes, white people do think genocide is often interesting. For people who were or are targeted for genocide, the conversation is a bit more serious.

2. Yes, knowing history helps you understand when and how racism happens. So, if you know very little about Canadian or Ukrainian history, you will not make correct claims.


Nothing I've said is being addressed -- this is fluff.

I can think of at least one past attempt at actual genocide and one past example of cultural genocide, and I can think of ongoing examples for both of these as well.


It'd be great to see you talk about Canada's on-going attempt at genocide.

I've been trying to get yuo to bring it up.

Would you like to write about it now?

You have not only refused to support this claim, but you have refused to even Google it. You did explain to me why you thought you should not have to even look it up. And you ignored evidence for this that was brought up by @Godstud.

Your refusal to educate yourself about state racism does not make it magically impossible.


It was an article that basically makes it sound like Pres. Trudeau took the unprecedented step of dropping the word 'cultural' before genocide. How is that proof of "actual genocide?"[/i]

Or... is what I alluded to before true... your trick here is to just mean cultural genocide as actual genocide?


If you now want to compare cultural genocide, instead of actual genocide, we can.

Since you are unaware of Canada’a efforts at cultural genocide, I assume you will present evidence about the USSR and I will then do the actual work of contrasting and comparing.


I'd just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you agree that the Soviet Union practiced cultural genocide on a level far greater than 20th century Canada.
#15157345
Verv wrote:
(a) You have taken four philosophy classes, right?

I have a Bachelor's and Master's in Philosophy -- I am not saying this to brag, but you are acting like I do not understand anything about philosophy and you are speaking as some authority above me. It's unnecessary.

(b) You need to understand the work of Rodney Stark -- he contends that much of Europe was never actually Christianized, and brings up historic church attendance rates as proof of it, and did some really excellent studies of Latin America which show that religiosity only increased via competition from Protestants, and these empty Cathedrals and churches started to fill up.

There is no 'drift away from religion' throughout history, but rather we are judging all of Western history as if it was like 1945-1960 America, a period in which the West went through a religious boom. Indeed, even in early 20th century West, atheism was rife. That is why you read about C. S. Lewis becoming a Christian, and G. K. Chesterton is constantly addressing atheists.

And what is 19th century Russian literature without atheists & Utopian leftists? They can scarcely write a story without worrying about God's existence. Even middle of the 19th century English writer Anthony Trollope hints about this.



Philosophy has not provided a definitive answer to questions because it deals with questions that will never yield empirical answers.

This guy sounds like he thinks we could achieve some answers with a different lexicon, but that will never happen.

But I would argue that the truth has been clearly stated for two thousand years. It's just that people don't like it, so they do not embrace it.

What? Do you expect philosophy is capable of coming to some conclusion everyone will agree is true?



Science is not under assault when you suggest the possibility of God as the creator of the universe.

Why would it be?



How many geologists were killed?



Wow, that I did not expect.

So I will start with Rorty. I am surprised his fame has disappeared so fast. He was one of the leading intellects of my time, and not just in philosophy. You didn't need to take a single class, he was constantly mentioned and quoted in everything from academic work to periodicals for the general public.

I see him as the Moses of philosophy. When I was taking classes, science had a century of work on perception and cognition under it's belt. Which much of philosophy ignored, continuing with the tradition of the philosopher pontificating on how we come to know the world.

When you say a different lexicon will never happen, it already has. Scientists, mostly physicists, started doing philosophy of science about 40 years ago. They brought with them a different perspective, and developed a different way of doing philosophy, eschewing the language and concepts of traditional philosophy.
https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Scientific-Reasoning-Ronald-Giere/dp/015506326X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=ronald+n+giere&qid=1613606926&sr=8-1

The attack on science is a matter of history. There is always someone trying to make the country sectarian, sneak religion into public schools, blow up abortion clinics, etc.
User avatar
By Verv
#15157352
late wrote:Wow, that I did not expect.

So I will start with Rorty. I am surprised his fame has disappeared so fast. He was one of the leading intellects of my time, and not just in philosophy. You didn't need to take a single class, he was constantly mentioned and quoted in everything from academic work to periodicals for the general public.

I see him as the Moses of philosophy. When I was taking classes, science had a century of work on perception and cognition under it's belt. Which much of philosophy ignored, continuing with the tradition of the philosopher pontificating on how we come to know the world.


I would not understand calling someone in the 20th century the Moses of Philosophy.

On Rorty: I have downlaoded some of his books and intend to read him because I met a philosopher who chiefly did stuff with Rorty, but I am just not familiar so much.

When you say a different lexicon will never happen, it already has. Scientists, mostly physicists, started doing philosophy of science about 40 years ago. They brought with them a different perspective, and developed a different way of doing philosophy, eschewing the language and concepts of traditional philosophy.
https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Scientific-Reasoning-Ronald-Giere/dp/015506326X/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=ronald+n+giere&qid=1613606926&sr=8-1

The attack on science is a matter of history. There is always someone trying to make the country sectarian, sneak religion into public schools, blow up abortion clinics, etc.


... And what has analytic philosophy and much of the new stuff accomplished? It's talked about much less than classical philosophy by regular people, and when it is talked about, half the time it is to drag these guys out & emphasize how asinine their content is.

I believe it is even the case that they have failed to develop a common lexicon, and have done more for simply undermining language and turning anglo philosophy into a hard-to-read jargon-swamp than creating some new paradigm for thinking....

But of course the recent philosophers are worthwhile. I really appreciate Husserl, Wittgenstein, Bergson, Levinas, and Baudrillard, and generally speaking a lot of interesting stuff comes out of continental philosophy, but I do not see that these guys are truly some major step beyond what the classics do. They are dealing with different problems because modernity has made man relate back to reality very differently than he ever did before, and there are new angles that we have.

I also think they choose to not try to address many of the problems that the classics did because nobody is dumb enough to try to stand in Plato's light.
#15157371
Verv wrote:You are actually missing the point: Christians have been killed and terrorized in many circumstances, often by other white people. Genocide does not stick to racial categories (and let's remember racial categories are entirely fake & constructed), especially cultural genocide.


Sure.

And there are no ongoing state genocides of Christians that are comparable to the ongoing genocides against Indigenous people.

It'd be great to see you talk about Canada's on-going attempt at genocide.

I've been trying to get yuo to bring it up.

Would you like to write about it now?


No, not really.

My point is that your dismissal of Canadian genocide is an argument from ignorance (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) and my point still stands:

There is state action against Indigenous people, but not Christians.

It was an article that basically makes it sound like Pres. Trudeau took the unprecedented step of dropping the word 'cultural' before genocide. How is that proof of "actual genocide?"[/i]

Or... is what I alluded to before true... your trick here is to just mean cultural genocide as actual genocide?


You seem to think that I am trying to trick you. This seems to be based on your idea that actual genocide never happened, and that only cultural genocide took place, and this cultural genocide was similar to what conservative Christians go through.

This assumption is incorrect.

I understand that you want me to present the evidence and then you would tell me how you interpret it in such a way that I am overreacting, and we could have a pleasant (for you) philosophical discussion on genocide, and by the end you will have confirmed your previous “knowledge”.

I am not interested in that. I am figuring out how people make racism acceptable in their own heads.

I'd just give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you agree that the Soviet Union practiced cultural genocide on a level far greater than 20th century Canada.


I have no idea about the numbers. If I had to guess, I would say the USSR did a lot of people in a short time, while Canada has done lower numbers over a longer time.

But here is the important bit: the USSR no longer exists, and the genocides are over. Canada is still here and the genocide is ongoing.

And will probably continue since people have decided it is not even happening.
User avatar
By Verv
#15157413
Pants-of-dog wrote:Sure.

And there are no ongoing state genocides of Christians that are comparable to the ongoing genocides against Indigenous people.



No, not really.

My point is that your dismissal of Canadian genocide is an argument from ignorance (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) and my point still stands:

There is state action against Indigenous people, but not Christians.


First of all, thanks for recognizng that there are serious Christian genocides that are occurring.

But let me repeat a question that maybe some people here even on the left will agree with...

What is Prime Minister Trudeau's government doing right now that is a state action against indigenous people?


You seem to think that I am trying to trick you. This seems to be based on your idea that actual genocide never happened, and that only cultural genocide took place, and this cultural genocide was similar to what conservative Christians go through.

This assumption is incorrect.

I understand that you want me to present the evidence and then you would tell me how you interpret it in such a way that I am overreacting, and we could have a pleasant (for you) philosophical discussion on genocide, and by the end you will have confirmed your previous “knowledge”.

I am not interested in that. I am figuring out how people make racism acceptable in their own heads.


OK, I got three quick things to say that could be bridges to just better responses for us.

(I) Genocide did occur in the Americas, but it feels a lot different than the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide. It was largely caused by disease (unintentional), and then was accomplished through dozens and dozens of individual wars & campaigns, settler expansion, economic policy, etc., and it occcurred over centuries. While this was happening, Natives also massacred one another, and occasionally even massacred white settlements.

We need to do things to correct the imbalances that exist in between our socieites, naturally.

(II) This is the natural power dynamic. Whites did this to each other; non-whites did this to each other. The world is condemned to grow or to die... When Spain takes Gran Colombia & the bulk of the Carribbean, you need to take Brazil; when England settles Chesapeake Bay, you need to settle Louisiana. The nation must get stronger while its competitors get stronger, or the nation ceases to exist.

It would actually be dereliction of duty to one's own subjects to pretend you can be the Hermit Kingdom & never-do-no-wrong.

(III) People make racism acceptable because they hate being controlled.

You are certainly right that probably every native born Canadian who got a regular education withstood 500 hours of "Racism bad; diversity good; we are all Canadians!" training.

So, when they come across the reasons to believe racist narratives, they still are not stopped by the years of programming because they want to figure things out on their own and be independent, and they are willing to cross these lines even if it means that 90% of the country will be angry at them.

Indeed, they gain self-esteem by bucking the intellectual trends because it feels completely liberating to stand outside of the box and laugh at the moral panic.

I have no idea about the numbers. If I had to guess, I would say the USSR did a lot of people in a short time, while Canada has done lower numbers over a longer time.

But here is the important bit: the USSR no longer exists, and the genocides are over. Canada is still here and the genocide is ongoing.

And will probably continue since people have decided it is not even happening.


I think this is covered elsewhere.
By Rich
#15157429
The first people, the first nations in the Americas were Europeans who crossed the North Atlantic during the last age. It seems they were genocided by the more backward, but more violent invading Siberians.
#15157441
Rich wrote:The first people, the first nations in the Americas were Europeans who crossed the North Atlantic during the last age. It seems they were genocided by the more backward, but more violent invading Siberians.

Ultimately some groups are displaced by others. I am still very upset about the genocide of the Neanderthals by the Cro-Magnon man. There are some people in the planet with some Neanderthal DNA and so far no reparations. :lol: :lol:
#15157445
Verv wrote:
I would not understand calling someone in the 20th century the Moses of Philosophy.

On Rorty: I have downlaoded some of his books and intend to read him because I met a philosopher who chiefly did stuff with Rorty, but I am just not familiar so much.



... And what has analytic philosophy and much of the new stuff accomplished? It's talked about much less than classical philosophy by regular people, and when it is talked about, half the time it is to drag these guys out & emphasize how asinine their content is.

I believe it is even the case that they have failed to develop a common lexicon, and have done more for simply undermining language and turning anglo philosophy into a hard-to-read jargon-swamp than creating some new paradigm for thinking....

But of course the recent philosophers are worthwhile. I really appreciate Husserl, Wittgenstein, Bergson, Levinas, and Baudrillard, and generally speaking a lot of interesting stuff comes out of continental philosophy, but I do not see that these guys are truly some major step beyond what the classics do. They are dealing with different problems because modernity has made man relate back to reality very differently than he ever did before, and there are new angles that we have.

I also think they choose to not try to address many of the problems that the classics did because nobody is dumb enough to try to stand in Plato's light.



What I am talking about evolved out of the Pragmatic school. I think each of us sees in their school relevant work on the problems they think important.

I did like the description of traditional philosophers as regular people. I feel the same way about my guys.

If you could pick one guy you think I ought to read, I'd appreciate the suggestion. But, as is so often the case in philosophy, we will likely need to agree to disagree.

But I would like to thank you immoderately. I've been on the internet for about 30 years, and you're the first philosopher I've stumbled across. We may be like ships passing in the night, but you're my first ship.

Rorty's work was diverse, try some of his work outside philosophy. Perhaps the best place to start is Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. This would be especially true if you are not familiar with Neopragmatism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/books/review/Ryerson-t.html
#15157449
Verv wrote:First of all, thanks for recognizng that there are serious Christian genocides that are occurring.

But let me repeat a question that maybe some people here even on the left will agree with...

What is Prime Minister Trudeau's government doing right now that is a state action against indigenous people?


And again, there is nothing stopping anyone from looking it up and educating themselves.

Is there a reason why you do not?

OK, I got three quick things to say that could be bridges to just better responses for us.

(I) Genocide did occur in the Americas, but it feels a lot different than the Holocaust or the Armenian genocide. It was largely caused by disease (unintentional), and then was accomplished through dozens and dozens of individual wars & campaigns, settler expansion, economic policy, etc., and it occcurred over centuries. While this was happening, Natives also massacred one another, and occasionally even massacred white settlements.

We need to do things to correct the imbalances that exist in between our socieites, naturally.

(II) This is the natural power dynamic. Whites did this to each other; non-whites did this to each other. The world is condemned to grow or to die... When Spain takes Gran Colombia & the bulk of the Carribbean, you need to take Brazil; when England settles Chesapeake Bay, you need to settle Louisiana. The nation must get stronger while its competitors get stronger, or the nation ceases to exist.

It would actually be dereliction of duty to one's own subjects to pretend you can be the Hermit Kingdom & never-do-no-wrong.


I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.

(III) People make racism acceptable because they hate being controlled.

You are certainly right that probably every native born Canadian who got a regular education withstood 500 hours of "Racism bad; diversity good; we are all Canadians!" training.

So, when they come across the reasons to believe racist narratives, they still are not stopped by the years of programming because they want to figure things out on their own and be independent, and they are willing to cross these lines even if it means that 90% of the country will be angry at them.

Indeed, they gain self-esteem by bucking the intellectual trends because it feels completely liberating to stand outside of the box and laugh at the moral panic.


I doubt this is true.

This seems more like a way to make oneself feel good about one’s racism.

“I am a free thinker because I am unconsciously perpetuating a longstanding tradition of racism!”

While I think people convince themselves they are being free thinkers when they mindlessly follow racism, that is a rationalisation after the fact.

I think this is covered elsewhere.


Maybe.

The point is that this bad thing happened and people repudiated it, and it stopped.

Racism against Indigenous people in Canada has happened and is happening, people do not condemn it, and the racism is ongoing.
User avatar
By Verv
#15157504
late wrote:What I am talking about evolved out of the Pragmatic school. I think each of us sees in their school relevant work on the problems they think important.

I did like the description of traditional philosophers as regular people. I feel the same way about my guys.

If you could pick one guy you think I ought to read, I'd appreciate the suggestion. But, as is so often the case in philosophy, we will likely need to agree to disagree.

But I would like to thank you immoderately. I've been on the internet for about 30 years, and you're the first philosopher I've stumbled across. We may be like ships passing in the night, but you're my first ship.

Rorty's work was diverse, try some of his work outside philosophy. Perhaps the best place to start is Contingency, Irony and Solidarity. This would be especially true if you are not familiar with Neopragmatism.

https://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/books/review/Ryerson-t.html


This has really taken a turn for the better, I appreciate it -- it is also great that you are very familiar with someone that I know I have to read, but have never read.

I got both of my degrees in Korea, and my Master's is in Eastern philosophy. For the Bachelor's, probably something like a third of our mandatory philosophy is Eastern, another third is Western, and the remainder is up to us. Our university also was particularly strong in continental European philosophy and Neo-Confucianism. So I really found myself gravitating towards Eastern stuff (obviously), and the optional Western philosophy stuff I took was always either very traditional stuff or continental philosophy.

So, really, I will throw a few book recommendations out there depending on what you may be most interested in...

I got excited when you asked me the question and it resulted in me really racking my brain.

I think that you really look to a lot of the recent philosophy as being the climax of it, and that is totally fine. Most of my best friends, most of the guys I can really spend all night talking to, really deeply disagree with me on things, and that's invaluable. But I would recommend reading something that really tries to expand your appreciation of philosophy -- and may make you really want to sit down and just go through a classic Western piece (my favorite is Plato's Republic) or take on Confucius (get the James Legge translation -- it is over a century old and remains the definitivie translation for very good reasons).

The most heartbreaking thing is I cannot find a place online that is selling the English version of Eastern & Western Cultures and Their Philosophy by Liang Shuming, though that link includes a description in English. This was really the best and most definitive breakdown ever of the fundamental differences in Eastern & Western thought, and it was done by an Easterner who became incredibly familiar with the West, and was very discriminating in his tastes -- for instance, he classifies Indian philosophy as a its own thing, but also closer to Western philosophy, which is an important distinction I think many don't get.

However, Intimacy & Integrity: Philosophy & Cultural Differences by Thomas P. Kasulis is short and really explains the differences in Eastern & Western mental life succinctly, and more importantly, I think he gives a very good take on how logic can work differently in Eastern & Western thought. This book really has stood the test of time in my mind in he sense that I keep thinking about it, year after year, in spite of the fact that it is not flashy nor does it even really espouse some central doctrine... it just explains something very well.

I think reading that could be really stimulating for you in regular life & politics as well, because it may make you really think about all of the unspoken differences that rest behind conflicts. Of course, no pressure or anything, but maybe you wold read it and some sparks would fly.

I also want to add that I sometimes think Plato is closer to Eastern philosophy than Western philosophy if you are mostly someone thinking in terms of recent philosophy; it's done in a much similar style, and it talks about sort of the essence of man and truth, while a lot of the recent stuff takes away some of the fundamental assumptions that premoderns have & focuses solely on ideas of the truth.

---

I am going to bump Contingency, Solidarity, & Irony way up on my reading list and hopefully get to it sometime soon.

Thanks for this. ^^
By late
#15157508
Verv wrote:
This has really taken a turn for the better, I appreciate it -- it is also great that you are very familiar with someone that I know I have to read, but have never read.

I got both of my degrees in Korea, and my Master's is in Eastern philosophy. For the Bachelor's, probably something like a third of our mandatory philosophy is Eastern, another third is Western, and the remainder is up to us. Our university also was particularly strong in continental European philosophy and Neo-Confucianism. So I really found myself gravitating towards Eastern stuff (obviously), and the optional Western philosophy stuff I took was always either very traditional stuff or continental philosophy.

So, really, I will throw a few book recommendations out there depending on what you may be most interested in...

I got excited when you asked me the question and it resulted in me really racking my brain.

I think that you really look to a lot of the recent philosophy as being the climax of it, and that is totally fine. Most of my best friends, most of the guys I can really spend all night talking to, really deeply disagree with me on things, and that's invaluable. But I would recommend reading something that really tries to expand your appreciation of philosophy -- and may make you really want to sit down and just go through a classic Western piece (my favorite is Plato's Republic) or take on Confucius (get the James Legge translation -- it is over a century old and remains the definitivie translation for very good reasons).

The most heartbreaking thing is I cannot find a place online that is selling the English version of Eastern & Western Cultures and Their Philosophy by Liang Shuming, though that link includes a description in English. This was really the best and most definitive breakdown ever of the fundamental differences in Eastern & Western thought, and it was done by an Easterner who became incredibly familiar with the West, and was very discriminating in his tastes -- for instance, he classifies Indian philosophy as a its own thing, but also closer to Western philosophy, which is an important distinction I think many don't get.

However, Intimacy & Integrity: Philosophy & Cultural Differences by Thomas P. Kasulis is short and really explains the differences in Eastern & Western mental life succinctly, and more importantly, I think he gives a very good take on how logic can work differently in Eastern & Western thought. This book really has stood the test of time in my mind in he sense that I keep thinking about it, year after year, in spite of the fact that it is not flashy nor does it even really espouse some central doctrine... it just explains something very well.

I think reading that could be really stimulating for you in regular life & politics as well, because it may make you really think about all of the unspoken differences that rest behind conflicts. Of course, no pressure or anything, but maybe you wold read it and some sparks would fly.

I also want to add that I sometimes think Plato is closer to Eastern philosophy than Western philosophy if you are mostly someone thinking in terms of recent philosophy; it's done in a much similar style, and it talks about sort of the essence of man and truth, while a lot of the recent stuff takes away some of the fundamental assumptions that premoderns have & focuses solely on ideas of the truth.

---

I am going to bump Contingency, Solidarity, & Irony way up on my reading list and hopefully get to it sometime soon.

Thanks for this. ^^



There wasn't a single copy in my state. This being Maine, and a long way from Asia, I am not surprised. So I've ordered a used copy of Intimacy or Integrity from Amazon.

Speaking of which, when you said you studied philosophy in Korea, I was genuinely surprised. Like I said, a long way from Asia.

Do you play Go?
User avatar
By Verv
#15157510
late wrote:There wasn't a single copy in my state. This being Maine, and a long way from Asia, I am not surprised. So I've ordered a used copy of Intimacy or Integrity from Amazon.

Speaking of which, when you said you studied philosophy in Korea, I was genuinely surprised. Like I said, a long way from Asia.

Do you play Go?


I am American-born but I learned Korean during my military service and just decided to stay here ever since, which has been a blessing...

And I did do the very natural thing of attempting to learn how to play Go, but it became clear that the only people interested in playing Go consistently were really, really quite good. It has a steep learning curve and I just never was able to fully commit to learning to it, but once every three years or so, I give it another shot.

There are two different channels that cover Go here -- one also throws on other stuff like Chess and 'Janggi' sometimes, but one is pure, pure Go. You also can see old men playing it in the park together, and if yuo go to a particularly big park like Tapgol in Seoul, you will sometimes see a veritable crowd of people watching two guys play, presumably both of them very high skilled amateurs, or perhaps a retired master or two.

Do you play Go?
#15157516
Verv wrote:
Do you play Go?



Badly.

There aren't enough players to support a club, I've seen 4 or 5 clubs die. I play a freeware program called Leela. There are Go books in English, I've got a few of them. That's a long story, best told over a beer. When we were kids, we got Kage's Chronicles of Handicap Go. Kage was one of the most aggressive players ever. So when we started playing people that knew how to play they marveled at the combination of attacking skill undermined by a near total incompetence at defence.

Attack and Defense is good. I don't know if it's published anymore, but if your middlegame is weak, the Ishi Elementary Go series book, Middlegame might help. Do they have used bookstores in Korea? Go books can be expensive.

I love the idea of visiting Asia, but I think I would have a lot of trouble with the cultures.




https://www.sjeng.org/leela.html
User avatar
By Verv
#15157521
late wrote:Badly.

There aren't enough players to support a club, I've seen 4 or 5 clubs die. I play a freeware program called Leela. There are Go books in English, I've got a few of them. That's a long story, best told over a beer. When we were kids, we got Kage's Chronicles of Handicap Go. Kage was one of the most aggressive players ever. So when we started playing people that knew how to play they marveled at the combination of attacking skill undermined by a near total incompetence at defence.

Attack and Defense is good. I don't know if it's published anymore, but if your middlegame is weak, the Ishi Elementary Go series book, Middlegame might help. Do they have used bookstores in Korea? Go books can be expensive.

I love the idea of visiting Asia, but I think I would have a lot of trouble with the cultures.




https://www.sjeng.org/leela.html


Oh wow, that's really interesting and some good advice. I had a Western friend who also wanted to learn Go and he went to a Go school for kids, and the guy was really nice, but just said that he doesn't really have room to have some adult dude sit down and learn Go with 8 year olds. I am thinking I could go and pick out probably quite a cheap children or adult beginner's Go book and give it a whirl.

Actually just bookmarked one for adult beginners.
User avatar
By Verv
#15157525
Pants-of-dog wrote:And again, there is nothing stopping anyone from looking it up and educating themselves.

Is there a reason why you do not?


Alright, we don't have to talk about it.


I am not sure what point you are trying to make here.


Do you agree with statements I & II?


I doubt this is true.

This seems more like a way to make oneself feel good about one’s racism.

“I am a free thinker because I am unconsciously perpetuating a longstanding tradition of racism!”

While I think people convince themselves they are being free thinkers when they mindlessly follow racism, that is a rationalisation after the fact.


I think that the reason most people actually think racist things is because they honestly believe black people and some of the other minorities are mentally deficient.

But the question was... why do they think it is acceptable to be racist, right, in which point I was talking about why people believe it's OK to buck what they have been taught is wrong.

I also actually think very few people mindlessly follow racism. Obviously, there are still pockets of people that just LOL & be offensive, but many people are very consciously aware that their lives can be destroyed if they say these opinions too loudly, so they don't. They hold these opinions because they believe it to be honestly correct.

It's kind of like the argument about being gay, right? If being gay was a choice, why would anyone just choose to be gay? Who wants to be hated?


Maybe.

The point is that this bad thing happened and people repudiated it, and it stopped.

Racism against Indigenous people in Canada has happened and is happening, people do not condemn it, and the racism is ongoing.


I would be happy to condemn racism.

But it is important to distinguish between racism, and just waht amounts to institutional failures or blind spots.
#15157548
Verv wrote:Alright, we don't have to talk about it.

Do you agree with statements I & II?


Again, my whole line of questioning is about why people refuse to deal with state racism or their own racism.

Do you think people bring up other episodes of what seem to be racism and focus on those so that they do not have to deal with racism that makes them uncomfortable?

I think that the reason most people actually think racist things is because they honestly believe black people and some of the other minorities are mentally deficient.

But the question was... why do they think it is acceptable to be racist, right, in which point I was talking about why people believe it's OK to buck what they have been taught is wrong.

I also actually think very few people mindlessly follow racism. Obviously, there are still pockets of people that just LOL & be offensive, but many people are very consciously aware that their lives can be destroyed if they say these opinions too loudly, so they don't. They hold these opinions because they believe it to be honestly correct.

It's kind of like the argument about being gay, right? If being gay was a choice, why would anyone just choose to be gay? Who wants to be hated?


Yes, they learnt racism, then convinced themselves that being racist was a social faux pas, then they decided they were being free thinkers for being racist.

And yes, this thing where they believe themselves to be free thinkers is, as you say, not actually true but instead a way to make their own racism acceptable to themselves.

I would be happy to condemn racism.

But it is important to distinguish between racism, and just waht amounts to institutional failures or blind spots.


And this is another way people deal with racism: they pretend it is not racism and classify it as institutional failure or blind spots.
  • 1
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
Identity Politics

Potemkin, I humbly acknowledge and respect your se[…]

You know as well as I do that the Republicans wil[…]

One of my favorite economists, Brad DeLong, was as[…]

I think it's important to have a positive impact […]