Burning the Koran

[peter12]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Man, when i read Peter12's posts, I feel like I'm reading directly from a textbook.

I'm glad that you're learning something!

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

Originally Posted by algernon

If this guy follows through with his Koran BBQ, could he be implicit in possible hate crimes committed because of his rally?

Only if his actions are deemed to be inciting imminent lawless action.

So almost definitely no. I don't think the root cause of his action is based on violent intent towards Muslims. I think his actions are more to incite that glorious and harmonious feeling that comes with knowing personally that Christianity is the "best" religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

Not feudal times or necessarily any times. I just don't believe in the absolute progress of humanity. So certainly people "back then" weren't as miserable as moderns would like to believe. We're pretty miserable now by any standards anyway, rates of anxiety and depression are soaring.

You know this with certainty? What a preposterous statement. For you to assert that "progress" is a fabrication or illusion is actually the opposite side of the same coin for those who assert that "progress" is real. How does one quantify "misery", anyways?

I understand what you are getting at: socially and culturally the modern world might appear largely bankrupt as a result of consumerism and materialism. I have seen apologists and romanticists make the same claims before: that "rates of depression and anxiety are soaring", and that this is somehow indicative of the generally poor state of our society. I quite frankly don't buy it. How can we even know about such things in a world in which such things did not exist, at least not on the same or even similar clinical level that it does today? I think that it is highly debatable whether or not "anxiety" and "depression" are on the rise, or whether this is an illusory product of our emerging definitions of such things, our increasingly clinical interpretation of them, and our developing understanding of the chemistry and mechanisms of the human brain (of course, I suspect that with this final comment you will predictably accuse me of being a scientific or materialistic ideologue who is committed to the idea of "absolute progress").

I think the question raised deserves a much more specific response: In what ways was the medieval world better than the modern world, and how do you know this?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by longsuffering

I'm not accusing you of anything of the sort, I'm just trying to understand how you can lump Muslims countries as diverse as Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, UAE, KSA, Iraq, Iran, Malaysia, Indonesia, Turkey, etc. into a a group you refer to as 'Islam' and ignore their cultures and achievements in business/economic growth, etc and claim the Islamic world is stuck in the dark ages.

Undoubtedly there are far too many examples of backwards thinking in the Islamic world, including some of the countries in this list but the point I've been trying to make is that it is not a homogeneous group as many seem to suggest it is.

Often the argument seems to be that those Muslim countries that are somewhat more progressive or economically successful don't 'count' as being part of Islam, only the backwards nations do.

Those are exceptions to the rule, obviously you have city states and even a few nations that could be considered in the modern age. However the large chunk of Muslim nations have vast poverty problems, corrupt and dictatorial (theocratic) regimes which often stifle and oppress its people.

The lack of education, poverty, and systems of governance in the majority of the Muslim world are the problem. Many of these nations also have the added problem of religious dogma holding back rights and skewing education in a theological way instead of a secular education.

By the way of all the nations you list, most of them are not exactly bastions of anything than under achievement, the only nation I'd give some credit to is of course Turkey which is a great example of what the rest of the Islamic nations can do to hold their cultures and religions but be secular and allow for democracy.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

You know this with certainty? What a preposterous statement. For you to assert that "progress" is a fabrication or illusion is actually the opposite side of the same coin for those who assert that "progress" is real. How does one quantify "misery", anyways?

I understand what you are getting at: socially and culturally the modern world might appear largely bankrupt as a result of consumerism and materialism. I have seen apologists and romanticists make the same claims before: that "rates of depression and anxiety are soaring", and that this is somehow indicative of the generally poor state of our society. I quite frankly don't buy it. How can we even know about such things in a world in which such things did not exist, at least not on the same or even similar clinical level that it does today? I think that it is highly debatable whether or not "anxiety" and "depression" are on the rise, or whether this is an illusory product of our emerging definitions of such things, our increasingly clinical interpretation of them, and our developing understanding of the chemistry and mechanisms of the human brain (of course, I suspect that with this final comment you will predictably accuse me of being a scientific or materialistic ideologue who is committed to the idea of "absolute progress").

I think the question raised deserves a much more specific response: In what ways was the medieval world better than the modern world, and how do you know this?

Have you read the Canterbury Tales?

That's a completely fair question, by the way. We can read the literature of the past and we can know that the lives that produced such wonderful poetry and stories was just as vibrant and happy as our own.

As for progress, you don't really believe that insisting progress is a fabrication is actually the other side of the coin, do you? That's preposterous. What a silly, linear understanding of history and human development.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by peter12

Have you read the Canterbury Tales?

That's a completely fair question, by the way. We can read the literature of the past and we can know that the lives that produced such wonderful poetry and stories was just as vibrant and happy as our own.

As for progress, you don't really believe that insisting progress is a fabrication is actually the other side of the coin, do you? That's preposterous. What a silly, linear understanding of history and human development.

Texcritic and Peter are gonna go!!!!!!

Fight! fight!! fight!

[peter12]

I think that it is highly debatable whether or not "anxiety" and "depression" are on the rise, or whether this is an illusory product of our emerging definitions of such things, our increasingly clinical interpretation of them, and our developing understanding of the chemistry and mechanisms of the human brain (of course, I suspect that with this final comment you will predictably accuse me of being a scientific or materialistic ideologue who is committed to the idea of "absolute progress").

Come on, are you serious? This begins with a pretty obvious ideological postulate; the mind can be best understand as a mechanical and chemical organ. That's materialist ideology right there. What is really happening is the alternatives to biomedical views of the brain, such as theology or psychoanalysis, are being subsumed into the materialist world-view without any perspective on the purpose of the alternative or what it means for a general understanding of humanity.

[peter12]

Also, I never said that previous times were any "better" than our own, but that they weren't necessarily more miserable. You can't label me as a reactionary when I never indicated that I was.

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by peter12

Come on, are you serious? This begins with a pretty obvious ideological postulate; the mind can be best understand as a mechanical and chemical organ. That's materialist ideology right there. What is really happening is the alternatives to biomedical views of the brain, such as theology or psychoanalysis, are being subsumed into the materialist world-view without any perspective on the purpose of the alternative or what it means for a general understanding of humanity.

Geez are you trying to get your point across or are you going for a high score in Scrabble

[peter12]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Geez are you trying to get your point across or are you going for a high score in Scrabble

You have no idea how bad I am at Scrabble.

[SeeBass]

^^^lol

[peter12]

And before I get accused of this, I am not name-dropping books or authors in order to make a point. This is about perspective, which so many of us (including myself) lack.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I think the question raised deserves a much more specific response: In what ways was the medieval world better than the modern world, and how do you know this?

I wonder if a medieval person would hesitate for one second if offered a chance to live in our world? Our life would seem so fantastical to them - airplanes, cell phones, supermarkets, health care, holidays, literacy, freedom.

How many of us would last 24 hours living with stone age people in the Amazon or New Guinea, before wanting out?

Nostalgia for "simpler times" is great in theory, but quality of life now must be higher in most objective categories. Happiness would be hard to measure though.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

I wonder if a medieval person would hesitate for one second if offered a chance to live in our world? Our life would seem so fantastical to them - airplanes, cell phones, supermarkets, health care, holidays, literacy, freedom.

How many of us would last 24 hours living with stone age people in the Amazon or New Guinea, before wanting out?

Nostalgia for "simpler times" is great in theory, but quality of life now must be higher in most objective categories.

Jared Diamond, the preeminent ornithologist and historian, has spent a considerable amount of time with Papua New Guinean tribesmen. One of his points in the introduction of Guns, Germs and Steel is to point out that even though our lives have more luxury and convenience in comparison with Stone Age tribesmen, they lack much more context and meaning. Every tribesmen has an intrinsically deep relationship with his community and environment. He/she knows exactly where they stand in regard to themselves and the world at hand, along with a deep knowledge of their surroundings.

None of us have any of that. We live primarily shallow, virtual lives completely cut off from nature and reason. There is an element of the noble savage to this, but there is also a subtle critique of the modern perspective which is absolutist in its hypocritical self-superiority complex.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

Have you read the Canterbury Tales?

I'm afraid not.

Originally Posted by peter12

That's a completely fair question, by the way. We can read the literature of the past and we can know that the lives that produced such wonderful poetry and stories was just as vibrant and happy as our own.

That is a highly relative statement. This was part of a point that I was attempting to make in another thread, when I asked you to consider the effect that riding a bicycle or eating a pint of ice-cream might have had on Socrates' contemplations. It appears to be a silly question, but precisely the point is that one cannot pull literature and ideas from their social and cultural contexts. The modern world has shaped much more than just the way that we think and do; it has had tremendous effects on what we think and do.

Furthermore, how much can you trust your own perception of the literature of the past? Does it provide a completely "accurate" picture of the past, or has it been socially conditioned, and how do you know? How much of the ancient representation of their own world has been idealized? I am skeptical with regards to how much we think we can come to "know" simply through an appraisal of literature, without the contributions of other disciplines such as archaeology, anthropology, sociology etc.

Originally Posted by peter12

As for progress, you don't really believe that insisting progress is a fabrication is actually the other side of the coin, do you? That's preposterous. What a silly, linear understanding of history and human development.

I disagree. "Progress" is merely a term used to distinguish the past from the present. The denial of progress is in practical terms much the same as endorsing it, in the sense that both positions are staking an evaluative claim to either the past or the present. As for linear thinking, whether it is "silly" or not, it is practically unavoidable. The mind has become hard-wired to view life and existence narratologically: "History" is no more than providing a narrative shape; developing a story of the past that subscribes a preset of methods and ideas. Whether you like it or not, we all do it.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

Jared Diamond, the preeminent ornithologist and historian, has spent a considerable amount of time with Papua New Guinean tribesmen. One of his points in the introduction of Guns, Germs and Steel is to point out that even though our lives have more luxury and convenience in comparison with Stone Age tribesmen, they lack much more context and meaning. Every tribesmen has an intrinsically deep relationship with his community and environment. He/she knows exactly where they stand in regard to themselves and the world at hand, along with a deep knowledge of their surroundings.

None of us have any of that. We live primarily shallow, virtual lives completely cut off from nature and reason. There is an element of the noble savage to this, but there is also a subtle critique of the modern perspective which is absolutist in its hypocritical self-superiority complex.

We live primarily shallow, virtual lives completely cut off from nature and reason.

I'm not sure about that (I did read that book). I don't know if stone age people have much time for philosophy, or wondering where they stand, when most of their energy must go to finding food, shelter, and getting laid. Not much leisure time (in comparison to us)?

You raise a good point. My father was raised on a dairy farm. He trapped beavers to get through university. He later became a top petroleum engineer. I think he might have had a happier life on a farm, but I think he would say he was happy with the life he chose.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by peter12

You have no idea how bad I am at Scrabble.

For the record: I am also very bad at Scrabble...very, very bad.

[peter12]

That is a highly relative statement. This was part of a point that I was attempting to make in another thread, when I asked you to consider the effect that riding a bicycle or eating a pint of ice-cream might have had on Socrates' contemplations. It appears to be a silly question, but precisely the point is that one cannot pull literature and ideas from their social and cultural contexts. The modern world has shaped much more than just the way that we think and do; it has had tremendous effects on what we think and do.

Of course, it goes the other way. What would the effect of the Socratic way of life have upon our own contemplations? This is the arrogance of the modern position, that there is no way but back. That somehow inevitably we have moved on and that the wisdom and perspective of the past cannot be applied to our own times.

One can pull literature from its context and apply it to our own. We never do this. To fall back on a position of social conditioning and relativity is weak if you don't take it to its full point.

Furthermore, how much can you trust your own perception of the literature of the past? Does it provide a completely "accurate" picture of the past, or has it been socially conditioned, and how do you know? How much of the ancient representation of their own world has been idealized? I am skeptical with regards to how much we think we can come to "know" simply through an appraisal of literature, without the contributions of other disciplines such as archaeology, anthropology, sociology etc.

I really don't know what this means, to be honest. I think it's a crutch of the critic, to be honest, that struggles to gain a universalist perspective which doesn't really exist and fails to grasp the empirical kinship that we can feel when we read literature, poetry and philosophy from the past. Do you disregard nature or reason? I don't think so. Clearly, we have similar experiences according to all humanity to a certain extent. That's why we still enjoy and understand "old books."

I disagree. "Progress" is merely a term used to distinguish the past from the present. The denial of progress is in practical terms much the same as endorsing it, in the sense that both positions are staking an evaluative claim to either the past or the present. As for linear thinking, whether it is "silly" or not, it is practically unavoidable. The mind has become hard-wired to view life and existence narratologically: "History" is no more than providing a narrative shape; developing a story of the past that subscribes a preset of methods and ideas. Whether you like it or not, we all do it.

Progress is so loaded. How can something like history be linear when the future is totally unpredictable and the lessons learned from quantum physics clearly show us that the observation of a certain context changes based on perception. We cannot know that we live in a better time based solely on an observation of our own times. How do we judge everything else by their times and not our own? We have applied a very simple technological narrative to our times. Like somehow microwaves and cell phones have made everyone better off.

In all seriousness, the only sign of our progress, to me, is the spread of literacy and the opening up of philosophical and cultural experiences to all. Yet, the proliferation of "Harry Potter," "Twilight" and other youth/adult crap seems to me that we are wasting our new-found intellectual freedom. Viewing the nihilist and materialist wasteland of our current times, this is not a surprise.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

For the record: I am also very bad at Scrabble...very, very bad.

Haha, just buy the Hebrew version!

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

We live primarily shallow, virtual lives completely cut off from nature and reason.

I'm not sure about that (I did read that book). I don't know if stone age people have much time for philosophy, or wondering where they stand, when most of their energy must go to finding food, shelter, and getting laid. Not much leisure time (in comparison to us)?

You raise a good point. My father was raised on a dairy farm. He trapped beavers to get through university. He later became a top petroleum engineer. I think he might have had a happier life on a farm, but I think he would say he was happy with the life he chose.

The natural life is pre-philosophy. One of the great questions of philosophy is whether or not it's even worth the trouble to philosophize. Seriously, I was being half-facetious. Civilization is better than the savage life. You read about the endemic violence and rape of these Stone Age worlds and you would have to be a fool to even consider them as an alternative to today.

I am serious in saying that we shouldn't discount other civilizational experiences.