Someone on another thread just briefly mentioned polylogism and it got me thinking about the concept of culture. I reject the concept of culture as the term is usually used. Culture is often used as kind of “package deal” for a collection of arbitrary ideas. Some will say that it is wrong to criticize, as an example, the way women are treated in because that is part of Saudi “culture”. Well, I can appreciate the contributions of algebra and yogurt without wanting to accept a package deal that includes treating women like chattel. Isn’t this type of attitude of cultural relativism akin to polylogism?
Polylogism claims that whether or not a logical statement is true depends on cultural factors. For example, 2+3=4 may be true for some cultures.
But social mores are not true or false. They do not fall under the umbrella of polylogism.
I am not talking about mores such as taking your shoes off before entering someone’s home. I am talking about rights. If a person has a right to do X without being beheaded in North America does not that person have the same right to do X in Saudi Arabia? Minor differences in mores are not what I am talking about.
I think cultural relativism can be regarded as polylogism. The way women are treated in some places is not just an arbitrary and harmless custom, like eating this or that kind of food - it is an objective violation of individual rights, and I would bet some money that given the choice, women wouldn’t accept submission.
And the West is no different. Consider for instance the crimes that the state commits against people who want to take so called ‘illegal’ drugs.
Your whole idea of “rights” are a reflection of Western cultural
Silly argument. Cultural relativists resort to it a lot, but it does nothing because they must either invalidate the argument on logical grounds or admit defeat. They can always “repudiate” logic, and I can always ask them then “does that mean you both repudiate and not repudiate logic?”
-Jon
Polylogism. In short, many logics. The theory that the logical structure of the human mind differs according to certain divisions of mankind and that as a result the ideas and logic of men also differ in accordance with the specified classification of men. Marxian polylogism asserts there are differences according to social classes. Others claim there are differences according to race, religion, nationality, etc.
from Mises Made Easier
Ethnocentricity sucks!
I would think that the criticism of polylogism works against racism just as much as it would against anything else (since racial polylogism treats different races holistically as if they have different logical structures of the mind).
There are apparently differences in brain structures between speakers of tonal and non-tonal languages. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1904158
This could explain why there are many different cultures instead of a single human monoculture.
Not that that stops us from trying.
Really ? It’s because of the difference between tonal vs. non-tonal languages ? By the way, I think the vast majority of languages, if not all, use pitch one way or another…
(racism is so boring…)
Different peoples, different cultures.
So…How do you explain the fact that any human being can learn ANY language ? For instance, if a chinese child is raised in an english-speaking home he’ll end up speaking english as well as any WASP. And the same is true for WASP children learning chinese…
Ironically, I know a few muslims who would argue with you that women in the west are treated like sex objects, and shunned if they are not physically attractive, and Islam doesn’t usually distinguish along those lines.
I hope you’re aware that women could own property in Islamic countries long before they could in the West. Since much of liberty is tied to property rights, I think this is a very important thing to consider.
This is not a defense or promotion of Islam, I just think it’s very arrogant of those of us in the West to assume our culture is superior to others, when most of what many of us know, is based on propaganda meant to encourage myths like"Western freedom and democracy" or in the case of my southern cousins, “American exceptionalism”.
Not all muslims conform to, or believe in sharia law. It’s a mistake to lump all 1.5 billion of them into the same group based on vague collectivist perceptions.
Besides, supposedly, the brain is a plastic organ which adapts itself and changes in order to perform some of its tasks. So there may indeed exist different brain structures in order to deal with different languages, but these structures are definitely NOT genetically hardwired. So, you’ve got cause and effect reversed. People speaking language ‘A’ develop a brain tuned to that language, not the other way around.
I don’t know that that’s a fact.
How does your tabula rasa theory explain the vast differences in human intelligence and personality, even among people from similar backgrounds?
How do you explain the ability to learn languages ? Oh - you don’t. So, when you can’t answer a question you just pretend it doesn’t exist ?
When a given society is wrong, it is wrong cardinal directions have nothing to do with it. I have plenty of criticisms of the arbitrary group of ideas you label “Western Culture”. I am not a Pat Buchanan or Mark Steyn. I am someone who judges individual ideas individually and individual people individually. When the is ahead of “The West” on something: Bully for them! Likewise when the “West” is ahead of the curve: Bully for them! Again: cardinal directions have nothing to do with it. My argument is simple: we need to stop accepting package deal arguments. We need to judge ideas independent of “cultures”.
Edit: When did I ever say all Muslims conform to, or believe in Sharia law? I know very well they do not all do so. I work with Muslims. Stop assuming you can read my mind, obviously you can’t.
When did I say, that you said, that all Muslims comform to, or believe in Sharia law?
I didn’t.
And I agree with you on package deals. However, I’m not sure where projecting your morality on others fits into the liberty paradigm. “Wrong” is strictly your definition. It’s based on your perception and cultural values. Just because you can acknowledge that your culture is not 100% correct, doesn’t mean you aren’t judging it and other cultures through your own cultural prism.
Byzantine said it best recently. Anarchy means no one has a monopoly on violence.
And thus, no person or group has a monopoly on ethics and values.
Which would stand to reason that in a free market or anarchism, it would be possible that a certain amount of people would either cling to an ever “failing” or “shrinking” State (in light of the competive societies and/or models around it), or would make their own while possibly understanding that respecting free association may be the only way in which they could survive.
I could see minarchists possibly doing that, if they respect the non-monopoly over ethics, values, & violence; it would be hyprocritical of one to advocate anarchism & force those who disagree to fall in line somehow.
Polylogism pertains to the logical structure of the mind, i.e. drawing inferences from premises. Whether the mind differs physically in this or that way is irrelevant: what polylogism entails is that different minds reason differently, and not in the everyday sense of the word “reason”. But I am pretty sure it is true that brains differ in their ability to reason well due to genetic endowments, and not just as a matter of nurture.
-Jon