|
Anaxagoras -> RE: Guess who's Jewish now? (10/12/2010 7:20:14 PM)
|
Rule, your comments have become extremely sarky in numerous places. If you come on to any forum you ought to expect some questioning of your opinions especially if they seem bizarre. I do not regard any discussion as a competition to score points – that does seem to be the way you are behaving. I’ll reply to each of your points and leave it at that as I don’t want to get into a tit for tat match.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
It refers to categorization being largely an abstraction less related to reality as it is made manifest.
You are a lot smarter than me. I have no idea what this gobbledygook means. I defined an evolutionarily functional concept. How is that an abstraction that is less related to reality (as it is made manifest - whatever that means).
It is rather unnecessary to characterise philosophy as gobbledygook. "Reality as made manifest" means as it appears to people: reality as it manifests itself. You seem to be suggesting that I'm trying to sound clever but the above is conventional English. You stated “Per my definition all circumcised males and those (cultures) who practice circumcision are Abrahamic Jews.” – I am saying you create a definition relating to a very particular understanding of culture. It is limited to only one facet of cultural activity, when in fact cultures are widely divergent extremely complex subjects with a vast number of aspects. Thus it is not represented by the reality in which people normally perceive cultures, where there has to be a significant degree of commonality before it is usually felt there are strong cultural connections. I could select any cultural practice and categorise all that practice it in a particular way. However, whilst it is true in itself, it does not reveal any deeper or more meaningful commonality between the groups. That is why I characterised your concept as a form of philosophical nominalism instead of realism.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
If you read on I qualify the point by referring to culture so it is culture in an ancestral sense rather than a racial sense. Thus we are in some agreement here.
No, we are not. Your interpretation was that I asserted "all circumcised males relate to a common Jewish ancestor". I have asserted no such thing. Furthermore, I have no idea what you mean by "it is culture in an ancestral sense rather than a racial sense". Do you?
Rule you separated my points out when in fact one sentence was leading on to another that qualified the assertion in more detail. I stated in post 35: “In other words he defines a certain concept – all circumcised males relate to a common Jewish ancestor. Proposition: All circumcised males are Abrahamic Jews; Muslims are circumcised; therefore Muslims… Since he refers to “populations” rather than race then it is likely that this is a cultural phenomenon that unites said populations.” I am surprised you don’t understand what I mean by "it is culture in an ancestral sense rather than a racial sense" because this is conventional English usage. I am talking about cultural ancestry - connections through history between people relating to culture, religion etc. rather than racial ancestral ties, e.g. if someone is a Roman Catholic they are living through a very particular heritage shaped by other past Roman Catholics over two millennia. This culture also unites them to an extent with others of the same faith internationally. If you deny the phenomenon of race but refer to populations partly in terms of cultural practice that the above notion is entirely appropriate and you shouldn’t have difficulty with it.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
However, I don't see how it can be asserted culture and religion derived from circumcision.
You are not the only person to lack the ability to see. Fortunately I can.
How nice to have such insight but it isn't right to come on to a discussion forum gloatingly making such claims but not bothering to explain.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
The act in itself has little medical necessity most of the time. Thus the procedure is typically non-utilitarian and so related to belief and religion even.
Indeed?
You had previously stated that "It does not have anything to do with culture or religion initially: culture and religious modes are evolutionary consequences of circumcision." My point was that it seems unlikely to have been an act with no relevance to religion in the first instance. Even you relate the act to a religious context. This of course would be separate to later religious manifestations of the same act.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
You are something of a social determinist.
I am? [:-]
What is a social determinist, please?
Determination in philosophical usage relates to a predictive methodology for the way in which things develop. Geneticists who believe a person's make-up is all in the genes are determinists. Social determinists believe biology coupled with external environmental factors are the only guide to the development of cultures. Many who advocate a scientific position are determinists although it is less popular today. It does not allow for free will being a significant motivating factor.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
However I don't believe culture can simply be explained through this process alone.
It is good that you believe something.
Can you prove it or present arguments that confer some credibility to your belief?
As I said above determinism does not give any credence to free will. A proof is difficult to supply as cultures are very individual and develop organically but I would suggest there is too much divergence and novelty in cultures to make a solely deterministic explanation plausible. Furthermore some cultures do not possess moral positions that advance biological needs. They can do the opposite even when there is no clear environmental need to do so. That is why many feel this viewpoint is discredited. Oh and by the way, insults are not quite the same as arguments, just in case you haven't noticed judging by your response here.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
There is too much about culture that is under-determined causally.
Oh? Like what?
See the point above - under-determination is where predictive methods as mentioned above do not adequately explain phenomena in a given context, be it culture, behaviour etc.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
If he was not the originator of circumcision and if you contend that culture and religion followed the act then why attach importance to Abraham with regard to all circumcised males? It is not merely Jews and circumcised Muslims, which are of course culturally related to Jews, but you assert this is the case for all males.
Because he is the religiously significant archetype for most circumcising populations.
You are correct to say Abraham is religiously significant archetype for most circumcising populations but you asserted this category for all males not most. If you had said most - i.e. Jews and Muslims then I would accept the classification as meaningful but if you include all other populations that would have no real cultural connection then it is an abstracted category with no underlying cultural connection. It is not a meaningful category just (cue Beavis) "Hey dude these guy's cut their johnsons too."
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
There are more than two possibilities in your suggested scenario. For example, he may have perceived some benefit to circumcision and attempted to make it a cultural and religious practice.
I doubt that he had any brains. He was mostly a religious nut, is my impression.
But yes, circumcision does have a benefit. His pagan god had plenty of brains and might have commanded him thusly for that reason - showing: 1. A lack of faith, 2. That brainy pagan gods can do stupid things.
I don't think it is a matter of stupidity or intelligence - I see it is a cultural signifier much like scarification as part of a ceremony of initiation. Your speculation of Abraham's motivation is er... a little peculiar.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I may well be wrong lol but I am not dogmatic about it unlike a certain someone who is extremely categorical.
That is unfortunate, thricely. If you are implying that I am dogmatic and extremely categorical, I take that as a compliment and thank you politely.
Why do you post stuff that may well be wrong?
Do take being dogmatic as a compliment if you wish lol. I posted a well reasoned argument. If it is wrong then it is wrong but again I must remind you that forums are vehicles for discussion. I see no shame in being wrong as long as I am open minded enough to admit it. I must also remind you that truth and consensus is arrived at by positing various viewpoints, some of which can seem wrong but after discussion actually have merit. I hope that answers your nitpicking.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
I am no expert on this issue
That is also unfortunate.
No one can be an expert on everything so it is not unfortunate at all. I posited a reasoned question which you mock. If anything here is "unfortunate" it is your attitude.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rule
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
If there is a phenomenon that is experienced universally but a certain paradigm of science cannot explain or does not recognize it, then it may well be a fiction but there is also a possibility it could still real. Perhaps we all hallucinate but the fact remains that we can often tell the general regional origins of people by a quick glance. It cannot be coincidental that we can usually identify people of Asian ancestry as Asian and so on.
No. What one is identifying are regional population characteristics. The genetic differences within populations are larger than those between populations.
The essence of the race concept is that it divides the human species into sub-species. That is not correct: there are no subspecies within the human species.
Your point above is correct but we seem to be talking about two different things. I was clear that I was talking about race in the conventional sense of the word, not as a sub-species but rather as observable physical traits. This is how the term is used generally e.g. to quote one dictionary " local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by physical characteristics." but then people come along and so "there is no such thing as race" when they are in fact referring to a technicality with regard to categorisation in biology. As one popular site says "Regardless of the extent to which race exists, the word "race" is problematic and may carry negative connotations." - thus the term is avoided. Rather than an evolution of the term as often occurrs in various sciences when paradigms shift, the word is politically loaded and completely rejected.
|
|
|
|
