This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I disagree with both statements. I do not see rational and irrational sentiments to be disconnected as you do. I recommend engaging deeply with your culture's mystical traditions if you wish to dispel this misconception.
The anthropology of prehistory is, as you know, heavily contested. But I'm disinclined to believe that tribal modes of organization could not have taken both democratic, oligarchic and monarchic forms given that we have examples of all such in primitive tribes in recorded history. Human nature and the incentives generated by social groups, which we know now to always have been a feature of human existence, make all three arrangements possible given certain material conditions.
What you seem to be describing as not "biological" is merely technology.
What do you mean? Do you disagree that humans have instinctively strong desires, which spring from their evolved biology? Do you disagree that human instinct is often unaligned with human reason? Is sugar not more desirable to you than bitter herbs? Do you not believe that “beauty” is inherently more pleasing than “non-beauty”? All of this is due to our evolved biology. Reason can say that it’s best not to smoke cigarettes, but this seldom influences the decision of a habitual smoker, because their biology finds it pleasant and they want to keep the habit in spite of reason. And you don’t live in a country where everyone is skinny, right? Or a world where teenagers stop playing video games late into the evening because they care about their 15-year plan and the effects of poor sleep.
My culture’s mysticism rigidly distinguishes between the Spiritual Person, which is spirit and intellect and prosocial emotions, and the Flesh, which is the instinctual cravings of the animal part of man. However, I don’t necessarily think this is the optimal way to construe things.
As a last question: when boys are choosing a book or movie, do they choose something about healthy strong man taking charge, or do they choose something about a young woman? Why do you think this is, if you can’t fall back to “it is in their instincts”?
Exactly what I said. That the clear dualism you see is, in truth, a dialectical monism.
There is no such thing as rational thought detached from the urges you describe. Your plan to quit smoking is just weighting your fear or death heavier than your nicotine cravings, which you may override for both conscious and unconscious reasons.
There is no rational and irrational in truth, all is trans-rational.
It is in their nature.
Assuming from the vocabulary that you are talking about Christianity, I must remind you that you are One in Christ. Christian Mysticism specifically rejects Platonic dualism through the incarnation, the resurrection of the body and the unity of soul and flesh which the Eucharist represents.
The One in Christ of traditional mystical Christianity isn’t monistic in the sense that flesh and spirit are one, or in perfect harmony, as even the mystic needs to “crucify his flesh” and “make no provision for the flesh”; if anything, the mystics see an even greater battle between the sinful urges of the flesh and the righteous joys of the spirit (& Heaven).
Of course pleasure is weighed against pleasure, but humans are not as innately reasonable as they are innately animal. A smoker seeing a cigarette is immediately compelled to it, sometimes without a chance to have a second thought. “Longterm consequences” is a mental construct created after a long period of practicing (effectively). Humans aren’t designed to plot out in their mind how they will feel in five years if they continue to smoke and then imagine it saliently with excellent theory of mind and then decide to ignore the urge to have the sugar because they remember this mental image they developed. That is an artificial activity that comes with training / acculturation, whereas simply smoking or drinking or eating a cheeseburger is natural.
I guess it must be acknowledged that there is strong (and historically violent) disagreement on this question, I align more with Orthodox teachings and the concept of theosis, whose associated ascetic practice is not a rejection of the flesh but specifically a transformation and integration of the body as a temple.
Again I do not see these as opposites as you do. Reason is but the conscious manifestation and structuration of our wants.
I wholly disagree. Humans are designed specifically to do that, imperfectly. And my evidence is that they do in fact do this and have done so for as long as we can tell.
I do not believe as you do that culture is an innovation. Only that it's technological manifestations have evolved over time.
We always told stories and always made society.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link