Yes, you make sense, but it's as if you skipped my first two paragraphs. I quite clearly explained how it is in the best interest for everyone to be tolerant of activities that do not harm each other without consent. If the girl is an adult, and she believes that rubbing chili peppers into her eyes will drive the evil out (with the assumption being that she also believes there is evil in her), then it is in the individual's best interests to allow such a thing to occur (because it is consensual, and the involved parties are adults). If it's not consensual, or if it's involving a minor, though, then they are infringing on her rights, which I already showed was not in everyone's best interest, which therefore is an "objective value." That consent is required is easily shown, as if consent is not required, then man is essentially in his primitive, anarchic state, where there is no government to prevent the strong from exploiting the weak (and everyone is weak, for even the strong are weak in comparison to many weak people, so forming a government is in everyone's best interest). That children are not capable of consent is less easily shown, but a little data here and there can show that consent by a child is not the same as consent by an adult, requiring some differentiation.Keirador said:
Is Western Culture Superior or Not?
- Thread starter Keirador
- Start date
Absolutely superior.
Would anyone here want to live in a tribe of bushmen in Namibia or a peasant farmer in Mongolia?
Those countries that reject the term Westernization are fooling themselves. Every generation pledges they won't become like the West, but they inevitably do bit by bit. Ironically, it's very plausible that they're saying these things to appease their constituents, where before the West's influence reached those countries, there were no such things as constituents, only subjects and serfs.
Would anyone here want to live in a tribe of bushmen in Namibia or a peasant farmer in Mongolia?
Those countries that reject the term Westernization are fooling themselves. Every generation pledges they won't become like the West, but they inevitably do bit by bit. Ironically, it's very plausible that they're saying these things to appease their constituents, where before the West's influence reached those countries, there were no such things as constituents, only subjects and serfs.
Am I fooling myself?
We use Western-originated technology, commerce, political systems but a great mass of us still pray to our gods, still speak the local languages, still views fillial piety as the greatest virtue, still celebrates the traditional holidays. Are we Westerners then?
Go tell a Japanese (since they're the longest 'Westernized' of us all, in the 'Far East') he's a Westerner and he'll laugh at you, gaijin.
We use Western-originated technology, commerce, political systems but a great mass of us still pray to our gods, still speak the local languages, still views fillial piety as the greatest virtue, still celebrates the traditional holidays. Are we Westerners then?
Go tell a Japanese (since they're the longest 'Westernized' of us all, in the 'Far East') he's a Westerner and he'll laugh at you, gaijin.
Shaihulud
Deity
Perfectly illustrate the futility in trying to seperate cultures according to geological regions. I myself finds the Far east to b extremely westernised in culture and all the talks of preserving Asian values are just a sop to the conservative, in time we will have an Eastern culture that resembles Western culture.
That's what you think.Shaihulud said:
I live here, in 'Westernized' Singapore. I certainly don't sense we're becoming just another bunch of 'Westerners'. We might have and enjoy all the conveniences of modernity and technology, but we aren't thinking all that differently fr our forefathers, except for maybe a broader world-view.
Don't mistake the successful utilisation of 'Western' technology, commercial knowhow, political systems with conversion to some 'Western' cultural modular grouping. Just look at Japan.
Shaihulud said:
actually culture is more than that. There are always crossing of culture, some may find 1 to be interested than another. And if the one that "discovered" something 1st will get the credit, im sure that the so called "eastern" culture is much more superior, but i wont talk about that here.
Culture to me is about the art of living, which ever appeal to me i will follow it. Be it Chinese food, Japanese pop song, american TV, islamic litreature or aboriginil arts they are all appealing to me.
Some ppl will credit modernizing as western invention. but they are only narrowminded/simple and know not of their history.
Sushi anyone ??
Oh yeah, and nintendo and walkman is a Japanese invention too so are we considered japanesenize ?
plarq
Crazy forever
I seconded Edward Sayid,to artificially seperate Oriential from Occidential culture is considered as neo-colonizism.
Culture is always cross-linked,especially in nowadays world,I hope we as human beings could sit down and sort it out,don't let pride and prejudice become a misty frog in our sight.I don't like to evaluate cultures by their wealth,society and reputation,but rather see a mixture of cultures of human beings.
Culture is always cross-linked,especially in nowadays world,I hope we as human beings could sit down and sort it out,don't let pride and prejudice become a misty frog in our sight.I don't like to evaluate cultures by their wealth,society and reputation,but rather see a mixture of cultures of human beings.
Imaginos
Warlord
Someone from India, China or Japan would think their own culture was equal, if not better the 'Western/American' culture.
Like XIII said earlier, there is a difference between being 'modernised' and 'westernised'.
Like XIII said earlier, there is a difference between being 'modernised' and 'westernised'.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
The problem there XIII I think is lack of historical depth. Lots of people look at Asia now and see capitalism, modern technology, etc spreading. Since these are things they tend to associate with "western culture" ; they assume this is westernization. Point out to them that their diskman, their nintendo were probably designed in Japan ; they'll respond saying that Japan just improved on western ideas.
I wonder if it's appropriate to ask them how far they think western civilization would have spread on parchment, papyrus and stone tablets...
Or how much they'd like to write about the events of IX/XI MMI.
Or how much they'd like a phone with the numbers being "I", "II", "III", "IV, "V", "VI", "VII", "VIII", "IX"...
I wonder if it's appropriate to ask them how far they think western civilization would have spread on parchment, papyrus and stone tablets...
Or how much they'd like to write about the events of IX/XI MMI.
Or how much they'd like a phone with the numbers being "I", "II", "III", "IV, "V", "VI", "VII", "VIII", "IX"...
There are a few bitterenders out there, but for the most part, I think a lot of people in your region are paying lip service to their ancestors.XIII said:
rmsharpe no baka, XIII.Go tell a Japanese (since they're the longest 'Westernized' of us all, in the 'Far East') he's a Westerner and he'll laugh at you, gaijin.
Shaihulud
Deity
I am also a Singaporean have lived there most of my life and will be returning there soon. The point I tried to make is that it is hard to define a culture as Eastern or Western as they cross boundaries, many aspect of the Western culture comes from the East afterall. For a more definite description of Western culture, I chose to use the unique invention of democracy, individual freedom, a greater sense of individuality etc. These are apsects of the western culture, that at least everyone can agree is it.
Btw can anyone agree on what is Eastern, Southern or Northern culture? it would be pointless to argue the superiority of the western if we can't even find a common definition for one of them at least.
Btw can anyone agree on what is Eastern, Southern or Northern culture? it would be pointless to argue the superiority of the western if we can't even find a common definition for one of them at least.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
That's more or less what I asked two pages back regarding the western one.
I was told "It's assumed everyone know what it is".
I didn't get any definition, though. I remain supremely convinced that GWB adn I, for example, have very different view of what the western culture is, today.
I was told "It's assumed everyone know what it is".
I didn't get any definition, though. I remain supremely convinced that GWB adn I, for example, have very different view of what the western culture is, today.
A problem of definition then. 
Many tenets some Westerners see as 'Western', I see as universal, if that helps.
Many tenets some Westerners see as 'Western', I see as universal, if that helps.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Perhaps more than a definition problem.
Personally, I think there is no such thing as an actual western or eastern culture ; Chinesse (well, Han, that is) culture may have similarities with Japanesse culture, and French culture with English culture, but there are broad differences between all of them too.
Personally, I think there is no such thing as an actual western or eastern culture ; Chinesse (well, Han, that is) culture may have similarities with Japanesse culture, and French culture with English culture, but there are broad differences between all of them too.
Panzerking
Defender of the Realm
I don't think it is a case of cultural superiority or east versus west at all. In general the standard of living in most of Africa and the Middle-East is primitive in comparison to that of say New York or Tokyo. Also look how much more hostile and war-like many of these nations appear to be in comparison for example to European nations, prior to the two world wars all the major powers of east and west were far more likely to war with each other than they are now. I think when it comes to these witch-hunters there is a serious human-advancement issue and that they are simply like we were hundreds of years ago. Cultural differences appear everywhere but I believe they are simply far far behind in terms of acheiving a civillised society.
Gelion
Retired Captain
XIII said:Many tenets some Westerners see as 'Western', I see as universal, if that helps.
I guess this concludes the deate then...
Keirador said:
That would depend on whether or not there are moral absolutes. If there are, then one culture can be superior. If there is not, then there are no real right and wrong, and therefore we just see things through our cultural lense, and no culture is superior to any other, their all the same.
But, I do in fact believe in absolutes, so yes, I think Western Culture is superior. Not because it's been good over history, because it has had horrible atrocities commited, but because of what it's become: Pro-Human Rights, Pro-Democracy, etc....
plarq
Crazy forever
Democracy is dubious,but human-right is no brainer.
Verbose
Deity
Briefly returning to stuff like African cannibalism and witchcraft, with a smidgen of Western devil-worship thrown in:
The way African witchcraft traditionally works is as an explanation for 'bad things happening'.
E.-E. Evans-Prichard's anthropological classic 'Magic, Oracles and Witchcraft among the Azande' has a nice little passage about 'witchcraft' vs. 'chance'. A hut has collapsed (eaten by termites) and the heavy roof has crushed a family. 'Aha! Witchcraft', say the Azande. 'No, no, it was an accident and a damn unlucky one', says Evans-Prichard. At which point the Azande want to know what the dickens he's talking about. It turns out Evans-Prichard can't sell the concept of 'bad luck' to the Africans for the simple reason that it makes no logical or narrative sense. ('You mean the hut fell down and killed these people for no reason at all? Pull the other one, will ya!')
The Africans know quite well why the hut collapsed in technical cause and affect terms (termites). What they want to know is why these people got killed this time, since huts fall down all the time with no bad effects. Their answer is 'witchcraft'. Things don't just happen without anybody's volition ascribing it to some weird power called 'accident' or 'bad luck' only makes sense if you've been raised to believe in them as Evans-Prichard realised.
So in order to make the world safe an working again the 'witch' has to be found, and witches usually cause bad things to happen without really knowing it or consciously wanting it. Thing is, when these things occur in Africa there are usually functional ways of exorcising the 'witch' and directing the anger that aren't really violent, and afterwards things can go back to normal.
That's the role of witch-trials they aknowledge that something bad has happened, that the world isn't random (which Westerners usually believe), that something can be done about a bad situation, and then normalcy returns.
Anthropologists usually find that this system works fine and that it's a symbolic way of identifying a problem in the community and then dealing with it.
Problems can arise (but usually don't) when you take individuals out of these societies and set them down in the West. Without the society surrounding and directing the belief in 'withches' into acceptable forms, you can get these violent incidents when a set of cultural codes and attitudes gone haywire.
If anybody looks into the situation of the people tourturing the 'witch' I'm 100% sure it will be found that they were in a very bad situation, deseprate and then resorting to a traditional way of dealing with problems that don't work since this time there is no surrounding society that can reassure them and help adress the real issues.
This is not to say they weren't responsible for their actions it's saying their culture didn't 'make then do it'. Culture (fishy concept) doesn't work like that.
Cannibalism:
Cannibals are fantastic to 'think with' in the words of Lévy-Strauss! That's way some scholars frankly disbelieve their existance. For instance William Arens, 'The Man-Eating Myth', a book from the 70's where this anthropologist went through whatever proof of cannibalism was around. His findings were so meager, he concluded that cannibals spring from the Western mind. Westerners are clearly obsessed with this idea.
That's prolly true, but Arens got a little carried away. In large parts of Africa there exists a huge and complex system of belief about cannibals. (Europeans are cannibals and blood drinkers for instance.) Cannibals are universally feared and hated. BUT, the belief system allows for an inversion of this dominant code. If cannibals are evil, they are also powerful, which means that a small number of people may actively decide to become powerful, dangerous and feared cannibals. That's the way Africans refer to them there aren't cannibal societies of cannibal cultures in their stories, just dangerous and bad individuals.
This concept of dominant code, sub-code and code inversion can be applied to (Christian) Western culture as well. Westerners don't usually worship the devil. Still, there are devil-worshippers around, behaving in ways that run counter to the dominant cultural code but in ways that ONLY make sense as an inversion of the attitudes and beliefs of the majority.
Does this make Western culture 'satanistic'? Hardly. Does a belief in cannibals and the odd beyond the pale African practitioner make African culture (Sub-Saharan, Central African stretching into west Africa) 'cannibalistic'? By the same criteria, nope.
The way African witchcraft traditionally works is as an explanation for 'bad things happening'.
E.-E. Evans-Prichard's anthropological classic 'Magic, Oracles and Witchcraft among the Azande' has a nice little passage about 'witchcraft' vs. 'chance'. A hut has collapsed (eaten by termites) and the heavy roof has crushed a family. 'Aha! Witchcraft', say the Azande. 'No, no, it was an accident and a damn unlucky one', says Evans-Prichard. At which point the Azande want to know what the dickens he's talking about. It turns out Evans-Prichard can't sell the concept of 'bad luck' to the Africans for the simple reason that it makes no logical or narrative sense. ('You mean the hut fell down and killed these people for no reason at all? Pull the other one, will ya!')
The Africans know quite well why the hut collapsed in technical cause and affect terms (termites). What they want to know is why these people got killed this time, since huts fall down all the time with no bad effects. Their answer is 'witchcraft'. Things don't just happen without anybody's volition ascribing it to some weird power called 'accident' or 'bad luck' only makes sense if you've been raised to believe in them as Evans-Prichard realised.
So in order to make the world safe an working again the 'witch' has to be found, and witches usually cause bad things to happen without really knowing it or consciously wanting it. Thing is, when these things occur in Africa there are usually functional ways of exorcising the 'witch' and directing the anger that aren't really violent, and afterwards things can go back to normal.
That's the role of witch-trials they aknowledge that something bad has happened, that the world isn't random (which Westerners usually believe), that something can be done about a bad situation, and then normalcy returns.
Anthropologists usually find that this system works fine and that it's a symbolic way of identifying a problem in the community and then dealing with it.
Problems can arise (but usually don't) when you take individuals out of these societies and set them down in the West. Without the society surrounding and directing the belief in 'withches' into acceptable forms, you can get these violent incidents when a set of cultural codes and attitudes gone haywire.
If anybody looks into the situation of the people tourturing the 'witch' I'm 100% sure it will be found that they were in a very bad situation, deseprate and then resorting to a traditional way of dealing with problems that don't work since this time there is no surrounding society that can reassure them and help adress the real issues.
This is not to say they weren't responsible for their actions it's saying their culture didn't 'make then do it'. Culture (fishy concept) doesn't work like that.
Cannibalism:
Cannibals are fantastic to 'think with' in the words of Lévy-Strauss! That's way some scholars frankly disbelieve their existance. For instance William Arens, 'The Man-Eating Myth', a book from the 70's where this anthropologist went through whatever proof of cannibalism was around. His findings were so meager, he concluded that cannibals spring from the Western mind. Westerners are clearly obsessed with this idea.
That's prolly true, but Arens got a little carried away. In large parts of Africa there exists a huge and complex system of belief about cannibals. (Europeans are cannibals and blood drinkers for instance.) Cannibals are universally feared and hated. BUT, the belief system allows for an inversion of this dominant code. If cannibals are evil, they are also powerful, which means that a small number of people may actively decide to become powerful, dangerous and feared cannibals. That's the way Africans refer to them there aren't cannibal societies of cannibal cultures in their stories, just dangerous and bad individuals.
This concept of dominant code, sub-code and code inversion can be applied to (Christian) Western culture as well. Westerners don't usually worship the devil. Still, there are devil-worshippers around, behaving in ways that run counter to the dominant cultural code but in ways that ONLY make sense as an inversion of the attitudes and beliefs of the majority.
Does this make Western culture 'satanistic'? Hardly. Does a belief in cannibals and the odd beyond the pale African practitioner make African culture (Sub-Saharan, Central African stretching into west Africa) 'cannibalistic'? By the same criteria, nope.
Similar threads
