I'm not using your identity to classify you at all, I am saying your identity is your classification. You were born not hatched,- that makes you mammal not bird or reptile. As soon as you establish a relation, to parent, for example, you have established a social connection. You don't have to say it's a social connection, or even believe it's a social connection, but it is a social connection. Likewise, you do not have to tell me you are a member of the English-speaking community, you have already shown me, and it is not my posts that make it so, but yours.

Whereas the reality is that an individual is made of social relations. — unenlightened

:100: Which point should be a bedrock principle for any sensible conversation on identity. Yet the romantic myth of the pure asocial individual will trundle on. As if the very medium of thought weren't social, or the medium of emotion not socially embedded. Or that the vectors of the myth didn't so often club together for the sole purpose of repeating said myth like herds of seals clapping in unison. (Could just as well post this in the Objectivism discussion re Randians...)

You mentioned your mother and father. Another term for that is "family."

Also, you mentioned place, time, etc. That would put you with the group also born in that place, at that time, etc.

Whereas the reality is that an individual is made of social relations.
— unenlightened

:100: Which point should be a bedrock principle for any sensible conversation on identity. — Baden

Yes, I had hoped that the bedrock could be built on a little here, rather than just pointing out to folks, again, what that is under their feet.

Randians - the group of individuals who believe themselves leaders of a non-existent society. AKA Thatcherites.

You mentioned your mother and father. Another term for that is "family." — Terrapin Station

No it isn't. "Family" has many meanings. None of them is "mother", nor "father". I stated the relevant facts, that I have a mother and a father, and you've drawn the conclusion that I have a family.



If you've read Plato's Republic you'll understand that he suggests a type of community in which the identity of an individual's mother and father are not revealed to that child. The child is a baby of the commune, and is identified as a member of that group, not so and so's daughter or son. (There may be a noble lie required here). Now if you look into naming traditions, it hasn't always been the case that a person's family name is representative of that person's father (or mother). That is a relatively recent trend. If you look back into some family name histories, you'll find some instances where the family name means member of such and such tribe, or group, rather than son or daughter of so and so. The modern rendition of one's identity, where the family name signifies son or daughter of so and so is only one of a number of possible forms of identity.

The child is a baby of the commune, and is identified as a member of that group, not so and so's daughter or son. — Metaphysician Undercover

So you could have identified yourself as a member of some commune or tribe, and you might not have known who your parents were or your date of birth. But as it happens, you did identify yourself as the child of particular parents and thus as a member of a family, and not a member of a tribe or commune.

The modern rendition of one's identity, where the family name signifies son or daughter of so and so is only one of a number of possible forms of identity. — Metaphysician Undercover

Whoever said it was the only way? But I really don't want to labour this point, which is just preventing the discussion I want to have, by calling into question what should be obvious. So I am going to presume you are wrong without engaging further, and if you want to start a thread on the nature of identity I may contribute there.

So you could have identified yourself as a member of some commune or tribe, and you might not have known who your parents were or your date of birth. But as it happens, you did identify yourself as the child of particular parents and thus as a member of a family, and not a member of a tribe or commune. — unenlightened

Yes, this is the means of identity which is commonly enforced in today's society, In contrast, the commune I described attempts to enforce a different form of identity by denying public knowledge of one's parents. And, in today's societies, many people choose to identify by one's citizenry, race or other types of group. There's profiling, stereotyping, and all sorts of ways of identifying a person by positioning the person as within a particular group.

Whoever said it was the only way? But I really don't want to labour this point, which is just preventing the discussion I want to have, by calling into question what should be obvious. So I am going to presume you are wrong without engaging further, and if you want to start a thread on the nature of identity I may contribute there. — unenlightened

I'm wrong about what? I don't see what you're disagreeing with. The point is that you can either identify a person as the individual which one is, or as a member of a group. The latter method leads to all sorts of societal boundaries, exclusionary ideologies and attitudes like racism and bigotry. The "paradox" you speak of in the op, which is better described as hypocrisy, is the result of the common practise of identifying people as members of a group, when we say that individuals ought to be judged as the individual which one is. How can you judge a person as an individual when you can only identify that individual as a member of a group?

Again, I wonder at this. Where else do you think anyone might be looking from? Someone seems to have told you that society is made of individuals the way a house is made of bricks, Whereas the reality is that an individual is made of social relations — unenlightened

That's more or less what I mean. Cultural identity comes through comparison and relations with other cultures. This exchange between culture is part of a culture's identity but...

No culture is so perfect that it will stand to always lose from interacting with other cultures. Identity isn't as important as getting to a better place to me and to do that cultures must enter into some give-and-take with others around it.

So a large part of what I am doing here is describing a particular culture, which I also claim to be part of, which has a particular characteristic of alienation from itself. It is a product, in the first place of globalism, made possible by rapid transport and instant communications, and in the second place by an education system that values scepticism, reflexivity, criticism and self-criticism. Cultural self-awareness is a primary characteristic.

Cultural identity comes through comparison and relations with other cultures. This exchange between culture is part of a culture's identity but... — TheMadFool

I disagree, if I understand you right, but 'cultural identity' is a troubling term here. Most isolated cultures think of themselves as 'the people', and the occasional incomer as 'other' (very often mad, sad or bad). But it is internal relations that form the culture rather than external ones. For example, there is in the UK a culture - properly a 'sub-culture', amongst schoolchildren, of playground games, rhymes, rituals and mores, that persists through the generations without or despite adult intervention which is in a sense formed in reaction and opposition to the adult culture, but primarily is self-concerned, with relations between children without the adult as other. Indeed, the exclusion of adults is the prime directive - "Don't tell!" It is a secret society, an underground resistance, but even so, not formed by relations with adults. So it is alienated from the adult culture, but not from itself.

My culture, which might already be yours, or which this thread might be an induction into, or might be oppositional to yours, is alienated from itself. To be inducted into it is to be alienated from it in a reflexive, paradoxical awakening. It is to see oneself from the outside as embedded in a culture. It is the condition of post-modernism. It is oppositional primarily to the nihilism of cultural relativism, because it sees that cultural relativism is itself absolutely a culture of false humility. Thus the abnegation of the tyranny of colonialism is just another tyranny, and the only best hope is of a dominant culture that is aware of its dominance, and justifies its dominance by its self-awareness.

So we are supporters of oppressed minorities, of black folks, the disabled, women, etc etc. And thus supporters of the Sentinelese, in so far as we interpret their murderous treatment of immigrants as a legitimate demand for privacy.

And there is the beginning of the problem. Because we do not, elsewhere, at the Israeli-Palestinian border, or the US -Mexican border, or the European-African border, take the same respectful understanding view of those cultures that want to maintain their own privacy/purity/security/cultural integrity. — unenlightened

But when the US wants to maintain its cultural integrity by building a wall to keep people that we don't know out, then that is more barbaric than the Sentinelese treatment if their immigrants. Go figure.

What if the Sentinelese were polluting their environment or chopping down rain forests where its impact can affect other cultures?

Go figure. — Harry Hindu

What the flying fuck do you think I'm doing? Go figure yourself.

I meant that to have cultural identity one must differ from other cultures. Only through comparative difference can an identity be established. That's what I think anyway.

As for your views on a dominant culture, I'd prefer universal appeal. Perhaps that's what you meant by ''dominant''. I say this because ''dominant'' seems to connote power which may be exercised through force. I think you're right in the sense that with culutural admixing, people automatically retain the good and the bad peters away in a few generations or so. I must however caution as to the wisdom of the masses - people aren't philosophers by nature and what appeals to them may not always be what's good. All the more reason to guide the masses through enlightened discourse.

I have no idea.

First, don't we need to question the claim of some people over some land? Or are we simply defending our groups resources? Claiming land is one thing, defending that claim is something else. Who has a right to claim land in the first place when every group's ancestors had to migrate from somewhere else in the past. History provides a more objective context.

I meant that to have cultural identity one must differ from other cultures. Only through comparative difference can an identity be established. That's what I think anyway. — TheMadFool

Right, I see. Yes, if by established you mean known, recognised. That is, Some undiscovered tribe can and will have a particular culture on its own, but will not recognise it as a culture, but regard it more or less as human nature. 'Everyone puts a bone through their nose because that's what people do.' And then they meet the white devil monkeys who cannot speak properly...

As for your views on a dominant culture, I'd prefer universal appeal. — TheMadFool

Well I'd prefer it too, except I don't think it's right. Firstly, it seriously lacks universal appeal because it is hard work and bruising to the ego. Secondly, to anyone who has a satisfying culture of their own is going to find it runs counter to their own values.

So I call it dominant because it is the culture that recognises other cultures and itself as cultures, and is thus more able to understand inter-cultural relations. So compare it with the Randian culture mentioned above, or the dying culture of the industrial working class, and I think it is readily apparent that it has a flexibility that will give it the upper hand in the long run, Trump and Brexit notwithstanding. They are stupid and shortsighted, and therefore they will lose.

the only best hope is of a dominant culture that is aware of its dominance, and justifies its dominance by its self-awareness. — unenlightened

In what sense can a culture be aware of anything? Do you mean that people who have the power to undermine other cultures would be aware of that power? Like Christian missionaries who dig wells for people in Africa or the movie producer whose movie makes fun of Kim Jong-un? In both of these cases, the change-makers are very aware of their power.

And in case I'm due a "fuck you" for this post, well, fuck you!

In what sense can a culture be aware of anything? — frank

First, if you can hold to the notion "...that an individual is made of social relations", then it will sound less strange to talk about what a culture is aware of, rather than what an individual is aware of. (The cult of the individual is a culture)

In an isolated culture, as I just said to TheMadFool above, there is no 'other', and therefore there is no awareness of culture in the culture. Compare that to the culture of the Roman or British Empire, where there is full awareness of a range of cultures, but still an awareness as Roman & Barbarian. The nearest one gets to a critical self-awareness is a nostalgia for the golden age. Now I'm painting with a very broad brush, but some combination of events and circumstances, perhaps the Holocaust, the end of Empire the development of nuclear weapons, the development of the human sciences, mass migrations, the maturing of capitalism, has called into question the goodness and greatness of the Great and the Good. "Perhaps - our wonderful Christian traditions are not What the Sentielese need or want for 'the best'... " "Perhaps, English is not the language everyone needs to speak..."

Let me put it this way, supposing my culture is dominant, and powerful, supposing my culture involves knowing this, then its expression would not be defensive, as if we are liable to be overwhelmed unless we build a wall. It would not need to suppress or eliminate other cultures. And so it is, that the more xenophobic cultures are those in decline, those that are weak or dying.

Let me put it this way, supposing my culture is dominant, and powerful, supposing my culture involves knowing this, then its expression would not be defensive, as if we are liable to be overwhelmed unless we build a wall. It would not need to suppress or eliminate other cultures. And so it is, that the more xenophobic cultures are those in decline, those that are weak or dying. — unenlightened

Or in flux. Yes, I pointed this out earlier.

From my perspective I look at a culture and discuss whether they add anything helpful to human society. If they do, then they should be allowed to coexist, if they do not, then what's the problem with wiping them out, or getting them to conform, etc. Are these people adding anything to help better the society of the rest of the world? They haven't even discovered fire. Perhaps what they're adding is a scientific place of observation for us to discover how we acted before technology. If that's the case, then they should be observed and tested. If not, then they add nothing other than being a nuisance to progress. Take religion, I believe most people on here aren't very religious because they believe it adds a roadblock to progress in intellectual honesty. So what is our goal as human species? To understand our surroundings and take control of it so we are free to live a happy life. Letting them coexist with us has no moral founding, and is more based on the feelings of us, which we developed over time through periods of enlightenment. They don't feel the same way as us, nor will the ever. They don't add anything to society, there's no moral implication if they were to suddenly vanish tomorrow, we'd still function normally and wouldn't be affected at all by them. So they are useless.

Thank you for describing your primitive culture.

So I call it dominant because it is the culture that recognises other cultures and itself as cultures, and is thus more able to understand inter-cultural relations. So compare it with the Randian culture mentioned above, or the dying culture of the industrial working class, and I think it is readily apparent that it has a flexibility that will give it the upper hand in the long run, Trump and Brexit notwithstanding. They are stupid and shortsighted, and therefore they will lose. — unenlightened

Yes, values change with knowledge and that is growing at a rapid pace. You also mentioned globalization. It's a struggle I guess for cultures to stay relevant to our fast-changing informed minds. Flexibility is necessary for a culture to be valued but, oddly, it would be an ever-morphing entity without a fixed identity. Would you call this culture? Cultural flexibiity would mean losing identity piecemeal or in toto while matching the approval or rejection of the people. It seems flexibiity isn't a good option for culture. The other alternative - rigid resistance - is even worse. All cultures that are now lost didn't adapt or were not flexible enough to keep up with change. I guess you're right, given a choice between rigidity and flexibility, the latter is a wiser choice.

I believe it to be an enlightened culture. We want the human race to succeed. The only argument in favor of culture as such to exist are religious arguments. We all should understand a tribe that reacts to a man coming to their homeland by killing him is not morally correct in any sense. They can't cooperate, so therefore we don't have a reason to care for them, we can murder them and nothing would happen.

First, if you can hold to the notion "...that an individual is made of social relations", then it will sound less strange to talk about what a culture is aware of, rather than what an individual is aware of. (The cult of the individual is a culture) — unenlightened

Until you recognize that the identity of the individual is proper to the individual, qua individual, rather than as a member of any particular group, the existence of divisions and boundaries within the population will remain unintelligible to you. That is because the only real boundary or division within the population is the one that separates the individual from everyone else. The boundaries which separate groups are ideological boundaries. To identify an individual by designating one as part of a group, culture, or whatever, is an identity based in the ideology of the person doing the identifying, rather than in the true identity of the individual. The individual is not "made of social relations", ideologies are made of social relations.

Is the paradox that yours is a culture which allows nativism in other cultures in the name of diversity, but disallows nativism with respect to itself?

I'm just trying to restate what you're getting at succinctly and clearly.

Wales should probably be cleared for use by the various displaced persons who want to live in Europe. Unenlightened could be in charge of the clearance. Let's see, Wales has 5,129,413 acres; if we settle all these refugees and various opportunists at a density of 10 people per acre, we could put 50 million people in Wales, each getting about 4350 sq. ft. each. The current population of wales is at a density of less than 2 per acre -- obviously the Welsh are hogging too much land.

So, what to do with the Welsh? Maybe an exchange program? For every immigrant from Syria or Bangladesh to Wales, 1 Welshperson can take their place in Damascus or a Dhaka. It's the least these privileged white people can do for their unfortunate oppressed brown brothers and sisters.

Wales would finally be really multicultural, very diverse--which is what really matters.

Save the Wales!

Let me put it this way, supposing my culture is dominant, and powerful, supposing my culture involves knowing this, then its expression would not be defensive, as if we are liable to be overwhelmed unless we build a wall. It would not need to suppress or eliminate other cultures. And so it is, that the more xenophobic cultures are those in decline, those that are weak or dying. — unenlightened

This is nonsense. A culture in decline wouldn't have millions of people risking their lives to immigrate to it. Millions of people risking their lives to immigrate to your country is evidence that your culture isn't in decline and millions of people leaving your culture is evidence that your culture is in decline. It is the reason why you have to build a wall or else you become overwhelmed by the costs to accommodate these people into your culture. In other words, it will bring your culture into a decline. We see what is happening in Europe as well with the Arab immigrants. Accepting other groups that don't want to adopt your culture but bring their own is what causes a culture to decline.

Is the paradox that yours is a culture which allows nativism in other cultures in the name of diversity, but disallows nativism with respect to itself?

I'm just trying to restate what you're getting at succinctly and clearly. — Moliere

No. I'm trying to describe rather than formulate or justify. I think the paradox has to be lived.I'll try and lay it out. Let's try it as a moral dilemma first. I think the diversity principle comes from cultural relativism.

So if you look above at @ep3265, or @Harry Hindu, they clearly do not really appreciate that their contributions are simply expressions of a different culture. they are the people I tried to warn off in the op thus: "If you're not of that ilk, you probably won't appreciate the difficulty I'm trying to get to, and will be inclined to say helpful things like,"well duh, stop being so wrong!" - in which case please just butt out and let us namby-pambies agonise in peace a minute." They are not aware that their judgements of culture are culturally conditioned, or to the extent that they are, they are fanatics convinced that they have the one true culture - colonialists.

We Namby-Pambies reject such nonsense, but we also reject radical relativism and moral nihilism.That is the paradox - to embrace and reject relativism. The awareness that our judgements are as culturally conditioned as any other makes our judgements more sound. Psychologically this is called 'insight'.

Humans are animals. But what makes us different from animals is that only we humans know that we are animals.

Namby-Pambies are a human culture. But what makes our culture different is that only our culture is aware that it is a culture.

Within a particular "culture", there are varying ideologies. The supporters of one ideology may relate to the supporters of another ideology in a variety of different ways. They may seek to compromise, and minimize differences, or they may enhance differences. One may seek to oppress or annihilate the other. The importance of these differences which lie within any particular culture, make cultural identity a non-valuable form of identity, as unreliable.

So we must turn to ideology to find a form of identity with veracity. Ideologies, based in ideas, arise from the individual, so an ideology is created by an individual, not vise versa. The ideology does not create the individual, the individual creates the ideology. That is the nature of free will.

Namby-Pambies are a human culture. But what makes our culture different is that only our culture is aware that it is a culture. — unenlightened

Namby-Pambism is more of an ideology than a culture. it pervades many cultures and is not proper to one. Perhaps your "culture", in being "aware that it is a culture", is mistaken, and is not really a culture at all.

Ask yourself, what is "a culture", what differentiates one culture from another. Unless you're an archeologist who only has physical artifacts to go by, you'll most likely refer to some ideologies. Culture is a reflection of ideology. Don't ignore Plato's Republic. Get yourself out of that dank world of darkness, the cave, and we'll welcome you to the world of philosophy. (Where the sun shines brightly every day.)