Great Quotes III: Source and Context are Key

[hobbsyoyo]

That's pretty awesome.

 

[Borachio]

There are two types of poor people: those who are poor together, and those who are poor alone. The first type are the true poor, the others are rich people who are out of luck.

Sartre

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

Employment legislation, blame immigration
Excessive regulation, blame immigration
Bad education, blame immigration
No qualifications, blame immigration
Radicalisation, blame immigration
Unhappy situation, blame immigration
The intimidation in our nation
When we blame immigration
Is a total abomination

- UKIP campaign platform Cassetteboy, "Emperor's New Clothes rap"^*

* Obligatory language advisory

 

[Phrossack]

"All of nationalism can be understood as a kind of collective narcissism."

-Geoff Mulgan

Sigged.

 

[Traitorfish]

Hm, that seems a little simplistic. It's not untrue, but I think it's very far from the full story.

 

[Phrossack]

Hm, that seems a little simplistic. It's not untrue, but I think it's very far from the full story.

The only exception I'd make to that rule is this:

"I'm supportive of practical nationalism, like the kind we need in Canada to avoid being absorbed into a much larger country. The kind of nationalism I despise as destructive and infantile is really just tribalism writ large."

-Steven Heighton

Some nationalism is defensive in nature like that, focused on preserving a kind of national identity that's under threat of being absorbed entirely--Breton, Ainu, Circassian, and other nationalisms. That's the only good kind. There's a difference between the two--Ainu nationalism, inasmuch as it exists, is focused on ensuring that Ainu culture continues to exist, whereas Japanese nationalism is centered around glorifying Japanese history and conquests while carefully denying, ignoring, or excusing things like comfort women and Unit 731--or denying, ignoring, and excusing them simultaneously! This essay is very much on point with regards to nationalism. While I know you heartily dislike the author, probably with good reason, his points are very valid and spare nobody, not even "his" side.

If Mulgan is wrong, it's that his basic statement doesn't make this important distinction. But his basic thrust is very much correct--the nationalist sees the nation, or in that essay, the ethnic, political, religious, or other group, as their own flesh and blood, an extension of the self, whose pride and glory and worth is inextricably linked to their own. Question the superiority of the nationalist's "unit" or "team", and they very much take it personally. That is how it is essentially narcissism.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think that risks conflating the attitudes of certain nationalists, albeit very prevalent and pervasive ones, with nationalism as a general phenomenon. Yes, the elevation of "the nation" is central to any nationalist project, but what that means depends on where "the nation" is starting from. A lot of nationalisms are about elevating the nation from colonial subordination to independence, such as Irish, Vietnamese or Cuban nationalisms and I would be vary wary about conflating demands for basic dignity with narcissism. I mean, I am ultimately very critical of nationalism and I don't think it can deliver on the promises it makes, but I don't think the search for identity and dignity that it represents is simply or necessarily narcissistic.

(Also, I think you might be getting me mixed up with Cheezy on the "dislikes Orwell" thing. I'm generally well-disposed towards the guy.)

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

"Dislikes" is a very generous word.

I think Orwell's article is sophist nonsense tbh.

And I believe that national liberation and the nationalist feelings it evokes are powerful forces for good in the short term, but in the long term that this liberation of the nation must be followed by the liberation of the underclass, else it risks becoming solidified into a chauvinist nationalism that seeks to subsume other nations to its will. Some forms of nationalism are benign and represent the flowering of a people's culture and identity, but others are chauvinist and imagine themselves better or more entitled to something than other nations, and those are harmful.

 

[Phrossack]

I think that risks conflating the attitudes of certain nationalists, albeit very prevalent and pervasive ones, with nationalism as a general phenomenon. Yes, the elevation of "the nation" is central to any nationalist project, but what that means depends on where "the nation" is starting from. A lot of nationalisms are about elevating the nation from colonial subordination to independence, such as Irish, Vietnamese or Cuban nationalisms and I would be vary wary about conflating demands for basic dignity with narcissism. I mean, I am ultimately very critical of nationalism and I don't think it can deliver on the promises it makes, but I don't think the search for identity and dignity that it represents is simply or necessarily narcissistic.

(Also, I think you might be getting me mixed up with Cheezy on the "dislikes Orwell" thing. I'm generally well-disposed towards the guy.)

That's precisely why I differentiated between the two main kinds. Irish, Vietnamese, and Cuban nationalisms are/were fundamentally about liberation and creating an identity. Breton, Welsh, Ainu, Occitan, and Basque nationalisms, to give some other examples, are likewise concerned with preserving identity in the face of cultural and political pressure from their respective governments that are predominantly or overwhelmingly composed of members of other groups. These are the benign forms. But the most visible, the most lethal and indefensible forms of nationalism are the nationalisms of the numerous and powerful (America, Japan, England, Russia, and France, among others). And also the Balkans. These consist of glorifying wars, victories, conquests, and "heroes" while studiously ignoring, excusing, or denying any and all crimes committed by one's nation. It's this malignant nationalism that I'm discussing.

 

[Traitorfish]

That seems very simplistic, though. No nationalism is simply one dimensional, and while some certainly tend to be more repugnant than others, it's never so simple as lumping them into "good" and "bad" nationalisms. Is Ulster nationalism "good", because it represents a numerically and geographically limited people, or "bad", because it's historically tied to anti-Catholic chauvinism? Is Chinese nationalism "good", because it gives a sense of pride and independence to an historically colonised people, or "bad" because it's used to prop up an undemocratic regime? Vietnamese nationalism has its heroes and wars and obscured atrocities, while French nationalism has its democratising and republican traditions- which, indeed, have heavily influenced the "good" Vietnamese nationalisms, so how can we describe one as definitionally liberatory and the other as definitionally imperialising?

There are certainly benign nationalism and malignant nationalisms, but there's an enormous middle ground, and to ignore that is to in practice obscure the history of nationalist thought and culture in favour of a simplistic moral fable- and wasn't that the criticism raised of nationalism in the first place?

 

[Phrossack]

That seems very simplistic, though. No nationalism is simply one dimensional, and while some certainly tend to be more repugnant than others, it's never so simple as lumping them into "good" and "bad" nationalisms. Is Ulster nationalism "good", because it represents a numerically and geographically limited people, or "bad", because it's historically tied to anti-Catholic chauvinism? Is Chinese nationalism "good", because it gives a sense of pride and independence to an historically colonised people, or "bad" because it's used to prop up an undemocratic regime? Vietnamese nationalism has its heroes and wars and obscured atrocities, while French nationalism has its democratising and republican traditions- which, indeed, have heavily influenced the "good" Vietnamese nationalisms, so how can we describe one as definitionally liberatory and the other as definitionally imperialising?

There are certainly benign nationalism and malignant nationalisms, but there's an enormous middle ground, and to ignore that is to in practice obscure the history of nationalist thought and culture in favour of a simplistic moral fable- and wasn't that the criticism raised of nationalism in the first place?

You raise some valid points--there is some kind of middle ground--but I think there are also very noticeable and very clear extremes, and that this middle ground is not as enormous as you think. Certainly Irish nationalists are keen to overlook the crimes of their side, as are their Vietnamese counterparts, and Ulster nationalism presents one of those tricky cases in which there's a small and potentially sometimes threatened group that has a pretty ugly history. For example, Ainu nationalism never hurt anybody, to my knowledge, while the scars Japanese nationalism left on the world are still felt today, and new ones will probably be carved sooner or later. I can't really see many, if any, redeeming aspects to imperialistic nationalism as practiced in the US, England, Russia, Japan, France, and others--it should be entirely possible to have the democratic ideals of the United States without the cult of the Founding Fathers, the glorification of various wars, and the psychological inability of American nationalists to see the United States as anything less than a morally magnificent force for all that's good and an island of freedom in a world of slavery. That form of nationalism's pretty plainly toxic, as is English nationalism with its glorification of Empire, its ignoring or downplaying of the overwhelmingly negative aspects of that, and its xenophobia. Compare that with, say, Welsh nationalism, which is basically harmless and interested in preserving Welsh language and culture.

Nationalism, at best, can preserve a threatened culture from extinction and overthrow an outside oppressor. That it inflates people with a sense of pride isn't really a positive aspect since it's a false pride taken in things which one didn't personally accomplish--I derive no pride from America's role in defeating the Nazis since I didn't take part in that. To do otherwise would be chest-thumping nonsense. The nationalism of the strong doesn't offer anything good, while the nationalism of the weak can protect threatened groups while overlooking the nasty aspects of what that entails, and in any case I suppose I need to specify that I usually am thinking of the nationalism of the strong when I talk about nationalism.

 

[Traitorfish]

But at this point, doesn't the claim that "nationalism is narcissistic" break down? If it is chauvinism rather than nationalism which is narcissistic (and I think the identification between chauvinism and narcissism is probably fair), but there is not a clear distinction between chauvinistic and non-chauvinistic nationalisms, Mulgan's comparison between nationalism and narcissism is no longer explanatory, just polemic.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Who has no picture of perfection settles with what is there. He doesn't challenge reality, which to him is identical to justice, welfare and beauty. For such a human, there is no development, no life. - Henry-Frederic Amiel

"Perfection" isn't quit the right word. Didn't know what else to use. Everyone can of course imagine perfection. I think this is more about a in principle possible kind of perfection.

Foremost this will be about ones personal life, but I feel like he talked about free-market-capitalism fanboys.

 

[madviking]

Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one 'idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.

"I can see the cup on the table," interrupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the 'cupness'".

"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend 'cupness'."

Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?"

Plato nodded.

"Where is the 'emptiness' which precedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes.

Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the 'emptiness'."

 

[Traitorfish]

Diogenes stories are the best.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That was fantastic

 

[madviking]

Lotta white people need a culture and that's where school spirit comes in

so freaking true

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Each piece of pork feels like a punch to the gut now.
"After they settled in Berkshire, he and his son John got a pig operation going -- used to drive hogs right back down the great escarpment, back over the long pike to Boston, drive them just like sheep or cows. By the time they got to market those hogs were so skinny it was hardly worth it, but William wasn't really in it so much for the money as just for the trip itself. He enjoyed the road, the mobility, the chance encounters of the day -- Indians, trappers, wenches, hill people -- and most of all just being with those pigs. They were good company. Despite the folklore and the injunctions in his own Bible, William came to love their nobility and personal freedom, their gift for finding comfort in the mud on a hot day -- pigs out on the road, in company together, were everything Boston wasn't, and you can imagine what the end of the journey, the weighing, slaughter, and dreary pigless return back up into the hills must've been like for William. Of course he took it as a parable -- knew that the squealing bloody horror at the end of the pike was in exact balance to all their happy sounds, their untroubled pink eyelashes and kind eyes, their smiles, their grace in cross-country movement. It was a little early for Isaac Newton, but feelings about action and reaction were in the air. William must've been waiting for the one pig that wouldn't die, that would validate all the ones who had to, all his Gadarene swine who'd rushed into extinction like lemmings, possessed not by demons but by trust for men, which the men kept betraying ... possessed by innocence they couldn't lose ... by faith in William as another variety of pig, at home with the Earth, sharing the same gift of life ..."
-Thomas Pynchon, p. 555, Gravity's Rainbow

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

"An economist is an expert who will know tomorrow why the things he predicted yesterday didn’t happen today."

- Laurence J. Peter (attributed)

 

[Kyriakos]

[...] κυκλοτερὲς περὶ γαῖαν ἑλίσσεται ἀλλότριον φῶς.

English traslation can be "A foreign/alien light moves while encircling the Earth". The passage describes an eclipse of the Sun, but is allegorical, given it is part of Empedocles' account in his poem of the (primordial) elements joining and splitting due to eternal bounding and dividing forces.
Empedocles was a presocratic philosopher, mostly tied to Parmenides and quoted often by Aristotle. He also is famous for some accounts of his death being that he deliberately fell into mount Aetna so as to make others believe he was taken to the heavens by god
(other accounts show less flamboyant death, eg in one he was harmed by falling off a chariot at Megara, and died due to leg injury).