Philosophy Now Forum

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:36 am Perhaps I wasn't quite as judgmental as you about what is right and what is wrong.

It has nothing to do with "judgmental." It has to do with facts. Single-parent households are very hard on kids.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

The only verse a skeptic ever seems to know. And they always seem to think it's unconditional. Do they ever know about the things the Bible tells people they are responsible TO judge?

As an expert on Neo-Marxism perhaps you can expound upon famous anthropologist Marvin Harris's theories about sacred cows, sacred pigs, and primitive warfare.

Anthropology's another really pseudo-scientific load of nonsense. It's a cut above gender studies, but only a cut. This is a philosophy board: let's talk Marx, or Hegel, for that matter...or let's discuss what Marcuse or Gramsci thought, or the very influential (and completely nuts) Paolo Freire. Let's talk about somebody who actually matters, and whom the Neo-Marxists actually follow.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:16 am

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:36 am Perhaps I wasn't quite as judgmental as you about what is right and what is wrong.

It has nothing to do with "judgmental." It has to do with facts. Single-parent households are very hard on kids.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

The only verse a skeptic ever seems to know. And they always seem to think it's unconditional. Do they ever know about the things the Bible tells people they are responsible TO judge?

As an expert on Neo-Marxism perhaps you can expound upon famous anthropologist Marvin Harris's theories about sacred cows, sacred pigs, and primitive warfare.

Anthropology's another really pseudo-scientific load of nonsense. It's a cut above gender studies, but only a cut. This is a philosophy board: let's talk Marx, or Hegel, for that matter...or let's discuss what Marcuse or Gramsci thought, or the very influential (and completely nuts) Paolo Freire. Let's talk about somebody who actually matters, and whom the Neo-Marxists actually follow.

Anthropology (literally, "the study of man" is a noble pursuit, although, as in other fields, there is some silliness. American anthropologists preserved languages, mythologies, and customs of Native Americans that would otherwise have been lost forever. You may think this "pseudo-scientific"; I'd suggest it is more historical in purpose. The attempt to make a "science" of human cultural development has been fun, but, let's face it, more a failure than a success.

Nonetheless, when I was in grad school wasting my time and playing sports all day, Neo-Marxism was a dominant theme in the field. The notion (per Marx, one of the great geniuses of social science, although, like another genius Freud, he was wrong about a lot of things) is that the economic infrastructure of society guides or molds other cultural accretions, like religion, politics, family structure, etc.) I think the Neo-Marxists are, like other theorists before and after them, grasping at straws. One understands culture by looking at culture -- it's all intertwined. The other anthropological neo-Marxists were class-conflict theorists. As there were more anthropologists than simple, isolated cultures for PhD. theses, anthropologists studied sub-cultures, and transitioning cultures. Of course class conflict was relevant.

The problem with anthropology is not the field, but the name. The "ology" ending suggests a science -- but the value of the field is more akin to history, which is one of the humanities, not the sciences.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 1:19 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 12:02 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2024 7:25 pm
I'm very amused. This is the story, the "patriarchy" narrative, that the Feminists sell to the naive. They actually want us to think that men who worked in mines, or felled trees and laid bricks, or went to war and died in a trench were more "privileged" than their womenfolk who stayed home and kept house, did teaching or nursing, or worked in a local factory making the bombs that would later be used to kill men.

Hogwash.

The truth is that throughtout history, life has been hard -- and differently hard -- for both sexes. There was no miraculous "patriarchy" period, in which men had only good things, and women only "oppression."

Nice try focusing solely on the working class. Why don't you give the same historical summary for the ruling class?

The "working class," if that term even applies, has always been the vast majority of the population. The "ruling class" is a rarified minority, and always has been. But their women and men both always did much better in terms of lifestyle than the grubbers and serfs down below them.

Perhaps you're having difficulty focusing. The topic is gender, thus ruling class men vs ruling class women.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:25 am Anthropology (literally, "the study of man" is a noble pursuit)

The attempt to make a "science" of human cultural development has been fun, but, let's face it, more a failure than a success.

You're right. That's why anthropology is considered the very lowest branch of all activities that fall under the broad "science" umbrella. Even sociology and psychology, which are also scientifically suspect, and are not "hard sciences" at all, are far ahead of anthropology in this regard. It's much more "fun," as you say, than it is "science."

Nonetheless, when I was in grad school wasting my time and playing sports all day, Neo-Marxism was a dominant theme in the field.

Yes. The "soft" sciences, education, and the various phony "studies" departments are absolutely neck-deep in that nonsense.

I think the Neo-Marxists are, like other theorists before and after them, grasping at straws.

They are. But they're still very dangerously stupid. They actually continue to believe that they can make Socialism work. And all Socialism ever does is kill people and bankrupt nations.

Of course class conflict was relevant.

Well, even the Neo-Marxists now dispute that. They don't think "class" was precisely the right way to characterize social conflict. They refer to traditional Marxism as "crude Marxism," rather than their own (presumably) more sophisticated Neo-Marxism. And one of the areas they admit Marx got badly wrong was to define everything along class lines. They now think it should have been race, gender, culture, fatness, disability, sexual practices, and a whole lot of other tommyrot.

The problem with anthropology is not the field, but the name. The "ology" ending suggests a science -- but the value of the field is more akin to history, which is one of the humanities, not the sciences.

I think it's less close to history, and much closer to another "-ology," namely, "mythology." Like mythology, anthropology is dominated by the manufacturing of various just-so types of stories, rather than the doing of hard science. At least history has traditionally shown some actual respect for data. Anthropology...somewhat less.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 6:12 am Perhaps you're having difficulty focusing. The topic is gender, thus ruling class men vs ruling class women.

How is a tiny minority of privileged people supposed to be the topic, and the vast majority not? That's absurd. My focus is fine; yours needs a little tuning, maybe.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 6:40 am

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:25 am Anthropology (literally, "the study of man" is a noble pursuit)

The attempt to make a "science" of human cultural development has been fun, but, let's face it, more a failure than a success.

You're right. That's why anthropology is considered the very lowest branch of all activities that fall under the broad "science" umbrella. Even sociology and psychology, which are also scientifically suspect, and are not "hard sciences" at all, are far ahead of anthropology in this regard. It's much more "fun," as you say, than it is "science."

Nonetheless, when I was in grad school wasting my time and playing sports all day, Neo-Marxism was a dominant theme in the field.

Yes. The "soft" sciences, education, and the various phony "studies" departments are absolutely neck-deep in that nonsense.

I think the Neo-Marxists are, like other theorists before and after them, grasping at straws.

They are. But they're still very dangerously stupid. They actually continue to believe that they can make Socialism work. And all Socialism ever does is kill people and bankrupt nations.

Of course class conflict was relevant.

Well, even the Neo-Marxists now dispute that. They don't think "class" was precisely the right way to characterize social conflict. They refer to traditional Marxism as "crude Marxism," rather than their own (presumably) more sophisticated Neo-Marxism. And one of the areas they admit Marx got badly wrong was to define everything along class lines. They now think it should have been race, gender, culture, fatness, disability, sexual practices, and a whole lot of other tommyrot.

The problem with anthropology is not the field, but the name. The "ology" ending suggests a science -- but the value of the field is more akin to history, which is one of the humanities, not the sciences.

I think it's less close to history, and much closer to another "-ology," namely, "mythology." Like mythology, anthropology is dominated by the manufacturing of various just-so types of stories, rather than the doing of hard science. At least history has traditionally shown some actual respect for data. Anthropology...somewhat less.

You appear to know as little about anthropology as you do about Neo-Marxism. For one thing, by comparing it to "mythology" and then denigrating both you are disparaging your own Christianity. You are becoming like Sculptor, using the word "mythology" as a pejorative. One of the many things cultural anthropologists study and record is mythology. Myths are among the greatest creations of human culture, as a Christian should be well aware.

Recording and cataloging dying languages and the stories people tell using them is "manufacturing just-so stories"? Do you really have no interest in art, literature, history or any of the Humanities? Also, one might think Kipling would appeal to you. Perhaps you should abandon Christianity,. Like anthropology, it's not "scientific".

duplicate

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 6:42 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 6:12 am Perhaps you're having difficulty focusing. The topic is gender, thus ruling class men vs ruling class women.

How is a tiny minority of privileged people supposed to be the topic, and the vast majority not? That's absurd. My focus is fine; yours needs a little tuning, maybe.

Uummm... because access to wealth and power is where advantages and disadvantages are more easily seen and felt. But of course you know that, just won't admit it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 3:16 am Anthropology's another really pseudo-scientific load of nonsense. It's a cut above gender studies, but only a cut. This is a philosophy board: let's talk Marx, or Hegel, for that matter...or let's discuss what Marcuse or Gramsci thought, or the very influential (and completely nuts) Paolo Freire. Let's talk about somebody who actually matters, and whom the Neo-Marxists actually follow.

Anthology is a wide field indeed. I would like to better understand why, and how, you can so certainly dismiss it. “Another really pseudo-scientific load of nonsense” seems over the top.

Is there a discipline or approach to the study of man that you think should replace it? What?

"Is there a discipline or approach to the study of man that you think should replace it? What?"

I got this, Manny.

Genesis, old testament, unabridged King James version.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:38 pm "Is there a discipline or approach to the study of man that you think should replace it? What?"

I got this, Manny.

Genesis, old testament, unabridged King James version.

Oh,come on! The Bible must be read in Hebrew or Greek. Even the Latin won't do for the Word of God! We won't bother with those few chapters written in Aramaic.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:38 pm "Is there a discipline or approach to the study of man that you think should replace it? What?"

I got this, Manny.

Genesis, old testament, unabridged King James version.

There certainly is a Christian anthropology.

Another interesting article.

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Sun Feb 11, 2024 2:12 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:38 pm "Is there a discipline or approach to the study of man that you think should replace it? What?"

I got this, Manny.

Genesis, old testament, unabridged King James version.

There certainly is a Christian anthropology.

Another interesting article.

As an aside, I just came back from India. IN conjunction, I read The Last Mughal, by William Dalrymple. It's the story of the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857. It's interesting in part because it reminds me of Hamas' attack on Israel. The Sepoys (who were Indian troops in the East India Company army) rebelled (about 150,000 of them). They went on a rampage of looting and killing, murdering about 6000 Europeans and even killing any Indians who had converted to Christianity. They conquered Delhi (and a number of other cities). The English fought back and vengefully killed probably 150,000 Indians -- both Sepoys, Jihadists and innocent bystanders.

According to Dalrymple, the Brits relationship with the Indians deteriorated in the 19th century as a result of the Evangelical movement. Evangelicals (both Church of England other churches) flocked to India lusting for converts. IN addition, they saw non-Christians as people from whom nothing of value could be learned. This bred contempt on the part of the Indians.

We can be grateful that Jane Eyre avoided accompanying St. John Rivers to India. She probably would have been massacred by Sepoys, although marrying Rochester was no prize either.

Alexiev wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:37 pm You appear to know as little about anthropology as you do about Neo-Marxism.

Far too much. But please, do continue..

You are becoming like Sculptor, using the word "mythology" as a pejorative.

In some circumstances, it certainly is. I don't think you want your medical doctor or your airline pilot operating by way of mythology, do you?

Do you really have no interest in art, literature, history or any of the Humanities?

Oh, dear.... I'm sorry, but this is just too amusing. If you knew me, you wouldn't try that tactic. Sorry.

Also, one might think Kipling would appeal to you.

I've been to his house. It's very nice, actually.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:01 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 6:42 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 6:12 am Perhaps you're having difficulty focusing. The topic is gender, thus ruling class men vs ruling class women.

How is a tiny minority of privileged people supposed to be the topic, and the vast majority not? That's absurd. My focus is fine; yours needs a little tuning, maybe.

Uummm... because access to wealth and power is where advantages and disadvantages are more easily seen and felt.

But those "privileges" over ordinary proles and serfs were had by both elite men and women; and women's lot in the elite, even when less than that of equivalent men, was never very hard by comparison to the lives of those "lower" types. So while the distance may be "seen and felt," it's not a distance between men and women, but rather a distance between the elite and the ordinary person.

Meanwhile, the lot of women was to survive things like marriage and childbirth, and the lot of lower-class men was to survive coal mines and wars. I'm not seeing this "privilege" you're so mad about.