Post Modern view of the world... (283 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 0 on 15 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by ? (View user info) at 2008-04-10 20:27:28 EDT
Post modern view of the world.
I was told a couple weeks ago in my honors class during debate by my professor that I think with my heart and thinking with your heart in polices of the world makes no sense.
I have a very post modern view of the world. I have a very Romantic view of the world. My ethics and thoughts basically stem form Romanticism and that view of the world. I feel that man is inherently good.
We are all good people. Everyone. I may be a lot of things but I have always smiled at the thought that people view me as a good person. I like that. I strive on that. I care a little too much about those around me. My views of those around me only influence me to strive to do what is right.
I have a question of ethics for those in the uber world. A question that has risen though my mind for the last couple of weeks.
Does there come a time when the ethics of the world out weigh way the ethics of a culture, a people or a race?
I think it does. Culture is inherent in everyone and is breed out of customs that have existed and have been altered a tiny bit at a time to make a people and a thought process and a belief. I understand this.
But I don't like sitting by and letting decadence and pain go through a people because they have always lived that way. I don't like that at all. The problem with a lot of nations I feel is that the technology, the education of man has risen but people still stick to the Stone Age reasons of thought.
I'm speaking of countries in the clutch of religion. I use the word "Clutch" to explain that they are trapped and in the clutches of something that is getting quite insane. I really don't adhere to religion. To each his own is my thought.
I have done a lot of work basically trying to understand the thoughts of some religions. Basically I have helped get multicultural days on campus and also spoken too many who are deep into there religion. Mainly Muslims.
I liked the thoughts of Muslims for a while. But the more I got into it the more my stomach began to turn. The future in that is so bleak and crazy that it is very disheartening. I have a problem with the religion.
Not with anything else besides the fact that the women in there are basically slaves. To their fathers, to their brothers and then to their husbands. They sell and buy women over there as if it is buying a goat. The fathers sell there daughters to men at the age of 9-15 and the girl is forced into intercourse then.
My problem with this is the fact that the women are being killed in honor killings if they do not adhere to there husband, disrobe, etc... There own families lure them out and will kill them. There mothers can't help them. The killings are usually there very own families.
This is pandemonium to me. I feel that if a religion or a nation is fucking "killing" people you have a right to question it. You have an obligation to. When America was one of the last nations in the world with an open market for slaves in the 1800's. The world did not approve. England, France other nations let it be known and pressured us to change our culture to get rid of that.
There does come a point when the ethics of the world outweigh the ethics of a nation. That point is when they are killing people in torturous ways, cutting and beheading people and killing those that are not favored upon in society.
I just didn't like how my teacher gave me a cop out answer of "who are we to judge?" I told him flatly that we are society. We have the right to judge a culture, or religion, or anything if it killing and beheading its citizens in a barbaric way or else for offences that seem ludicrous to those that are educated.
Not even educated. Enlightened to the fabric of thought that has risen since this era. They still stone people which I find fucking blindly insane. Stoning women at an ever increasing rate for not having sex with her man, or else even speaking to another man in public is an offense.
They are allowed to basically have slaves. The woman are bought and sold and it is seen as part of there religion. This "Who are we to judge?" crap is bullshit. If it comes to human rights we have a right to judge.
I have to admit as a man girls have pissed me off, and I would like to point and girls and instantly have them get with me. But I like the fact that those that are with me are because of their own free will. The fact that they want to see me is what I like. I just don't like the way I see the world turning.
It's like we took 11 steps forward in the 80's- 90's now it seems we have backed up fucking 4-5 steps were people feel its okay to racist and hateful. It just hearts my heart a little bit.
I guess it's my Romantic view of the world. I have a very Romanticized view of man. I beginning to learn like Robert Owens that the theory of a utopia is only a theory because we never adhere to the thought that the essence of man if "Flawed". We are flawed.
Everyone takes care of their own. I don't know what to say. I guess that is why that view died out in the 1920's...
Well blow me up uber...
User Reviews
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2008-04-11 01:43:58 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I almost read most of this.
Submitted by PerkMan (user info) at 2008-04-10 21:29:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ltap- You sound like a stupid shit. Of course humans are that. But you know what you are a person who is part of a giant soceity. There has to laws placed in society to keep all those in line.
Wow, I'm spiraling downwards? really? wow you got me figured out. God you're about as useless as a cunt on a guy you stupid fuck.
Submitted by PerkMan (user info) at 2008-04-10 21:26:28 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Phallic- My point is that the infestation of fucking knowledge helped sparked the change to lead them to fucking moral thoughts. If you are stoning someone because you feel that you're god is telling you to and that is all you know then you will continue doing that. But if someone inputs a new thought process in you're head you have the thought to keep doing what you have been doing or question it. That's my point.
With Muslims (Christians as well as others) or people of old religion. The fact that the internet has been invented would lead someone to question there beliefs. There belief and punishment of acts come from the Stone Age. History has shown that with technology a spark of thought of morality changes as well. That's how it goes the smarter you get the more you question everything and its worth for yourself and your society.
If you educate the shaman and he understands that medicine works for his people. If he learns that and gets educated he will probably stop or not practice the religion he has done because he understands that it is not all true. He is not going to keep running into the brick wall he will change what he thinks because he knows the truth.
When I say ethics of the world I'm not speaking of a singular country. I mean developed nations across the world feel that selling woman and stoning them is wrong then it is wrong. Fuck you're religion and you're culture. When it comes to killing people they have to be stopped and questioned. It is all developing nations. That's how I feel about it.
Submitted by Ltap (user info) at 2008-04-10 21:26:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You're a moron. Like Phallic_Cymbals said, you seem to link technological advancement as a sort of advancement in humanity in general, which means a moral advancement. This is false. Humans fundamentally can not change, and are neither inherently good nor evil nor flawed. They are simply creatures whose actions rely on preprogrammed biological impulses and past experience, no more.
Has anybody noticed that PerkMan seems to be spiralling downward? A while ago he was blathering about some medical career and now he's having musings. For someone as stupid as him to be musing is a bad sign - it means suicidal musings aren't far away, then just plain old-fashioned suicide.
Cya, man.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-04-10 21:16:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
You seem to make a link between technological advancement and some sort of 'moral intelligence' based on having 'all the facts'. If i've mischaracterised what you were saying, i'm sorry, but that's the message i got from your post below.
I offer you the following response:
If China made significant advances into the areas of cloning and genetic research, they would be the world frontrunners in those fields. Would that give them the right to dictate to the world the moral boundaries and principles of human genetic research considering they are the most technologically advanced and informed at that point?
Moral issues like stoning as a punishment for adultery have little technological basis, so I'm not sure how the connection would function in cases like that. The shaman could learn that chemo- and radiotherapy cures cancer better than chicken blood but i'm not sure what bearing that would have on the morality of the shaman. If you're suggesting Western morality can be imported like new technology it leaves you in a worrying position if a country like North Korea suddenly becomes the world leader.
Also, regarding the Japan analogy, Japan's movement into the developed world induced large changes in their standard of living, but less tangible changes in their cultural identity or moral structure. Sure, they don't cut off hands as a punishment for stealing anymore, but is that due to them developing the iPod or something detached from their process of 'civilisation'. I would argue that a country could be at the technological and financial forefront of the world but still contain a society that is deeply morally flawed.
Submitted by iddqd (user info) at 2008-04-10 21:12:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
phallic, youre debating with an alter
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2008-04-10 21:04:05 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Perky, religion is not killing people. People are killing people. They do so, primarily because they were allowed to get away with it years ago, and never stopped, and merely hide it under the guise of religion, but also because they truly believe that they are living the right way.
As for my world view, it'd take far too long for me to type it, and for you to read it.
Submitted by PerkMan (user info) at 2008-04-10 20:59:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-04-10 20:51:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeh but what are "The ethics of the world"? You're basically just saying that your ethics have some sort of universality that's greater than a single culture, but you need to justify that somehow.
The idea of "Human Rights" has grown out of the developed world, but how would you convince someone who has never experienced that ethos, someone who finds it perfectly natural to have slaves and castrate women, that they are in some way wrong?
-------------------------
Yes, I would.
I will use a situation that is out of context to prove my point. For instance Japan. When the U.S. and the English first went there Japan was very behind Technology. When Japan discovered that there was a new world out there and their ways were out dated.
They simply adapted. They got rid of the Shogun and the Samurai's and adopted and changed themselves so they wouldn't fall behind.
Okay, the point of what I'm saying is that the reason we are the person's to judge is basically because we are smarter than them. Not in the sense of morals or anything of that nature. Just we have technology we understand the way a lot of things work. If we meet some aborigine or old world person it's our obligation to educate them so they are on the same playing field. Is it okay to leave them in ignorance? Or if you meet a village shaman who tries's to cure the effects of cancer or aids with chickens blood and bullshit are we just supposed to sit there and let them do it? And let the person die? Are we intruding by bringing to the shaman our medicine and technology and changing there way of thought? This is why you have ignorance in Africa and third world countries. You have Nigerians and people of the lot trying to cure aids by fucking little babies because they are virgins to cure there diseases. It makes no sense. We have to educate those that aren't educated. It is something you just have to do.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-04-10 20:51:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Yeh but what are "The ethics of the world"? You're basically just saying that your ethics have some sort of universality that's greater than a single culture, but you need to justify that somehow.
The idea of "Human Rights" has grown out of the developed world, but how would you convince someone who has never experienced that ethos, someone who finds it perfectly natural to have slaves and castrate women, that they are in some way wrong?
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2008-04-10 20:49:57 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Sure the world can question. And if you have the ability to defend your culture you can tell the world to fuck off.
Hey, that sounds like the US.
Submitted by PerkMan (user info) at 2008-04-10 20:46:42 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Phallic- I understand but this wasn't a philosophy teacher. This was my Sociology Professor for honors.
I think we place a greater worth on people who do things because that is a capitalist mindset that we are born with having been born American.
We are taught from the moment of birth to always be in competition because through competition you are making society better. You are propelling the society forward is the thought. Weed out the weak and let the strong survive.
I have no problems with that, My approach is the fact there does come a time when the ethics of the world outweigh the ethics of you're religion or culture, If you are cutting off women's vagina and they don't want you to but it is part of you're culture the world has a right to question it.
When it comes to killing people for frivolous reasons then the world can question it.
Submitted by PerkMan (user info) at 2008-04-10 20:41:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
clever linus. I should have put the title as Romantic view of the world.
But I was at first writing about Post modernism. But then it went towards my Romantic view.
I guess I'm a Romantic at heart.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2008-04-10 20:40:33 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
If an honours philosophy lecturer SERIOUSLY said 'who are we to judge' and adopted cultural relativism as an actual philosophy instead of just playing devil's advocate then i suggest you run quickly from that school.
Also, you said you're postmodern but such a stance would surely integrate the knowledge that our ethical structures are mere behavioural mandates and that one is not better than the other, forcing you to concede to your teacher's objection.
As a philosophy student, i think you have to justify the 'human rights' approach from a secular standpoint and without too many reference to utilitarian principles.
In any case, i find ethical philosophy fucking circular and relegate it to the sort of insolvable source of conflict that theology loves to inhabit.
Submitted by Linus (user info) at 2008-04-10 20:39:41 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_modern#As_meaningless_and_disingenuous
Submitted by PerkMan (user info) at 2008-04-10 20:33:13 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
sorry about errors. I was writing this to John Mayor's " New Deep".
God I fucking "heart" John Mayor.
--------
Fag above.