| |
| Value of a culture = Conditions that Persist? |
« View previous topic :: View next topic » |
| Author |
Message
|
| kojax |
 Posted: Wed Feb 03, 2010 3:47 pm Post subject: Value of a culture = Conditions that Persist? |
 |
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 3034
|
I've been looking for an objective criteria to measure cultures against, and tentatively, I'd like to suggest this one: that the value of a culture can be measured by the conditions that persist among the populations that adhere to it, unless there's a compelling reason to believe that external forces are solely responsible (or maybe it's enough if they're primarily responsible.) If it's evident that no culture, no matter how adept, could possibly be succeeding under the conditions that persist among a given population, then I guess it's fair to say that the culture hasn't been given a proper test, so it can't be considered to be failing or succeeding, either one.
It seems the last refuge of any failed culture is to blame external forces, however, which leads to no end of ambiguities.
I am very comfortable with the idea, however, that no other criteria need be considered, just this one. I think the importance of good living conditions is the one value that nobody can reasonably disagree about. It's something we can all be certain the next generation will put a value on (unless they're so fat and rich that wealth has become meaningless to them). If we measure cultures against just that, and nothing else, it would be more difficult for nationalistic bias to cloud our judgment.
I think this is far preferable over the alternative, which is to always judge foreign cultures to be good no matter what, or to just not attempt to make any measurements at all, or arrive at any conclusions at all, .... and just expect that everything is just going to fix itself without anybody ever taking any kind of action, or making any kind of criticisms. Or... better yet... we can just pretend the world's ethical systems aren't broken, and see if reality decides to bend to our collective will. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 5:34 am Post subject: Re: Value of a culture = Conditions that Persist? |
|
|
Time Lord
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 6193
Location: Scotland
|
| kojax wrote: |
I'd like to suggest .... that the value of a culture can be measured by the conditions that persist among the populations that adhere to it....
I am very comfortable with the idea, however, that no other criteria need be considered, just this one. I think the importance of good living conditions is the one value that nobody can reasonably disagree about. |
OK then. Define "good living conditions". Or better yet, define "good" and "living conditions".
You may be on to something, but I suspect you have just added a different suite of subjective assessments.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| i_feel_tiredsleepy |
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 21 Mar 2008
Posts: 1740
Location: Montreal
|
It's difficult to objectively judge cultures because we've all been interpellated into various ideologies of our own culture.
As to the criteria you bring up, how do you determine that it actually has anything to do with the culture (and the specific conditions of that culture) instead of historical conditions. If culture A is looted and abused by the more populous culture B, so that culture A is impoverished and has lower living standards, is this a fault of their culture? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 11:10 pm Post subject: Re: Value of a culture = Conditions that Persist? |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 3034
|
| Ophiolite wrote: |
| kojax wrote: |
I'd like to suggest .... that the value of a culture can be measured by the conditions that persist among the populations that adhere to it....
I am very comfortable with the idea, however, that no other criteria need be considered, just this one. I think the importance of good living conditions is the one value that nobody can reasonably disagree about. |
OK then. Define "good living conditions". Or better yet, define "good" and "living conditions".
You may be on to something, but I suspect you have just added a different suite of subjective assessments. |
My best suggestion for this would be to go with Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. I think it's reasonably unsubjective (as much as can be hoped, anyway), and pretty accurate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
| i_feel_tiredsleepy wrote: |
It's difficult to objectively judge cultures because we've all been interpellated into various ideologies of our own culture.
As to the criteria you bring up, how do you determine that it actually has anything to do with the culture (and the specific conditions of that culture) instead of historical conditions. If culture A is looted and abused by the more populous culture B, so that culture A is impoverished and has lower living standards, is this a fault of their culture? |
That's a good point. I think the degree of patriotism and group identity you see in a lot of countries is directly related to their war history. The countries that have consistently won on the battlefield over the last few centuries seem to have the easiest time with things like internal governmental corruption. The ones that have been seriously humiliated seem to have more trouble.
The emotional loss might even be bigger than the material. Vietnam was a major turning point for American patriotism, being the first war in which the country had ever failed to obtain a victory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| milum |
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 6:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Alabama
|
First, understand the term in the context of the question:
CULTURE: a system for enhancing the chances of a breeding group to continue through time. This, and nothing else.
If one was bright he should know that all Cultures evolve. So, of course, value judgements can be made. Which culture would you deem preferable, the one that adapts and survives or the one that doesn't? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ophiolite |
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 9:31 am Post subject: Re: Value of a culture = Conditions that Persist? |
|
|
Time Lord
Joined: 25 Jul 2005
Posts: 6193
Location: Scotland
|
| kojax wrote: |
| My best suggestion for this would be to go with Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. I think it's reasonably unsubjective (as much as can be hoped, anyway), and pretty accurate. |
I'm familiar with Maslow, but for your purposes surely his levels are too generic. You need something specific so that it can be measured. It is the inability to measure that leaves your approach subjective.
Edited for grammatical inconsistencies.
_________________
The Universe is not only weirder than we imagine it is weirder than we can imagine. J.B.S.Haldane.
Last edited by Ophiolite on Wed Feb 10, 2010 5:49 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marcusclayman |
| Posted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 11:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 1729
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 6:40 am Post subject: Re: Value of a culture = Conditions that Persist? |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 3034
|
| Ophiolite wrote: |
| kojax wrote: |
| My best suggestion for this would be to go with Maslow's Hierarchy of needs. I think it's reasonably unsubjective (as much as can be hoped, anyway), and pretty accurate. |
I'm familiar with Maslow, but for your purposes surely his levels are too generic. You need something specific so that it can be measured. It is the inability to measure that leaves your approach subjective.
Edited for grammatical inconsistencies. |
The advantage of working with Maslow's theory is that the most important needs (those at the bottom of the pyramid) are also the least subjective. It doesn't matter what opportunities for self esteem a culture presents for its people if basic needs like nutrition or shelter are being ignored in order to accomplish it.
| milum wrote: |
First, understand the term in the context of the question:
CULTURE: a system for enhancing the chances of a breeding group to continue through time. This, and nothing else.
If one was bright he should know that all Cultures evolve. So, of course, value judgements can be made. Which culture would you deem preferable, the one that adapts and survives or the one that doesn't? |
I like to hope there's more to life than just breeding, but I like your suggestion that the culture which adapts the most rapidly is the superior one. It's like how, in a race, you can look at a car's position, or at its velocity, or at its acceleration. Acceleration is usually the best to look at because, in the long run, it determines the most.
The culture with the best conditions today may not be the one with the best conditions tomorrow. The one that's improving itself the fastest probably will be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| milum |
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Sophomore
Joined: 14 Jun 2008
Posts: 189
Location: Alabama
|
| Quote: |
kojax: I like to hope there's more to life than just breeding, but I like your suggestion that the culture which adapts the most rapidly is the superior one. It's like how, in a race, you can look at a car's position, or at its velocity, or at its acceleration. Acceleration is usually the best to look at because, in the long run, it determines the most.
The culture with the best conditions today may not be the one with the best conditions tomorrow. The one that's improving itself the fastest probably will be. |
Yes, kojax, but beyond all other systematic malnipulations of the species-specific needs of other lifeforms, certain human Cultures have elvoved methods of changing their surrounding matrix into an entity more condusive to their continuance.
It follows that large numbers of individuals with a common desire to continue their breeding group through time has a distinct advantage over smaller groups. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marcusclayman |
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 1729
|
i know the subject calls for it, but be as weary of generalizations as possible
it is too easy to just start making generalizations, if you have a reason to generalize, share what that reason is, so that others can decide for themselves if your reasoning is valid. It's called critical discussion, like critical thinking, you are giving your reader/listener something to validate information with, just as you would expect from someone who is trying to convince you of something that you don't know much about. Even if you understand something to be common knowledge, it helps to shed light sometimes on why you consider it common knowledge, that way others who don't consider it common knowledge aren't disueded from participating in the discussion or reading your thesis.
The reson I'm so adimant about this is because culture and sociology is not hard science, it is not so easily, and may not be possibly, objectifiable. And since it is about us, there is a great deal of bias. You seeking to objectify it, while I support you, should be taken seriously as what it is: the still unfinished work of thousands of years of human development
_________________
Dick, be Frank.
Ambiguity Kills. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Pong |
| Posted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 08 Apr 2008
Posts: 4180
|
To be fair you'll have to find out what that particular culture's goals are. So we ignore what we think it needs, for what it actually wants. For examples: If it wants to maximize pleasure at the expense of others, or if it wants most of all to replace other cultures; fair enough, we rate its success on its own terms. Begin by frankly asking people what they want.
If only it could be so easy. Individuals and cultures may not be in a position to admit - to others - just what they want. Moreover getting what they want may require they themselves don't know what they want. Professional mediators and story writers understand that's why the world is full of plots.
_________________
A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 3034
|
| milum wrote: |
| Quote: |
kojax: I like to hope there's more to life than just breeding, but I like your suggestion that the culture which adapts the most rapidly is the superior one. It's like how, in a race, you can look at a car's position, or at its velocity, or at its acceleration. Acceleration is usually the best to look at because, in the long run, it determines the most.
The culture with the best conditions today may not be the one with the best conditions tomorrow. The one that's improving itself the fastest probably will be. |
Yes, kojax, but beyond all other systematic malnipulations of the species-specific needs of other lifeforms, certain human Cultures have elvoved methods of changing their surrounding matrix into an entity more condusive to their continuance.
It follows that large numbers of individuals with a common desire to continue their breeding group through time has a distinct advantage over smaller groups. |
I think the operative word is "common". Those nations with strong nationalistic identities seem to enjoy a tremendous advantage over those which primarily identify themselves by their individual groups, tribes, or villages, or people who have no sense of identity at all. People who primarily identify with their religious or ethnic identity seem to be the most destructive. (Nationalism doesn't create Nazis. Ethnocentrism does.)
That's part of why I really dislike ethnic identities in general. It may be an unjustified perspective, I see a trend of always having to go the "self pity" route, or the "kill somebody else" route with those groups. Aside from anectodal observations, I don't have any hard facts for that perception.
| marcusclayman wrote: |
i know the subject calls for it, but be as weary of generalizations as possible
it is too easy to just start making generalizations, if you have a reason to generalize, share what that reason is, so that others can decide for themselves if your reasoning is valid. It's called critical discussion, like critical thinking, you are giving your reader/listener something to validate information with, just as you would expect from someone who is trying to convince you of something that you don't know much about. Even if you understand something to be common knowledge, it helps to shed light sometimes on why you consider it common knowledge, that way others who don't consider it common knowledge aren't disueded from participating in the discussion or reading your thesis.
The reson I'm so adimant about this is because culture and sociology is not hard science, it is not so easily, and may not be possibly, objectifiable. And since it is about us, there is a great deal of bias. You seeking to objectify it, while I support you, should be taken seriously as what it is: the still unfinished work of thousands of years of human development |
I think you're right. I'm just not sure know how to do it. Economic statistics are the hardest facts we have, so I try to use economic arguments as my starting point, but as Pong aptly pointed out: a culture may not value those things that an economist measures.
I think focusing in on hard facts is a good thing to do in the late stages of a theory's development rather than the early stages. If you encase yourself in too tight of a box too early on, then you'll never entertain the range of possibilities necessary to stumble onto something new. On the other hand, if your prejudices move in to fill the vacuum, you'll end up in just as tight a box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marcusclayman |
| Posted: Sun Feb 14, 2010 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 1729
|
Well economic social class is not a measure of what people value, it is a measure of what people have that is valued.
In economic terms, everything is worth exactly what someone will pay for it.
So if someone values something that you don't value, it doesn't make it any less valuable. What makes it less valuable is whether or not in the market it can be sold for less than what you have for sale.
_________________
Dick, be Frank.
Ambiguity Kills. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| kojax |
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 27 Mar 2007
Posts: 3034
|
| marcusclayman wrote: |
Well economic social class is not a measure of what people value, it is a measure of what people have that is valued.
|
Or even more importantly.... it's a measure of what the common masses don't have.
Even having enough food to eat can mean you're a big shot in some cultures. I imagine that might be why some of the poorest cultures on Earth are also the biggest baby factories. Having 5 or 6 kids shows that you must have access to more food than most people, or they'd be very skinny. It's not much of a show of wealth in the USA, or most industrialized countries where food is plentiful, but in some places I'm sure it seems like quite an accomplishment.
| Quote: |
In economic terms, everything is worth exactly what someone will pay for it.
. |
It's unfortunate that we, as a society, believe that line of thinking. Sometimes I think air will never begin to seem valuable to us until it's sufficiently scarce that we have to buy it in a store. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| marcusclayman |
| Posted: Wed Feb 17, 2010 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 1729
|
It is not sad at all, you are implying a great deal that I didn't say, and that is not necessarily true.
We as a culture don't think this way. If we did, then bartering would be more commonplace I believe.
Also, it would not be sad if we did think this way. It is natural not to want to protect things that don't need to be protected. Or at least to protect things as much as they need to be protected. Like if you have less water than someone else, you will naturally protect it more; assuming you are both of equal temperament, ability and circumstances.
Air at the bottom of a coal mine, or underwater is worth a great deal. Compressed air used in industry, construction and inflation is worthwhile as well.
Breath is worth a great deal, if you don't think so stop breathing. Then think about, if you had to, how much you would spend to breath again. If it's given away for free, it doesn't loose its worth, we loose our need to purchase it. We might FORGET it's worth, but that doesn't make it any less worthwhile.
_________________
Dick, be Frank.
Ambiguity Kills. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
  |
Goto page 1, 2 Next |
Page 1 of 2 |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
