site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   31654 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 9, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

‘Western’ is a dumb category. Instead we should refer to Christian or post Christian cultures- and, obviously, Christian cultures are aesthetically superior to post Christian cultures because they don’t make embracing ugly art an elite cultural shibboleth, but post Christian cultures are distinctive in being post christian and not post Islamic or post pagan. Christianity’s marriage laws, social attitudes, taboos, and attitudes towards worship leave fingerprints stamped all over these people, even if they’re post Christian and not Christian. ‘Western’ is a meaningless category. The fact that the civilization values prominent, representational art of important people at all is something that sets a post Christian society apart from a post Islamic society.

Instead what you’re arguing for is the superiority of a Christian society over a post Christian society, and I won’t disagree with you there. As a Christian conservative myself I have obvious reasons for this preference that go beyond artistic preferences, but ‘I like art to be beautiful’ is a reasonable preference.

I would disagree - Western is a perfectly apt description, or at least there's not much better. I disagree with the term of just 'Christian' because it ignores or downplays the pre-Christian Greco-Roman intellectual tradition the West inherited. The history of the West intellectually and philosophically has been attempts to attempts to synthesize Greek rationality with Jerusalemite faith. Many influential figures made this their explicit goal, such as Thomas Aquinas. These two broad schools of thought sharpened each other and I think lead to the remarkable intellectual achievements of the West. I think this is the true legacy of the West, at least intellectually.

Agreed. Modern Westernism has taken all the bad aspects of Christianity and kept them while throwing out the actually civilisationally useful stuff.

As someone from a completely different society in the UK I meet atheists all the time whose brief system is so so Christian it boggles the mind, the only thing is they don't believe in is God/the Bible.

So, what does this mean for pre-Christian societies? It wasn’t Christians who built the Parthenon or all of those gorgeous Greco-Roman statues. You draw a distinction between “post-Christian” and “post-pagan” societies, but, at least in the entirety of Europe, Christian societies are all post-pagan societies. Pagan Europeans made beautiful representational art many centuries before they were converted to Christianity.

Just what I was thinking. The essential features of Western civilization were all there BC or at least pre-Constantine. Mosaics too, as well as statues. Indeed, Christianity brought with it the introduction of iconoclasm as an idea, which caused long and ridiculously bloody (for the tininess of the stakes) factional strife in the Byzantine empire.

We had Roman Law, we had Plato and Aristotle, we had vaguely representative government and the rights of the citizen. That is the essential components IMO.

Linking pre-Christian Greece and Rome(and these were different societies even if they had a few similarities due to being indo-European and Mediterranean) to the modern ‘west’ can only be done through Christianity. The Italian renaissance that revitalized classical art? That was at the behest of Christianity.

To the extent that they’re similar to Christianity, it’s either because of geographic similarities(Christianity being, like Rome and Greece, based out of, well, Rome and Greece) or Christian borrowing.

I have to disagree. Renaissance architecture and statuary, and consequent developments, are influenced by Pagan architecture and rediscovered architectural/theoretical treatises more than anything Christian. Ethiopia, despite being Christian longer than Germany, does not have the same standard of beauty that you find in the West. Western architecture is its own category distinct from Christian non-Western communities in Ethiopia and Lebanon. Even Gothic (medieval) architecture was heavily influenced by Romanesque which was influenced by the developments of the Roman Empire.

“Western” only became befuddling as a category when postmodern academics willed this thought into existence. It pretty much just refers to Europe influenced by Rome and various hegemonic European groups (themselves influenced by Rome) (Goths, Franks, etc). The West, of course, does include Western Christianity. But it’s a perfectly useful term to use. Everyone seems to know exactly what region I’m referring to when I use it, absent edge cases in like the Balkans or Finland.

Gothic architecture was notably also influenced by Islamic architecture.

When you say "Gothic (medieval) architecture", are you implying that Gothic architecture is mediaeval architecture?

"Western" is also extended into pre-Christian Europe. Hence, Plato and Socrates etc. are "Western philosophers", but not Christian philosophers. Greek and Roman art is all "Western", but not all of it is Christian.

Also, the important distinction here is modernist vs. non-modernist. For example, there are plenty of horrendously ugly modernist churches, while pre-modernist churches tended to be gaudy at worst.

Well yeah, but counting those societies as western is dumb- they don’t have any more in common with later Christian and post Christian societies than they do with middle eastern societies.

A category that includes 1950s America and 4th century Rome is already very broad. However, "Western" is a category referring to a set of intellectual, linguistic, and other cultural traditions, typically taken to descend from the cultures of Ancient Greece, Rome, and the Hebrews (up to the 1st century). It's not defined in terms of degree of similarity. A South Pacific Island that had miraculously and independently become Christian, democratic, individualistic, and had a play in in Iambic Pentameter about an existentially tormented prince would still not be "Western", because despite its similarities it would not be part of the same tradition.

Saying that ancient Greeks and Romans weren't Western is a bizarre understanding of "Western". We could redefine words to mean the opposite of their common definition. But then communication would be very difficult and full of misunderstanding.

I took a year long Western Civ class in high school. It was almost all ancient Greece and Roman.

There's heterodox opinions and then there's just failure to use terms in a sensible manner.

Well yes, the category ‘western’ includes ancient Athens as well as 21st century America- that’s why the category is dumb. Not completely absent of meaning, but not defining something that needs to be defined.

To be fair, hydroacetylene's contention is that "Western" is a bad category and that we should replace most of its uses with "Christian".

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats