So, ethics, under your view, is a personal habit? — Bob Ross

Insofar as "personal habits" – in the context of my previous post – specifically means virtues, then I think so.

Could you give an example where the "community policy" is not underpinned by "interpersonal conduct" 

Two policies come to mind: retributive justice (i.e. proportional punishment) & distributive justice (i.e. social welfare). Neither policy is based on how individuals ought to treat each other or (non-reciprocally) conduct themselves.

... (so that I can understand where you are coming from)

Again, I refer you to this old post (esp. 2nd para.)...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857773

Scandinavia is just a group of three (very different) nations: Sweden, Norway, and Finland. — Arcane Sandwich

I need to correct this thing that I said. Scandinavia also includes Denmark, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands. Why didn't you point out this mistake that I made, @ssu?

the citizens of the US — ssu

We need to agree on some kind of word here, to refer to the citizens of the US. I won't use "gringos" because that's insulting to them, and it's disrespectful. I won't use the word "yankees" because that's completely inaccurate, because the Yankees were the Northern people that fought in the civil war against their South. So, in that sense, a lot people from their South don't see themselves as yankees, they don't claim that cultural heritage, if you will. Think of them like "confederates but in the year 2025", if that makes any sense to you. So, the point is, I don't call them "yankees", though that word is about as common as "gringo". They prefer to call themselves "Americans". Now, I'm not going to force them to stop using that word (nor would I want to), and I'm not going to force them to use the word "North Americans" instead (nor would I want to). All I'm saying is that if they call themselves "Americans", then by the same lights (by parity of reason, that is) I can call myself an "American" in the same sense. Why? Because we're both Americans, just look at the words: North American, South American. We're both Americans. The only difference is that you're from the North and I'm from the South, that's it. You speak English, I speak Spanish. You learned Spanish at school, I learned English at school. I mean, come on, man, this isn't rocket science, it's just basic words. What they actually need, from a purely technical standpoint, is a word that refers uniquely to them, the citizens of the US. Some of them call themselves "USians", pronounced "ooh-sians" (I've seen it, actually. In several places, including this very Forum). That word sounds a bit odd to my ear, so it's understandable that they, given the choice, would want to call themselves "Americans" instead. All I'm saying is, don't deny me that right, because since I'm a South American, I have the same right as a North American to call myself an American simpliciter. But I just say that I'm from Argentina instead, just to avoid unnecessary rambling.

First of all, many Americans think about secession of their state, at least as a theoretical option. — ssu

Why do you, a Finn, call them "Americans"? Would you call me an "American" as well? You better, or I'll book a flight to Suomi tomorrow and I'll challenge you to tell me that you know more heavy metal bands than I do (please don't ban me from the Forum for that joke, I have enough problems with Swedes as it is, I don't need the Finns against me on this point as well).

It's usually the American commentators who declare the imminent demise of the EU integration project, something that they have done now for decades. — ssu

Is that a fact or an accusation, Sir?

Yet what is also telling is that those who really are keeping up the dream of the EU are Ukrainians and Georgians, who have seen how other neighboring countries have become stable and prospered inside the European Union. It's in these countries who want to avoid to be under the control of the Russian Empire that cherish the thought of European integration. — ssu

Hmmm... Do I agree with this? I'm not so sure. Can you just explain this last part to me, please? And explain it to me like I'm really stupid.

I am going to read the Politics and then get back to you: I don't believe I've read that, or if I have then I don't remember it, and so that's probably the issue here.

- Sounds good. And know that it can be a tricky book. A commentary like <this one> can be helpful.

:up:

I need to correct this thing that I said. Scandinavia also includes Denmark, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands. Why didn't you point out this mistake that I made, ssu? — Arcane Sandwich

Because Faroa Islands aren't a sovereign state, they are part of Denmark. Even if they have autonomy, just like Greenland or Åland Islands have autonomy from Finland.

Of course there more regions to the Nordic countries too, so ask yourself, do you know all the flags and what regions they represent here?

All I'm saying is, don't deny me that right, because since I'm a South American, I have the same right as a North American to call myself an American simpliciter. But I just say that I'm from Argentina instead, just to avoid unnecessary rambling. — Arcane Sandwich

Actually it's quite telling of the attitude of people of the US to refer to themselves to be Americans, even if it logically refers to all people in the Continent and not just themselves. It would be like if people of the member states of the EU would refer themselves being the Europeans. What role then for the Swiss or for the Norwegians etc?

Hence when Trump is talking about Canada being part of the US, he is talking about annexation, not about a merger of states, where Canada's status would be diminished to be a state like Rhode Island with a governor.

Of course there more regions to the Nordic countries too, so ask yourself, do you know all the flags and what regions they represent here? — ssu

Top row: Denmark, no idea, Norway.
Middle row: Sweden, Iceland, Suomi.
Bottom row: Faroe Islands, no idea, no idea.

I looked up the three that I didn't know: Greenland, Åland, and Sámi flag. The last one was the least familiar to me.

So you believe in the Nordic countries as something higher or greater than Suomi, and of Scandinavia? I'm not sure that I understand the point that you seem to be making here.

Are the Nordic countries part of Europe? Should they "do their own thing", in a sense comparable to Brexit?

And what's the best metal band from the Nordic countries, in your opinion? Do you listen to metal? If not, what's the best music band from the Nordic countries?

So you believe in the Nordic countries as something higher or greater than Suomi, and of Scandinavia? I'm not sure that I understand the point that you seem to be making here. — Arcane Sandwich

Not higher, but something that Finns can relate to with other Northern European countries. Hence Swedes, Norwegians and Finns etc. can refer happily to being part of the Nordic countries. Many times it's very beneficial to have close ties with states and it's something that many countries are very much seeking to build. Hence in Europe we talk about the Benelux-countries, the Visegrad-countries, the Baltic States, the Nordic countries and so on. Trading blocs and political blocs can be very useful when they function.

For Finland it was actually extremely crucial that Sweden joined NATO at the same time (even if thanks to Turkey it was a long process for the country).

And it's something that many times is totally lacking from the historical narratives of "Great Power competition" where the strong defeat and conquer the weak and where Great Empires emerge and collapse. The focus is on conflict, not peace and stability. The last war between the Nordic / Skandinavian countries was fought between Norway and Sweden, which is also the last war that Sweden has fought, happened in 1814 between Sweden and Norway. Hence that is 211 years of peace between the countries, which earlier had many wars starting from the Middle Ages with basically the bellicose Sweden being in constant war all the time.

Hence in Europe we talk about the Benelux-countries, the Visegrad-countries, the Baltic States, the Nordic countries and so on. — ssu

I've never heard of the first two, let me look them up at Google in just one second...

The Benelux Member States of the European Union (EU) are: Belgium (BE), the Netherlands (NL) and Luxembourg (LU). — Google

I see... and how about the other one?

The Visegrad countries are the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, and Slovakia. They are also known as the Visegrad Four or the V4. — Google

Hmmm...

Trading blocs and political blocs can be very useful when they function. — ssu

Ah, so you believe in blocs, is that it? Like the BRICS, for example. That sort of political organization is what you believe in? That's what's best for the Nordic countries?

For Finland it was actually extremely crucial that Sweden joined NATO at the same time (even if thanks to Turkey it was a long process for the country). — ssu

Hmmm...

And it's something that many times is totally lacking from the historical narratives of "Great Power competition" where the strong defeat and conquer the weak and where Great Empires emerge and collapse. The focus is on conflict, not peace and stability. The last war between the Nordic / Skandinavian countries was fought between Norway and Sweden, which is also the last war that Sweden has fought, happened in 1814 between Sweden and Norway. Hence that is 211 years of peace between the countries, which earlier had many wars starting from the Middle Ages with basically the bellicose Sweden being in constant war all the time. — ssu

Right, because the Suomi language is not a Germanic language. The Suomi people were not Vikings. Right? The Finns and Estonians have more in common, from a linguistic standpoint?

So, on the topic of music, what do you like? What is the best music band from Suomi?

Ah, so you believe in blocs, is that it? Like the BRICS, for example. That sort of political organization is what you believe in? That's what's best for the Nordic countries? — Arcane Sandwich

There are different kinds of political organizations. Some are just for talk, but some have a lot more beneficial effects than just leaders meeting each other. Cooperation is beneficial. If two countries don't have relations, there will be a lot of mistrust.

Latin America is a good example of this. In the 19th Century there were a lot of very bloody wars between the countries (like the war of the Confederation) and still you have borders wars like between Peru and Ecuador or Venezuela threatening annexation of large parts of Guyana. This means that the relations, even if better than earlier, are still a bit tense. But they could be better.

Latin America is a good example of this. In the 19th Century there were a lot of very bloody wars between the countries (like the war of the Confederation) and still you have borders wars like between Peru and Ecuador or Venezuela threatening annexation of large parts of Guyana. This means that the relations, even if better than earlier, are still a bit tense. But they could be better. — ssu

Well, but it's an odd thing, you see. The French Guiana, for example, is not an independent country. It's literally a French colony, still to this day. They never declared independence. So it's technically part of the European Union. Yet it is located in the continent of South America.

So, what is my take on that? Well, I honestly don't know much about the French Guiana to begin with. I just know that it's technically European Union presence on South American soil. And in that sense, the French Guiana is just one example among others.

I'm not sure that the concept of blocs are the solution to the underlying problems here, at least not all of them. For example, would it make sense for Argentina and Finland to form a bloc, with a few other countries? What would be the purpose of that? A more efficient trade? I'd say that we don't need a bloc for that.

For example, would it make sense for Argentina and Finland to form a bloc, with a few other countries? — Arcane Sandwich

If there is a reason for it, if the cooperation would be mutually good for all countries involved, why not? There has to be a reason. Otherwise it's just empty talk, handshakes and the usual photo opportunities.

If there is a reason for it, if the cooperation would be mutually good for all countries involved, why not? There has to be a reason. Otherwise it's just empty talk, handshakes and the usual photo opportunities. — ssu

And if the reason is just to talk about philosophy between a Finn and an Argentine on an Internet forum? Is that sort of cooperation mutually beneficial for all countries involved? If you say "no", then why are we talking here, you and me? If you say "yes", then here is my next question: would it be just empty talk, handshakes and the usual photo opportunities? In other words, is this conversation between you and me, just empty talk? If you say "yes", then my next question is: why are we talking then, you and me? If you say "no", then my other question is: if it's not just empty talk, what is it about this conversation that makes it substantive in any way? I mean, I tried to talk to you about the topic of music, but it's not a subject that you're interested in, apparently. Do you like ABBA, for exampe? Or Roxette? Is that it?

Individuals talking about philosophy is a reason itself, as we can get new insights from each other and can improve ourselves with the discourse. I'm all for that.

Nation states and the people acting as their representatives, it's a bit different. They talk as representatives and usually have a political domestic agenda, which foreign policy should implement and help.

For nations to engage each other there is this need of recipocity and something for the leadership to show for. Usually the leadership of a country has a mandate to do something, usually to improve the situation of it's people.

Hence if it's Javier Milei meeting our President Alexander Stubb, the obvious question is how trade between the two countries can be increased or what kind of investments could Finland do in Argentina. This is what both Milei and Stubb would want and it would be mutually beneficial for the two countries. The rather small trade between the countries is telling: Finland exported about 400 million euros worth of industrial equipment to Argentina while Argentina exported a meager 10 million euros worth to Finland, mainly wines. Only ten or so Finnish companies operate in Argentina and they employ only 400 people. In Uruguay Finnish investments are far larger with forty companies operating and the exports being over twice as to Argentina, so there obviously is much room for improvement as Argentina is a larger country than Uruguay.

Argentinian wines are good and Argentinian steaks are World renown. Naturally Finland wants to sustain some level of production in agriculture as it's sea lanes could be cut off (and Finland couldn't sustain itself by land connection by Sweden), yet I would think there would be a market for more Argentinian beef and wine. Also as Finland wants to diversify it's energy exports, why not buy LNG from Argentina?

As both Presidents are likely on a tight schedule and likely will have only some brief time to engage with each other, the discussion on commerce and political relations would be important. Yes, they could have a wonderful talk about philosophy, but would that be the most useful way for heads of the political structures to spend their time?

And why would this be important for Argentina? Because exports for Argentina are only 12,93% compared to the GDP, while Finland it is 40,96%. On the trade openess index Finland is on place 106th while Argentina is 192nd out of 196. Here you can see the real effects of Peronism as international trade simply isn't an important part of Argentinian economy. For Peronism "economic independence" has been one of the cornerstones of the political ideology. In fact, as Peronism is actually one type of populism, you can see what the effects on the long run have been in Argentina. At the start of the 20th Century, Argentina was far more wealthier than Finland with far higher GDP / per capita. Now the

Commerce has been the way that rich countries have become rich. For smaller countries (and larger ones, like Germany) international trade has been very important. Yet there's a false narrative that they are rich because they have exploited other countries. Being colonial powers has usually made only a few very rich and in the end have been a more of a problem. Portugal as one of the first European colonial powers and the last one just shows how detrimental it has been and how poor the country was with trying to fight colonial wars in Africa in the 1970's.

Individuals talking about philosophy is a reason itself, as we can get new insights from each other and can improve ourselves with the discourse. I'm all for that. — ssu

Then let's do it. Is there a philosophical reason that you have for avoiding music as a topic of conversation? Or is it that don't find music to be a particularly interesting thing to talk about, from a philosophical standpoint?

Nation states and the people acting as their representatives, it's a bit different. They talk as representatives and usually have a political domestic agenda, which foreign policy should implement and help. — ssu

Well, what am I then, and what are you? Notice that I'm not asking who am I, or who are you. I'm asking what are we. Are we not members of our respective nations? Am I not an Argentine? Are you not a Finn? This talk between you and me is a talk between two different nations in that sense. Furthermore, no one is representing me in this conversation, and no one is representing you.

For nations to engage each other there is this need of recipocity and something for the leadership to show for. — ssu

But no nation is identical to its leadership. So, what is the need of reciprocity here, between you and me? Do you want to talk about Argentine wines? Finnish investments? Why would we do that? We have representatives for that, as you so eloquently pointed out. Let them talk about the wines and the investments. We can talk about that as well, if you like, it's just that I don't find it to be a particularly interesting thing to talk about. I'd rather talk about music, for example.

At the start of the 20th Century, Argentina was far more wealthier than Finland with far higher GDP / per capita. — ssu

Well, during the 19th Century, Argentina declared its independence from the Spanish Empire, fought a War of Independence, followed by a Civil War, and later by an extermination campaign in the Pampas and the Patagonia. That was followed by five military dictatorships during the 20th Century, including a War with Britain in Malvinas. A very different history than the one that characterized Finland during the 19th and 20th centuries. Perhaps that's why the communication between you and me is so incredibly difficult, even though it might look perfectly normal to other people.

Is there a philosophical reason that you have for avoiding music as a topic of conversation? — Arcane Sandwich

Nope. I just try to stick to the actual topic of the thread.

Are we not members of our respective nations? Am I not an Argentine? Are you not a Finn? This talk between you and me is a talk between two different nations in that sense. — Arcane Sandwich

In that sense, but then again this is also talk between two people who are interested in philosophy.

So, what is the need of reciprocity here, between you and me? — Arcane Sandwich

Again, it's about the topic of the thread, that starts with the opening paragraph of @Bob Ross, which is on intent quite provocative. Imperialism isn't reciprocity, it doesn't start from mutual benefits as peaceful engagement does. Looking at World history from the viewpoint of Great Power competition hides or forgets a lot what happens in peacetime.

A very different history than the one that characterized Finland during the 19th and 20th centuries. — Arcane Sandwich

Not actually so different, if you take the 19th and 20th centuries. Both have had civil wars. Both have gotten independence from an Great Power. Both have fought the British (Finland as a Grand Dutchy of Russia then, but still). Where the difference is from being on different continents: Finland never has had a military junta and has had no extermination campaigns. Finland has stayed as a democracy and has prospered rather well, still being poorer than Sweden or Denmark, but still.

Perhaps that's why the communication between you and me is so incredibly difficult, — Arcane Sandwich

Is it?

Nope. I just try to stick to the actual topic of the thread. — ssu

Ah, but you are too Lawful, my dear. You lack a bit of the Chaotic joyfulness that I have : )

Besides, music has much to do with the issues that the OP raises. How could it not? Think of military marches, for example, or prison songs, for that matter. Songs to inspire moral, songs to record an event. I think you underestimate the role that music has played throughout history. There is no reason to think that this is any different in our times, unless you think that History ended some years ago, and this is "just politics" now.

In that sense, but then again this is also talk between two people who are interested in philosophy. — ssu

Well, yes. We are also two Animals (Primates, specifically) engaged in conversation. We also happen to be two physical bodies, composed of some of the elements of the Periodic Table (most notably, carbon). And we also happen to be two physical entities that emerge from subatomic particles. In that sense, we have something in common. Something that runs deeper than nationality. Something that runs deeper than biology. Something that runs deeper than chemistry. See what I mean?

Again, it's about the topic of the thread, that starts with the opening paragraph of Bob Ross, which is on intent quite provocative. Imperialism isn't reciprocity, it doesn't start from mutual benefits as peaceful engagement does. Looking at World history from the viewpoint of Great Power competition hides or forgets a lot what happens in peacetime. — ssu

Or just look at this brief exchange, between you and me.

Not actually so different, if you take the 19th and 20th centuries. Both have had civil wars. Both have gotten independence from an Great Power. Both have fought the British (Finland as a Grand Dutchy of Russia then, but still). Where the difference is from being on different continents: Finland never has had a military junta and has had no extermination campaigns. Finland has stayed as a democracy and has prospered rather well, still being poorer than Sweden or Denmark, but still. — ssu

Plus we have very different native languages. I speak Castilian ("Spanish"), you speak Suomi ("Finnish"). And yet we are using English to communicate. In that sense, English is our Common language. It is "The Language of this Empire", if you will, except that there's no actual empire to back it up. Hence, it's just one of the Common World Languages by now, 2025.

What is there to talk about, then, if not music? Perhaps film? Painting? Poetry?

Is it? — ssu

It is, yes. You're extremely Lawful, On Topic. I'm far more Chaotic in that sense.

Ah, but you are too Lawful, my dear. You lack a bit of the Chaotic joyfulness that I have : ) — Arcane Sandwich

Chaotic Latin joyfulness??? Ah, the wonderful national stereotypes.

Besides, music has much to do with the issues that the OP raises. How could it not? Think of military marches, for example, or prison songs, for that matter. Songs to inspire moral, songs to record an event. I think you underestimate the role that music has played throughout history. There is no reason to think that this is any different in our times, unless you think that History ended some years ago, and this is "just politics" now. — Arcane Sandwich

Well, this hasn't gone unnoticed when creating nation states and national identities. We indeed have national anthems and patriotic songs that we listen on certain events. The collective experience is important.

What would be more fitting than this one for you, my friend. Notice how the crowd sings along:

Why would you not be a Western supremacist? — Bob Ross

Well, I'm a 'cosmopolitan alter-globalist'...

In Support of Western[ White ] Supremacy, Nationalism, and Imperialism

Like "whiteness", "the west" is a myth, and, as a scientifically and historically literate (postcolonial) freethinker, I'm engaged in praxes of support for both the abductive disenchanting of nature and dialectical demythifying of political economies.

Chaotic Latin joyfulness??? Ah, the wonderful national stereotypes. — ssu

How can it be a national stereotype, if Latin is not a nation? The nation is Argentina in this case, Latin is simply a language that no nation speaks. It's not even spoken in Europe anymore. There is nothing Latin about me, or about the language that I speak, just as there is nothing acorn-like about the tree that once used to be nothing but an acorn : )

What would be more fitting than this one for you, my friend. Notice how the crowd sings along: — ssu

Quite a boring song, if I'm being honest. I prefer this other one:

Like "whiteness", "the west" is a myth

Firstly, my OP is not arguing for white supremacy; and I don't know why you went there.

How is the west a myth? Historically, the democratic values we all tend to love originated out of the west and the east has been playing catch-up.

So you believe Eurocentrism – "Western Supremacy, Nationalism and Imperialism" (re: OP) – is not (euphemistically) synonymous with White Supremacy? How naive of you, Bob (or disingenuous, Captain Renault). :roll:

Bob should know why you went there. But then again Samir Amin, the Marxian economist who coined the term eurocentrism, thought that fascism was the extreme version of eurocentrism.

And it should be noted that many that speak of things like "Western supremacy" are happy to take Japan to be part of that West, unlike their contemporaries of the 19th and early 20th Century. For them, modernization and westernization are synonyms and democratic values inherently Western and not anything else. How European or Western Japanese actually think of themselves being is another issue, as they seldom are asked about it.

Samir Amin, the Marxian economist who coined the term eurocentrism, thought that fascism was the extreme version of eurocentrism. — ssu

What do you think of that, @ssu? Agree? Disagree? Sort of agree, sort of disagree?

For them, modernization and westernization are synonyms. — ssu

Are they? What's your take on that?

How European or Western Japanese actually think of themselves being is another issue, as they seldom are asked about it. — ssu

How do you know that they're seldom asked about it? Do you know any of them? There's a lot of foreigners living in Japan as of 2025.

EDIT: BTW @ssu is "Rule, Britannia!" the best you got, as far as music goes? I feel like you're not putting much of an effort in the music department. Here, let me help you out. I see your "Rule, Britannia!" and I raise you "Mano Brava":

The idea that western values are superior to eastern values in no way implies nor entails that the white "race" is superior to any other "race".

What do you think of that, ssu? Agree? Disagree? Sort of agree, sort of disagree? — Arcane Sandwich

There's truth to that. At the most simple level, we just love to look at our own navel and think about us. That modern life in other continents is quite the same, people have quite similar ideas what is right or wrong is a fact. Why then the hubris? Something that is now universal, is universal, even if it first happened in Europe. If Europe adapted inventions from China or India, we don't call the "Asianization" of Europe.

Samir Amin, who btw as a Marxist supported the Khmer Rouge and was their apologist, goes on to say that it isn't about "catching up", but that eurocentrism leads to polarization of the World. I'm not so sure about that.

Are they? What's your take on that? — Arcane Sandwich

No. Modernization can happen in many ways.

In history it has been that Europe hasn't been on the cutting edge.Europe of the Dark Ages is an example of this as then the teachings of Antiquity were held by the Muslim east. The Asian military superiority was evident when the Mongol Horde came into Europe and defeated larger European armies. Lucky for Europe that they didn't do more than a "recon attack". It was only Napoleon that woke up the Ottomans, before they were the ones trying to take Vienna and being the imperialists taking territory. Only after the Renaissance and especially the Age of Enlightenment and industrialization it turned to being "From the West to the rest" as @Bob Ross perhaps would say.

Many times it's not the success of someone, but the failures of others.

EDIT: BTW ssu is "Rule, Britannia!" the best you got, as far as music goes? — Arcane Sandwich

We were talking about patriotic music. Or how nation states use music for their own purposes. And since you where an Argentinian, why not then British patriotic music? I guess you have heard quite much the Himno Nacional Argentino already.

eurocentrism leads to polarization of the World. I'm not so sure about that. — ssu

Explain why you're not so sure about that, please.

Many times it's not the success of someone, but the failures of others. — ssu

Wise words, I suppose.

EDIT: BTW ssu is "Rule, Britannia!" the best you got, as far as music goes? — Arcane Sandwich

We were talking about patriotic music. Or how nation states use music for their own purposes. And since you where an Argentinian, why not then British patriotic music? — ssu

You kinda answered your own question there.

I guess you have heard quite much the Himno Nacional Argentino already. — ssu

Not really.

Again, @ssu, I see what you're trying to do here, with your selection of music. You might think that your move with "Rule, Britannia!" is some sort of marvelous, genius display of playful irony, in an attempt to get me, an Argentine, riled up. What do you want me to say? It's rather cringe on your part. Like, you're not a Brit, you're a Finn. To my mind, it's like you're not putting in much of an effort to get me riled up, honestly. It just comes off as weird on your part. Like, if we're talking about assertiveness and/or playful aggression, you're just doing the bare minimum here. I was taught otherwise. I was taught that effort pays off. I'm sure there's an equivalent notion in Suomi. There's gotta be. Anyways, here's another patriotic song:

The idea that western [greedy individualism] are superior to eastern [collectivist communality] in no way implies nor entails that the white "race" is superior to any other "race". — Bob Ross

Consider Kipling's 1899 imperialist paean ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Man%27s_Burden

and Mark Twain's 1901 response ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_the_Person_Sitting_in_Darkness

↪180 Proof Bob should know why you went there — ssu

:up:

Notice the Norwegian flag.

Did you see this documentary on Norwegian black metal? It's really good.