patriotism?

[Domen]

You don't need the Bible to know that tolerance is a positive attribute in any free and open democratic society.

Who says that you need? We were talking about the origins of tolerance, however.

User The_Tyrant wrote that tolerance is a value that is rooted from Biblical (Judeo-Christian) tradition. He is right.

In the Roman Empire prior to Christianization, tolerance was by no means a positive value. It was considered as a sign of weakness.

You could even say that many of those who claim to be adherents of the Bible completely missed that particular aspect of the religion in so many ways.

Yes - religion, particularly Christianity, was somehow fundamentally distorted after it became state-sponsored and subordinated to the state.

So basically the process of negative changes in Christianity started during the rules of Theodosius the Great.

He institutionalized religion and determined which gospels are "true" and which gospels are "heresy", etc.

He also started the state-sponsored discrimination of other religions, by prohibiting other religions.

State & religion is not a good combination - state is exploiting religion to its own political purposes and causes radicalization of religion.

That's why state & religion should be separated and religion should be up to personal choice of every person.

But I support the German - so called "friendly" - model of separation, rather than the French - so called "hostile" - one.

I'm a huge football fan so I'm used to standing in the north stand of Olympiastadioni and wearing my Jari Litmanen shirt and shouting profanities to the referee and the opposing team until my throat is sore. And no, I'm not rooting for the nation of Finland, I'm cheering for the national football team of Finland, just like all the other guys in the stands. If my team wins, it doesn't mean that my nation is somehow better than the other nation, it means that my national football team is superior to the other one. Sports events between national teams aren't such extensions of patriotism like they used to be (except maybe in Eastern Europe), and even if they were, it wouldn't prove the existence of social grouping called "a nation." National teams have more to do with the concept of people: immigrants will continue to support the national teams of their people, not the team of the nation they're living in.

Western Europe should be banned - they are too intellectually challenged - not able to properly understand my points...

Traitorfish claimed that a nation is "not an empirically observed social grouping", but an ideological one. Contrary to family, which - according to him - really is an empirically observed social grouping, but not an ideological one. This is simply wishful thinking. There are no such differences.

In fact, both family and nation ARE social groupings existence of which can be proved empirically. Just like for example pupils of one class.

And all these social groupings - be it a family, a group of pupils of one class or a nation - CAN be empirically observed...

Existence of a nation can be proved empirically just like existence of a family or a class. Both are empirical. And both are also ideological at the same time - all humans are related, we all have common ancestors, so claiming that some of humans do form one family and some don't, is ideological.

I showed you that each nation has a national football team - which is clearly an empirical symptom of existence of these nations. There are of course a lot more of such empirical symptoms of existence of nations. All of them prove that nations are empirically observed social groupings.

A non-existant nation cannot have its national football team. And the fact that it has one, means that it is an empirically observed entity.

You also called the national football team of Finland "my team".

If a Finnish nation does not empirically exist - then you cannot claim that national team of Finland is "your team", because you have no national team - because you have no nation. There cannot be a team of something / belonging to something that doesn't exist.

This sputtering indignation that somebody might challenge your ideological bastions of Nation and Civilisation, as if expressing scepticism as to their authenticity is something unimaginably radical, indeed, nihilistic, rather than a position (broadly) shared by even the even the crustiest of scholars. The only people who have any time for these ideas, in my experience, are those who've never really given it much thought.

Your principal mistake is that you consider them as ideas, rather than as entities which really exist.

I already explained you, that a nation is certainly no more an idea than a family - or any other known social grouping - is.

A nation - unlike family - is not an empirically observed social grouping? Rolling on the floor laughing.

Then why all these people wearing clothes of similar colours are gathering in our stadiums to support their national teams?

Maybe each of these groupings are one big family? Or maybe what I see is fictional?

If I go into a church, I will see a large number of people sincerely addressing God, therefore, God exists?

And if I go into a registry-office, I will see a female of Homo Sapiens Sapiens and a male of Homo Sapiens Sapiens sincerely addressing each other and the official, who will say "I now pronounce you man and wife". Then, they will sign a piece of paper. Then they will have a sexual intercourse and a Homo Sapiens Sapiens will be born as the result. And they will spend some time together, in one structure called "house". And in most cases they will claim they "love" each other.

Therefore, a family exists?

BTW - try to find a different example rather than with God. You constantly use God in your examples to prove every point.

 

[Ergo Sum]

Empirically observed in what sense? Families are empirically observed in the sense that husband and wife live in the same home, sometimes split household labor and professional labor, attend the same social functions and pool financial resources for jointly owned products. Furthermore husband and wife rear children, who they typically raise for a decade or two, socialize them, spend heaps of cash on them, and sometimes continue social/financial interaction with them. To the extent that each member of the family closely interact, families are empirically observed.

What can we empirically observe of nations? Nationals live in one nation, but they can live elsewhere, just as non-nationals can live outside their own nation. Nationals might buy the products of their co-nationals, or they may not. They may know a fair number of their fellow nationals, or they may not. There may be some monetary coordination between nationals through the state, but that's a product of the state and not the nation. When you go to football game, co-nationals might support the same team, but that doesn't mean that each one has significant interaction with their co-nationals. Millions of people live in your nation that you will never have any real interaction with; that is the sense in which 'the nation' is ideological. Shared believe in it doesn't make it substantive or empirical.

 

[timtofly]

Yes, the difference between nationalism and patriotism is that patriotism is the idealogical view of nationalism which is the empirical view of relating to ones nation or country or whatever you want to call the region you live in.

Some people do not view nationalism as empirical, more likely from the fact that they do not see a nation as empirical but just an idea. Nationalism is a lot stronger because it can be more empirical, while patriotism can come and go depending on idealogy.

 

[Domen]

Ergo Sum - first about family:

Families are empirically observed in the sense that husband and wife live in the same home,

Or sometimes they live in different houses. Or sometimes they don't have a house (not all families live in the rich part of the world).

sometimes split household labor and professional labor,

Or sometimes no.

attend the same social functions

Or sometimes different social functions. Or no social functions.

Sometimes for example husband is alcoholic & unemployed & bad father / bad husband - and doesn't really attend any useful social functions.

and pool financial resources for jointly owned products.

Or sometimes no.

Furthermore husband and wife rear children,

Or no.

who they typically raise for a decade or two,

But sometimes no. Or yes - but for a different time period.

socialize them,

Sometimes wrongly or not at all.

spend heaps of cash on them,

Or sometimes no. Especially if a family has no heaps of cash. Or if it doesn't care for children.

and sometimes continue social/financial interaction with them.

And sometimes no.

To the extent that each member of the family closely interact,

Or they don't interact. Or they interact in a violent way, especially in pathological families.

families are empirically observed.

Just like nations.

What can we empirically observe of nations? Nationals live in one nation, but they can live elsewhere, just as non-nationals can live outside their own nation. Nationals might buy the products of their co-nationals, or they may not. They may know a fair number of their fellow nationals, or they may not. There may be some monetary coordination between nationals through the state, but that's a product of the state and not the nation. When you go to football game, co-nationals might support the same team, but that doesn't mean that each one has significant interaction with their co-nationals. Millions of people live in your nation that you will never have any real interaction with; that is the sense in which 'the nation' is ideological. Shared believe in it doesn't make it substantive or empirical.

Which basically proves - from the point of view of logic - that nations are also empirically observed, despite the fact that your point was to prove something opposite and that's why your post above was visibly biased towards proving that family is empirically observed, while nation isn't.

And nation is even empirically observed to similar extent to families - because similar differences can be observed also in case of families (see my response above). Of course both familes & nations are also to some extent ideological. The fact that one family can be completely different from another indicates this.

A particular family can be far from what we perceive as "an ideal family".

===============================

BTW:

In your post above, you described family as mother + father + children, Ergo Sum. This is the most narrow definition of "family".

However, there are also other understandings of "family". So which one is empirically observed?!

And "nation" can also be understood in different ways, like "family". And this thread proves it.

The fact that there is no one, clear definition of neither "family" nor "nation", is an argument supporting the theory that both are just ideological concepts. However, there are also enough of opposite arguments, which prove that both can indeed be empirically observed (no matter what definition we accept).

 

[Traitorfish]

Domen, all of your arguments basically consist of "I am right", or, if pressed, "I am right, you filthy communist", so I don't really know what you expect of people. It's not possible to debate these points if you flat out deny that anybody can reasonably start from differing premises.

 

[Domen]

Domen, all of your arguments basically consist of "I am right", or, if pressed, "I am right, you filthy communist"

Nope. If you don't see that my arguments are logically coherent, then sorry but I can't help this. This is your problem.

 

[holy king]

long live poland, obiviously home of a species called poles.

 

[Domen]

I think we should all agree with Hegel as to what is real and what is not:

http://library.thinkquest.org/18775/hegel/realh.htm

Spoiler :

Hegel's Thoughts on Reality

Hegel believed that all real things in the world are ultimately one, so he is a monist (considers everything one). Hegel also stated that the study of history is "the thought that Reason rules the world." Hegel had a reoccurring idea that Reason, and Reason only rules the world.

"Substance is essentially Subject," in other words, reality in it ultimate state can be best described by spiritual terms. Therefore, reality is essentially spiritual. "Being and thought are, in themselves, the same," even if we do not treat them as such. This helps prove Hegel's theory that all things are ultimately one, and even if we think things are complete opposites they are really the same in the end. Thought can comprehend reality because it is its "heart and soul," because Spirit "governs the world" as "its immanent principle."

Hegel explains his notion of "The Absolute Idea". He says that "The Absolute Idea" has personality within it. He also says that everything "is error and gloom, opinion, striving, caprice, and transitoriness: the Absolute Idea alone is Being, imperishable Life, self-knowing truth, and the whole of truth." This, he states, is "the only object and content of philosophy [as well as] art and religion." To Hegel, this "Absolute Idea" is God himself. Apart for "The Absolute Idea" is nothing, therefore "The Absolute Idea" in itself is all of reality.

One of Hegel's most famous sentences is "What is rational is actual and what is actual is rational." This does not prove that anything exists, but it does help Hegel say that God is real. Earlier Hegel says that "The Absolute Idea", which is God, is rational, therefore with this statement, Hegel proves that God, who is rational, is actual.

And then we should stop this debate.

Because it seems that I can't convince you that something is real, using rational arguments.

 

[Traitorfish]

Nope. If you don't see that my arguments are logically coherent, then sorry but I can't help this. This is your problem.

It would certainly seem that way, and I fear that I shall carry that burden until my dying day. Shame, shame.

 

[Domen]

No, it was very much a 20th century ideology- the Bolsheviks didn't adopt the label "Communist" until 1918

You think that something cannot & doesn't exist if there is no name for it. You prove this once again in this statement above.

People with clearly Communist views were present already in the 1st International Working Men's Association. That's 19th century, not 20th.

And actually if I had to choose between being from 19th century or 20th century - I would prefer 19th century.

20th century was the century of wars, radical ideologies, genocides, etc.

But above all, I would like to be from 21st century - if you allow me, of course.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ah, see, now, the problem we're bumping into here is your capitalisation. Maybe it's not so in Polish or in other languages, but in English a distinction is drawn between "Communist" and "communist", namely, that the former refers to those affiliated with a Communist Party or the former Communist International, while the latter simply refers to any communistic thought whatsoever. The latter is something that you will find in some form or another throughout human history, and it is at the very least a recurring phenomenon in Christian society, while the former is something that is by definition associated with a coherent Communist bloc (domestic, i.e. a political party or parties identified as "Communist", or international, i.e. a regime or regimes identified as "Communist"), which only came into being in 1918. You'll find a similar distinction commonly made between "Conservative" and "conservative", so that a "Conservative" votes for the Conservative Party but may strictly speaking be a liberal, while a person might be at least in certain respects a "conservative" but vote for the Labour Party. Likewise "L/liberal", "S/socialist", "R/republican", "D/democrat", and historically even "A/anarchist".

Communism, then, is a 20th century set of ideas, while communism is indeed a 19th century set of ideas, but it's also a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, [...] 21st century set of ideas.

And this is all turning into a disproportionately large amount of text to spend picking holes in an inelegant counter-quip, but, well, that's OT for you.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

I showed you that each nation has a national football team - which is clearly an empirical symptom of existence of these nations.

No, national football teams aren't directly related to nations, they're related to peoples. Poles in England continue supporting Poland, Russians in Finland continue supporting Russia. They live in another nation yet they don't change their favourite team, meaning that national teams have more to do with peoples and cultures than nations. Nations aren't a form of social grouping, peoples and cultures are.

A non-existant nation cannot have its national football team.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-FIFA_football

You also called the national football team of Finland "my team".

If a Finnish nation does not empirically exist - then you cannot claim that national team of Finland is "your team", because you have no national team - because you have no nation. There cannot be a team of something / belonging to something that doesn't exist.

The term "national team" has different connotations in different languages. The English version of the word links the team to the nation, while for example the Swedish and Finnish translations would be called "land team" if translated word-by-word. A nation is a political entity, people don't group with each other in accordance to political borders. I don't have a nation but I have some sense of belonging to a arbitrarily defined group called "Finns".

 

[Flying Pig]

In the Roman Empire prior to Christianization, tolerance was by no means a positive value. It was considered as a sign of weakness.

This was the empire which tolerated, and even encouraged, just about every god and religion out there, right?

 

[Ajidica]

This was the empire which tolerated, and even encouraged, just about every god and religion out there, right?

And on most occasions added those gods to their pantheon. After all, when you really need your broken arm healed it is a good insurance policy to pray to as many gods of healing as you can.

 

[holy king]

In the Roman Empire prior to Christianization, tolerance was by no means a positive value. It was considered as a sign of weakness.

citation needed anyway.

 

[Formaldehyde]

User The_Tyrant wrote that tolerance is a value that is rooted from Biblical (Judeo-Christian) tradition. He is right.

There isn't much tolerance at all in many aspects of Judaism. Tolerance clearly predates the "Biblical (Judeo-Christian) tradition". Some early examples of toleration were actually accorded to the Jews by other societies.

There isn't a single moral tenet of any modern country which owes its roots to the Bible.

Yes, the difference between nationalism and patriotism is that patriotism is the idealogical view of nationalism which is the empirical view of relating to ones nation or country or whatever you want to call the region you live in.

Some people do not view nationalism as empirical, more likely from the fact that they do not see a nation as empirical but just an idea. Nationalism is a lot stronger because it can be more empirical, while patriotism can come and go depending on idealogy.

That really has nothing to do with it. Patriots are more than willing to criticize their own governments and consider it a positive thing to do so, while nationalists deplore any criticism and think their country is superior to al others. The two are fundamentally different concepts but have enough in common so they are frequently confused.

 

[holy king]

well, that's because the bible has it's roots in various myths, philosophical concepts and thoughts that naturally predate it.

to think that the bible suddenly was there at some point in history without having been influenced by what was before is rather ridiculous.

 

[Flying Pig]

And on most occasions added those gods to their pantheon. After all, when you really need your broken arm healed it is a good insurance policy to pray to as many gods of healing as you can.

Well, now you mention it, I was reading the other day that the reason that religion and medicine were so heavily bound together in Ancient Greece - 'healing' often meant going to a sanctuary sacred to Asklepios for several days, being involved in various rites and possibly having something resembling medicine administered as well - was that they realised that most of the diseases which were serious enough to merit that sort of bother to get rid of them but possible to cure were chiefly psychosomatic: the patient, in these cases, could either 'will himself better' or he had a disease which meant he would die anyway. More gods would have quite directly influenced the mortality rate.

 

[red_elk]

Poles in England continue supporting Poland, Russians in Finland continue supporting Finland.

 

[Hitti-Litti]

me is stoopid