Discussions concerning the academic, political, and aesthetic aspects of culturism
Monday, January 19, 2009
Culturist Philosophy!!!
Please comment!! As I post this I am off to the Obama inauguration with the Hindu Jewish Alliance to promote awareness of Islamic aggression. I'll be back Wednesday and respond to your comments then. Enjoy!!!
8 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I have a question for you John. You say you want to protect the Western tradition of individual rights. But this tradition gets its finest elaboration in Kant, who you want to reject. Before Kant, there wasn't a tradition of individual rights in the West. So how can you reject Kant, but not the individual rights he champions? If we reject universalism, aren't we going to reject the individual rights that receive their justification from it?
One is that while other traditions stress continuity, the West also cherishes clashing ideals. It is not anti-western to be in dialogue and dispute with western greats. But more to your point . . .
I disagree that Kant is the beginning of individual rights in the West. Greece had an ideal of individual rights. The Roman republic wanted brave participants. Christ valued the individual and the Renaissance esteemed individual geniuses.
The difference between all of these times and Kant is that they saw the individual ensconced in a polis a culture or a nation (least so Christ). Individualism without regard to context is poison. It is so because it is an unreal abstraction.
Individualism ebbs and flows with the needs of society. It is not an absolute regardless of circumstances. Rights in wartime is a good place to see evidence of this. But common sense works too.
It would seem to me the notion of Individual Rights follows logically from the Protestant Reformation and it's rejection of an Priestly class of arbitrators between God and Man.
Protestantism (and truly Judaism as well) tell us that God hears the prayers of all men equally.
In a system built on such a worldview, any King, President, Czar, or ruler, who presumes himself to be above the very people who talk directly to God, is a pompous ass.
And, that is precisely why we treat our politicians like pompous asses in America.
I am glad to have reminded you of your prof's acid flashback!!
Absolutely! I claimed the goal of western civ to foster individualism in sustainable cultures should be the guide line for western culturist pragmatism. If you were to ask me for evidence that the West has moved in this direction, the protestant reformation's emphasis on individual worth and salvation would be a key piece of evidence. The Puritans' take on individualism is a favorite example of individualism within a sustainable culture.
Thanks again for the kind words, John
Empedocles,
I answered your serious charge in the '20 arguments against multiculturalism post.' I look forward to your reply to my reply.
8 comments:
I have a question for you John. You say you want to protect the Western tradition of individual rights. But this tradition gets its finest elaboration in Kant, who you want to reject. Before Kant, there wasn't a tradition of individual rights in the West. So how can you reject Kant, but not the individual rights he champions? If we reject universalism, aren't we going to reject the individual rights that receive their justification from it?
If you think I'm going to weigh in here with these brainiacs, you have another think coming..TRUST me!!
But, I do agree with you!!
Empedocles,
Thanks and two thoughts.
One is that while other traditions stress continuity, the West also cherishes clashing ideals. It is not anti-western to be in dialogue and dispute with western greats. But more to your point . . .
I disagree that Kant is the beginning of individual rights in the West. Greece had an ideal of individual rights. The Roman republic wanted brave participants. Christ valued the individual and the Renaissance esteemed individual geniuses.
The difference between all of these times and Kant is that they saw the individual ensconced in a polis a culture or a nation (least so Christ). Individualism without regard to context is poison. It is so because it is an unreal abstraction.
Individualism ebbs and flows with the needs of society. It is not an absolute regardless of circumstances. Rights in wartime is a good place to see evidence of this. But common sense works too.
Thanks!! John
Dude,
I hope you don't mind me saying so, but your videos are simultaneously thought-provoking, entertaining and hilarious.
I haven't had so much fun with Philosophy since I had a Professor have an acid flashback in a class on Empiricism back in the old college days.
It would seem to me the notion of Individual Rights follows logically from the Protestant Reformation and it's rejection of an Priestly class of arbitrators between God and Man.
Protestantism (and truly Judaism as well) tell us that God hears the prayers of all men equally.
In a system built on such a worldview, any King, President, Czar, or ruler, who presumes himself to be above the very people who talk directly to God, is a pompous ass.
And, that is precisely why we treat our politicians like pompous asses in America.
Pastorous,
I am glad to have reminded you of your prof's acid flashback!!
Absolutely! I claimed the goal of western civ to foster individualism in sustainable cultures should be the guide line for western culturist pragmatism. If you were to ask me for evidence that the West has moved in this direction, the protestant reformation's emphasis on individual worth and salvation would be a key piece of evidence. The Puritans' take on individualism is a favorite example of individualism within a sustainable culture.
Thanks again for the kind words, John
Empedocles,
I answered your serious charge in the '20 arguments against multiculturalism post.' I look forward to your reply to my reply.
John
My blog basically has my response to your response to my response :)
The "Hindu Jewish" alliance?
Are you serious.
You should be more concerned that Obama is on al-Jazeera talking straight to the ragheads.
Post a Comment