[quote]nephorm wrote:
My argument about multiculturalism also applies to historicism, btw. Historicism claims that philosophy is the result of the times in which the philosophers lived (Machiavelli could not see beyond war-torn Florence, for example). Yet historicism is a philosophical viewpoint, and would therefore have to be subject to that same skepticism. Yet, historicism claims to be transhistorical (applying in all times and places). Just in case anyone cares (which they won’t).
[/quote]
But with a better grasp of history than the great philosophers had do you think this applies to modern philosphers? In order for philosophy to be valid it must aslo be transhistorical.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey…I’ll even let you guys keep Hollywoodd…No one respects them anyway.
[/quote]
Hollywood is what is wrong with this country. All our values are projectred and reflected back in the most extreme ways. It is Hollywood that taught us fear of the ‘boogyman’…and the right often panders to this blockbuster like fear.
Violence is way too prioritized in many films which some argue is a reflection of our society but I disagree. We are more afraid to watch gays kissing and nudity on TV than having the imagry of mutilation and destruction portrayed in the most grandiose of ways to our children. Not to mention it doesn’t offer anything of cultural value to us as a whole.
I am not saying all movies are bad I am saying the major Hollywood production companies are. I like art because I can usually learn something about myself from it. Hollywood is not art in any way shape or form.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But with a better grasp of history than the great philosophers had do you think this applies to modern philosphers?
[/quote]
To be clear, I’m speaking about historicism, not the study of history. Historicism is a philosophical view pioneered by Hegel.
[quote]
In order for philosophy to be valid it must aslo be transhistorical.[/quote]
I agree. Hegel’s view was that if we’ve arrived at the ‘end of history,’ we could then survey the past in a comprehensive way.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
According to Jean-Jaques Rousseau’s theory of the Social Contract, “an individualist enters into society to further his own interests, or at least demands the right to serve his own interests, without taking the interests of society into consideration.” This is the definition of individualism that the Seattle Public School System was trying to convey not that individualism = racism.
[/quote]
I don’t think that the proposal in question is taking the individual in the Rousseauian sense as opposed to society in the political sense.
There is not, as far as I am aware, any detailed provision in ‘On the Social Contract’ for right outside of society. ‘One’s ‘culture’ is the origin of right as such’-- I don’t think this would go over well in the Seattle Public Schools.
The individualism they are talking about here is more newly minted. The one who acts for himself is here opposed to the one who ostensibly acts for everyone.
[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Huh!? That’s about the dumbest, most ass backwards thing I have ever seen. Since when is placing supreme value on the individual inherently racist?[/quote]
Because with individualism, the onus to study hard and get a good job to support oneself is on the individual and not upon the government to supply everything for them.
Don’t you know, that would be a terrible way to run society – imagine people taking responsibility for themselves without looking toward Washington for a handout. What an awful society that would be…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
According to the Seattle Public School System, that is apparently the case:
.
.
.
All their examples are pretty f’n stupid, but the identification of individualism as racist takes the cake.
Your tax dollars at work, folks.
The fact of the matter is that institutional racism does exist because the majority of the rules and laws are written by white people. This does not mean that they are inherently bad but does leave some questions. [/quote]
I would like to challenge you on this point. Please give us specific laws written by white people that are on the books right now that are inherrently racist. .
Please be very specific…[quote]
I do not see any connect with idividualism equaling racism as you tried to explain it. The quote is, “emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology.” [the italics are mine for emphasis] Which means we prioritize individualism as opposed to collectivism (opposing social theories). Society is more than just an idividualism. However, it does not mean that we cannot teach concepts of individualism in favor of collectivism.
According to Jean-Jaques Rousseau’s theory of the Social Contract, “an individualist enters into society to further his own interests, or at least demands the right to serve his own interests, without taking the interests of society into consideration.” This is the definition of individualism that the Seattle Public School System was trying to convey not that individualism = racism. Tsk, tsk. Don’t they teach critical thinking in law school or just to read the law they way it fits your clients interests? [/quote]
My friend, I think you are mistaken. The American economic and social system was built upon the theories of Locke and Adam Smith. Smith wrote about the “invisible hand” to laud individualism. He said (and I am paraphrasing) that “as people go about to fulfill their own [selfish] interests, they will ‘as by an invisible hand’ provide for the social good.”
In other words, Smith was saying that individualism – the pursuit of individual goals – produced the BEST outcome for an economic system. This is what built this country into what it is – not socialist theories of how everyone should be equal and if they are not, we should steal their money and give it to others.
You would do well to better study your history here.[quote]
I think you missed the entire concept of this site. It is merely defining race not entering into a debate about what racism is.
Oh, the sky is falling![/quote]
Another challenge – are you in favor of “affirmative action” laws? These laws favor people of certain races and therefore these laws are the ones that are racist – against Whites, by the way…
[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:
The individualism they are talking about here is more newly minted. The one who acts for himself is here opposed to the one who ostensibly acts for everyone.[/quote]
I think they’re referring to plain old individualist self-interest, as opposed to a member of a tribe who views himself as such. Or as opposed to a Buddhist who believes that separateness is an illusion.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
According to Jean-Jaques Rousseau’s theory of the Social Contract, “an individualist enters into society to further his own interests, or at least demands the right to serve his own interests, without taking the interests of society into consideration.”[/quote]
LIFTICVS: The Social Contract is a very short book. Please, please, please read it, rather than relying on Wikipedia. Rousseau does not write about ‘individualists,’ although he does write about individuals. Any account of Rousseau that claims that individuals enter into society and demand to further their own interests is completely broken from the beginning.
Society, dependence, law… these are chains for men, not the instruments of their liberty. No man enters into society to assert his rights, unless he is a rich man (Second Discourse… the rich dupe the poor into entering into society so that the rich may protect their properties).
At any rate, the Wikipedia article you are quoting from uses your quote to establish the difference between individualism and Rousseau’s idea of a general will. Though the babble about Rousseau’s praise of an “autonomy of reason” is so off-base that I wonder if the person who contributed the bits on Rousseau ever actually read anything he wrote…
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Because with individualism, the onus to study hard and get a good job to support oneself is on the individual and not upon the government to supply everything for them.
[/quote]
I don’t think they were necessarily trying to make a socialist or welfare state claim, here. I think you’re reading a bit much into their political beliefs.
[quote]hspder wrote:
lucasa wrote:
What if you are an African-American English teacher who is a fan of Ayn Rand?
What if you’re Oprah Winfrey who said multiple times in public her ideal of beauty is a blonde white woman, and keeps telling every single one of her blonde white female guests how beautiful they are because they’re blonde and white?
Same thing: it just means you’re an idiot, two times over.
But you knew that already about Oprah, didn’t we?
Mindless Stupidity is an equal opportunity employer.
[/quote]
Having a personal ideal of beauty makes someone an idiot?
Then applying that personal ideal of beauty and finding people who reflect it beautiful makes you an idiot two times over?
[quote]hspder wrote:
Another pathetic example:
In the US, the ratio between brunettes that die their hair blonde and blondes who dye their hair dark is about 10,000:1. Same ratio applies for purchase of blue/green contact lenses vs brown/black contact lenses. That is obviously in great part because there are a lot more brunettes than blondes, but there AREN’T 10,000x more brunettes than blondes, so there’s a clear bias there nevertheless.
[/quote]
I see that there is a bias there, but why is it “pathetic”? Does this not exist in every culture?
Is it pathetic to like big disks in your women’s lips or really tiny feet that have been bound?
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Ross Hunt wrote:
The individualism they are talking about here is more newly minted. The one who acts for himself is here opposed to the one who ostensibly acts for everyone.
I think they’re referring to plain old individualist self-interest, as opposed to a member of a tribe who views himself as such. Or as opposed to a Buddhist who believes that separateness is an illusion.[/quote]
Perhaps. The term is probably intended to encompass both on the one hand those who believe that self-interest and the public good harmonize to some extent, and, on the other, those who seem to insist that self-interest is worth more than the common good.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
My argument about multiculturalism also applies to historicism, btw. Historicism claims that philosophy is the result of the times in which the philosophers lived (Machiavelli could not see beyond war-torn Florence, for example). Yet historicism is a philosophical viewpoint, and would therefore have to be subject to that same skepticism. Yet, historicism claims to be transhistorical (applying in all times and places). Just in case anyone cares (which they won’t).[/quote]
I do. Just because a historian or philosopher approaches a topic from a particular, subjective point of view does not necessarily invalidate that view.
HH
[quote]lucasa wrote:
http://planetmoron.typepad.com/
May 18, 2006
Never mind the card, we’ve got a whole deck to play with now
" …Not only that, but there are many kinds of racism such as “Passive Racism” which includes “The conscious or unconscious maintenance of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that support the system of racism.” So you see, you can be racist, and not even know it. Until of course, you are accused of it at which point you are guilty.
There are even types of racism that have nothing to do with race such as “Cultural Racism” which can include “emphasizing individualism as opposed to a more collective ideology,” and “defining one form of English as standard.”
So, if you oppose socialist ideology, you are a racist. If you oppose socialist ideology and you make a concerted effort to conjugate your verbs correctly, you are a racist twice over.
Of course, this can cause some confusion. What if you are an African-American English teacher who is a fan of Ayn Rand? This raises a number of troubling questions. Are you guilty of cultural racism? Are you innocent of racism because you’re a member of a targeted racial group who has relatively little social power? And how do you pronounce “Ayn,” anyway, because we’ve heard it both ways.
…
…Oh, sure, treating each individual you meet with equal respect regardless of their race or ethnicity is cute and all but what we really need is to lay out an impossibly complex labyrinth of code words, unintended slights, and perceived offenses.
Only then, can we achieve true racial harmony. "
As a recently exposed and reformed closet passive racist (I think) it’s good to see our lawmakers becoming aware of this issue. Now if we could ban derogatory “free speech” against just minorities, everyone could be free. But that’s just proving that the minorities are racist as well which is just my way of justifying my closet passive racism. Maybe I’m not ‘reformed’, just in denial…
In any case, I’m pretty sure Headhunter is screwed.[/quote]
LOL! Yup, I’m definitely a racist according to their definitions. If this was North Korea, I’d be in one of those giant deathcamps that evil cocksucker (Kim Jong-Il) has set up!
HH
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
I am not saying all movies are bad I am saying the major Hollywood production companies are. I like art because I can usually learn something about myself from it. Hollywood is not art in any way shape or form.[/quote]
And “good” can come from “bad” production companies?
It’s all pretty much garbage. The product and the producers of that product.
im not going to use complex words or sentences to feel so smart on this website and wow you people. But movies are for fun i enjoy watching them and im more then sure after you guys hit the gym you dont watch tv you go to some art show to feel enlightened and better about your self
[quote]nephorm wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
But with a better grasp of history than the great philosophers had do you think this applies to modern philosphers?
To be clear, I’m speaking about historicism, not the study of history. Historicism is a philosophical view pioneered by Hegel.
[/quote]
So am I. What I mean is that with a better grasp of history philosophers can ultimately remain unbiased of their own historicity. I am agreeing with the Hegalian ideal of historicism but wondering if in fact it is more or less of an issue than in the previous centuries because of our ‘new knowledge’. Can an individual remain unbiased to his or her own Zeitgeist?
[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:
The individualism they are talking about here is more newly minted. The one who acts for himself is here opposed to the one who ostensibly acts for everyone.
[/quote]
This is not the individualist that Rousseau was speaking of in a general sense? A person that acts on his own behalf without regard to the greater good of society?
I can see why people don’t like this idea that teaching individualism over collectivism is wrong because it engenders in them a sense that they might be wrong becasue they themsleves view the individualist as the greatest good to society. I think people are missing the bigger picture with this asinine thread. It is not saying individualism is wrong it is saying that teaching it over collectivism is wrong. Both need to and should be taught in order that our society can be given a better lense with which we can see the entire picture and not just one corner of it.
“The forrest for the trees”. It is important that we are not overly analytical that we only see the trees and not the forrest; it is also important that we are not overly synthetic that we only see the forrest and not the trees.
[quote]Ross Hunt wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
…having a future time orientation…
What exactly does this MEAN? Is this supposed to be a reference to notions of manifest destiny or Fourth Reich, or are they actually trying to outlaw Heideggerian phenomenology?
[Soup Nazi voice:] No ecstasis for you![/quote]
I think they mean punctuality and being on time for things. I wish I were kidding.
[quote]hazarddude334 wrote:
im not going to use complex words or sentences to feel so smart on this website and wow you people. But movies are for fun i enjoy watching them and im more then sure after you guys hit the gym you dont watch tv you go to some art show to feel enlightened and better about your self
[/quote]
Ouch! Hey, I watch movies just not the crap that Hollywood would have you beleive is “the number one movie of this century.” When I was speaking about art I was speaking in a general sense about being able to extract some sort of “value” from entertainment. I like being entertained just not having my mind filled with mind-numbing cheap thrills.
For the record, I don’t particularly care for movies that glorify violence of any kind. When I say “glorify” I mean that it is depicted as the most important aspect within the film or show or whatever. There is a fine line between what I consider art and what I consider ‘pure’ entertainment. I am not judging people who derive pleasure from watching said films.