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 -
At the risk of looking like I've spent too much time watching Europa Universalis 4 gameplay, I will point out a third theory, diplomatic to go with your military and administrative: a country is legitimate in proportion to its recognition as legitimate by the "international community" of other countries (constitutive theory of statehood). A formerly legitimate country that makes too many other countries angry (e. g., by violating international law with aggressive wars) can become illegitimate.
Declarative theory and consent of the governed, but not constitutive theory: A government loved by its people but not recognized by other countries (Somaliland, revolutionary France)
Declarative theory and constitutive theory, but not consent of the governed: A tyrannical government whose internal atrocities other governments refrain from condemning
Consent of the governed and constitutive theory, but not declarative theory: A government in exile still loved by its people and still acknowledged as the rightful ruler by the international community even though it controls nothing
I reject that as a normative theory of state, however it is clear it is a useful component for a science of state. Yes, an unrecognized state will have certain issues a recognized one will not have. However, its recognition has no causal influence on its just foundation (because assigning worth to the opinions of unjust states is the same as assigning worth to the opinions of unjust men. it is the same as democracy).
It's hard to know what to say about this phrasing. On its face it seems to demand unanimous consent. It's hard to know what that should mean for war and people of poor character. If it is taken to mean less than unanimous consent then it is « democratic moralism » wearing a mask. That it feels the need to wear such a mask, I think, indicates something about the correctness of the idea. Too many modern philosophical terms appear to wear masks like this, which is why I look down on almost every name in that article as beneath reading. I think it would stunt the discussion to lower it to the level of comparing and contrasting the « theories » of Locke and Hobbes the « philosophers ».
As an aside, maybe it means something that the first reference in that article is to Tertullian, whose theology I harshly criticized in my last post. Maybe those things are linked?
Before this discussion goes any further, what would be your response to Herodotus?
In the parable of the Persian king, asked the Greeks what sum they would take to eat their dead fathers, they reacted in horror. To the Callatiae, he asked what they would do to burn their dead, and they similarly reacted in disgust. To which the historian reaches the conclusion that custom (nomos) is supreme, the king of all things.
Justice, it seems to me, is the effect of a body of custom. And if we cannot come to a consensus of custom, then every nation is an island in an sea of barbarism, and we'd best be suited to wipe each other out. So that is the compromise: and why an unjust state's opinions are just as valid as a just one's, because everyone believes that their custom is best. (Yes, even the liberal self-critical postmodernist one.) The least common denominator is the only thing that can survive, which seems to be a poor way to assess the validity of states. But without a universal measure of justice, what else can be done?
Custom is simply democracy. If Socrates, Plato, or Henry Thompson say in reason that burning the dead is good, then it is good.
The universal measure, I think, exists. It is called λόγος. This is the premise of Plato's Republic and without it I think it is true that all you can do is a type of democracy.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link