Can we say there is inferior cultures? That someone from some place, with certain traditions and manners is 'uncivilized'?
Could we say there's a standard for being 'civilized', without being biased?
>>916873
>Can we say there is inferior cultures?
Yes, and it's called American culture.
>>916873
Nope since every culture has its own measurements to determine whuch culture is superior and which not. And, suprise suprise, their own culture is always the one who fits all criteria.
>>916873
Without being biased? No.
>>916873
American biophobia makes no legit sense.
They're fertilizing the fields while relieving their bowels.
Obviously we can, but thanks to crackpot cultural anthropologists like Franz Boas, modern leftie academia now believes that a literal caveman is culturally equal to a western person.
>>916873
No
They're not good or bad
They merely are
People are free to make judgements but at the end of the day it's just personal opinion impressed on something
>>916911
>the fields
I don't think a paved road is a good place to grow crops, anon.
>>916873
>Could we say there's a standard for being 'civilized', without being biased?
No.
You'd have to establish criteria for success and that is a question for ethical philosophers and is much wider than comparing cultures.
>>916915
Define culturally equal
>>916899
This
>>916911
The higher rates of childhood mortality among Hindus as opposed to Muslims in India, which has pretty definitively been traced to the practice of open defecation, would argue otherwise.
>>916931
Define define. Going with such relativism we might even find that everything including cultures and classes are a mere spook and don't exist.
But honestly, for me a culture that can defend itself and conquer other cultures is the superior one. A bunch of Papuans cannot conquer Britain, but a bunch of Brits can conquer Papua.
>>916915
But that's wrong
I'm a national socialist and I recognize that no culture is objectively good or bad
Especially considering morality doesn't exist either
>>916873
DELETE THIS
INDIA WILL BE THE SUPERPOWER BY 2030
>>916947
Isn't that much more connected to the resources that people have than its culture?
it doesn't make much sense to me to classify something that is purely interpersonal through something that is purely material and nothing to do with people.
>>916873
>Can we say there is inferior cultures?
No. Reason: Dialectics.
>>916947
Who said anything about relativism?
Even if you compare cultures relative to each other it means nothing
You prefer British culture, so it's superior to Papuan culture
>>916947
Not everything is about might anon. There are people who are better than you in every way possible would you simply let them dominate you and fully accept it? Would you let them impregnate your wife so they can pass down genes superior than yours? If you want a world of cold selfish competition you should really be aware that you might be on the short end of the stick. Also military might shouldnt define a culture.
>>916953
>2016
>there are unironic nazis
>>916978
That's social Darwinism which makes the mistake of assuming that natural phenomena is anything but an amoral series of processes
Muslims are taking over Europe, it doesn't make them "superior"
The Aztecs were highly aggressive and just angered everyone around into destroying them
>>916985
What?
I'm a socialist, and I think it should only be for the benefit of MY countrymen
>>917009
When do you accept someone as your countrymen?
Saying "there is no inherent reason for one culture is better than another" is not the same as the oft added liberal addendum "and thus they must all be equally respected"
>>917003
Really depends on what area due you consider superior. Culture? Obviously not, but they the satisfaction of domination which will lead to demography changes, political structure, religion. Sounds superior to me.
>Can we say there is inferior cultures?
Yes if you give it a reasonable metric and measurable posts.
>That someone from some place, with certain traditions and manners is 'uncivilized'?
Yes but the same thing applies, however this is even more subjective because you're now defining three things; superiority, inferiority and civilization.
>Could we say there's a standard for being 'civilized', without being biased?
>without being biased?
No not really since you're defining things based on your bias.
>>916878
>>916899
>>916916
>>916911
Oh look, four wrong posts from people who are at the relativistic mental level of unimaginative undergrads.
Protips:
1) It is possibly to construct a worldview which reconciles the rational, the emotional, the benevolent, and the savage in man, to varying degrees of success. That this is possible is a natural outgrowth of the fact that the impulses exist simultaneously in human individuals, and find expression at various times - their contradictions notwithstanding.
2) "American biophobia" or biophobia more generally has a rational basis, insofar as it demonstrates that certain cultures have, owing to the modern discovery and understanding of microbiology (which superseded the not-unreasonable old odor theory), understood that certain viruses and diseases can spread due to poor sanitation, esp. via fecal matter. Where biophobia has diminishing returns (sensed by many) is in the refusal to allow children to play in any dirty environments. Also the post is a probable troll post.
3) There exist cultural practices that, for lack of a better word, /do not deserve to be able to reproduce themselves/, and it is possible to come to an understanding of exactly what those are (they tend to involve pure killing and coercion, we are obliged to hew to extreme examples), through the application of reason and consensus (this is the more advanced, provisional relativism which the other posters haven't mentioned).The fear of one's own culture not being able to reproduce itself is an extension of evopsych into the sociological realm, and just as human reproduction occasions unfortunated individuals (low-IQ cousin marriage issue, treacher collins etc), so too do cultures putter around, reproducing their qualitatively and quantitatively inferior forms. This is not nazi-dom; the point is to understand that a ranking can legitimately and intellectually honestly be achieved, even accounting for individual subjectivity, sentimentality, etc.
>>916899
> their own culture is always the one who fits all criteria.
That's just untrue though.
>>916878
kek.
Why?
Please, pray tell where are you from?
>>917066
How?
>>917065
You're basing your measuring of "success" on biological grounds. What justification do you have for saying a species that dominates an ecosystem is objectively better than the one who doesn't, for example?
>>917083
Why do you think cultures are ALWAYS supposed to fight each other?
>>917080
Mexico, we're self hating.
Yes you can and here's why. List all the components of a culture: Language, music, food, traditions, technology, leisure activities, geography, habits, beliefs/religions, fashion, norms/mores, ethics, and list goes on. Can you objectively measure and compare any of these components of a culture? Language- no. Music- no. Traditions- no. Everything else- no, EXCEPT for technology, specifically medicine.
Because the one thing every single culture has in common is that none of them have a culture of suicide (inb4 Japan). There isn't a culture on earth that intentionally pushes it's people to kill themselves. Suicide is the by-product of culture and biological factors. Conversely, every single culture has a component of keeping people ALIVE (medicine, prayer, etc.). The common denominator among all cultures is that they're made up of humans, and all humans have a biological desire to not die (until outside factors push 0.001% of its members to suicide). And even the extreme warrior cultures gave their soldiers weapons, armor, prayers, face paint, or SOMETHING to keep them alive as longer.
Therefore, the culture that best keeps its people alive the longest is the superior culture.
>>916899
My culture is American and it is definitely not superior.
>>917184
the common factor of cultures is the faith in hedonism, aka love of pleasures and hate of pains. the sole purpose of a culture is to ease your life, like you noticed with your instance of technology, since people are hedonistic and hedonists live because they choose to fear their death.
>>917184
>Therefore, the culture that best keeps its people alive the longest is the superior culture.
Japan so?
>>917184
The aztec ritual of sacrifice was intended to prolong the life of the culture (so the sun wouldn't fuck off) and that implied the killing of its members.
By your metric, how should we judge this culture that are pushing for the greater good in their minds but actually harming themselves.?
>>917200
Well I'd argue whether or not those numbers in the top 15 or whatever are statistically significant, but if you were to compare Japan to Ghana then it'd definitely be Japan.
>>917153
>So whats a culture superior than yours then
If you listen to Mexicans, European anything.
>>917212
Because the culture's goal was to live longer. Did sacrificing people prolong their lives? Definitely not.
>>917089
You actually, literally know the answer to your own question. But because you have been so obediently trained, you have to beg this question.
The entirety of human endeavor, cross-culturally and in every respect, is suffused with this principle: all other things being equal, it's better to be able to than not. This is so manifestly manifest in lived experience that it begins to escape subjective wonderings, and become a basis of sciences and practices which are now legitimated. It is a process of a world that reveals itself, insists itself upon us, in our varying capacities to understand the same one thing.
And the reason why this relates to what I have written earlier, is because it is an imposition of reality upon differences. Which entails hierarchy.
>>917242
but your goal which is fulfilled by a society is rubbish. Seeking a hierarchy amongst societies is seeking a hierarchy amongst turds. Seeking a hierarchy amongst societies shows that you care about the goal of any society, to the point of spending your day working on this, aka live longer.
>>917242
I'm not in the humanities, I haven't been trained for anything (including discussing cultures :^) )
My point stands, just because the answer seems obvious, doesn't mean it's true. We as a species (and every other species as well) have the instinct of survival because we wouldn't have survived at all without it, it's an ideal born out of material biological processes, not a gateway to some higher objective truth of worth.
>>917191
Do you think it was in the past?
>>917242
So you would agree minorities are superior to Euro Americans because minorities are pushing white people out of their ecosystems?
Read this book, cultures do exist for a biological reason, not because one is superior but because cultures were evolutionary favorable
>>917255
You are now gibbering. Rather than explicating or sketching the unreasonableness of hierarchical judgement of societies, you have to instead simply pronounce them all "turds".
Or, let us consider another reasonable tack, which is the nihilism trump card (your last clause expresses a disingenuous desire on your part to be "outside" of all society to judge same) ,which you're angling towards though you may not fully know it. There's no god, life's a bitch and then you die, we're all the same in the end, whoop dee too we're all trivially equal in death, and you "trivially" win. Well done.
Or, in this case, what remains relevant at least where lifespans are concerned, are the differences among humans yet living, which is of course where the relevant discussion is. The point remains that in life, societies can legitimately be organized and judged in a hierarchical fashion, and that in order to escape from this correct conclusion, you have bee obliged toward the triviality of nihilism, which is in the most relevant sense for our purposes, past life.
It is better to be a self-actualized rich white guy in the USA, or France, or Canada, than an ebola patient in Guinea.
>>917310
According to the title almost every people is a good people ,no?
>>917310
Insofar as brown people are winning the evolutionary fitness short game, yes, that follows.
>but because cultures did this other phrase I want to do I want to avoid the ineluctible conclusion oh me hmm yes isn't that just so
You meant to say that cultures can be ranked.
>>917315
>brown people
Do you think every brownskinned person feels connected through their skin color and they are all working together to the extermination of non-brown people?
>>917314
According to their own subjective standards yes.
>>917315
They can be ranked, but superiority and rankings are subjective in itself, not objective
>inb4 science and technology
Making the assumption that technological progress is always a good thing is a baby tier fallacy.
>>917334
The second clause of your first sentence is your objective error, and it is the very crux of the very reason why your appraisal of things is /objectively/ wrong.
What you are proposing - to discount what the data tells us - amounts to a negation of the sciences. Yes, it is, so, because this gets back down to what the words "objectivity", "subjectivity" themselves mean and connote as a dichotomoy, in our simple usages.
Rankings, hierarchy etc, /when carried out in a scientific and intellectually honest fashion/, are capable of reflecting objectivity. And this is so exactly because objectively reality stubbornly insists itself upon subjective human actors, and often enough. You wish to banish this possiblity, and in this wish, you yourself are objectively mistaken.
>>917325
>evolutionary fitness short game
Evolution is not a concerted effort, dickhead. Try to understand the point of his post before you start making allegations of racism.
>>917334
>Making the assumption that technological progress is always a good thing is a baby tier fallacy.
>always
Who said technological advancement was always good? Technical advancement over the course of human history has extended our lives, and because of that, the cultures that do this best are superior to those who are terrible at it.
>>917365
There is no evolutionary pressure between races since they are all humans. Nobody is really "winning" here. Its like saying my country or nation won/lost a civil war.
>>917352
Stop using big words to try to impress people. Tell me how does the development of nuclear weapons denote superiority by your methof of ranking cultures? How does industrialization prove that one culture is superior than another when it leads to sub replacement birth rates? By your criteria these technologies are bad, and therefore inferior. No culture can be inherently superior than another when taking evolution into account because evolution is dependent on an organisms environment and food source to denote superiority and inferiority. Evolution itself is relative and therefore and denotions of superiority or inferiority is by relation relative
>>917366
Why is the extension of live the defining feature of a culture? Why not happiness or satisfaction?
>>917366
Extended lifespan means nothing without the propagation of ones genes. Technology has lead to sub replacement birth rates which are detrimental to passing on one's culture and genes. Evolutionary speaking, the one's who are superior and win are the one's who create the most successful babies who go on to reproduce. Therefore evolutionary speaking superior cultures are the developed ones but the undeveloped agrarian ones
>>916873
2016 AD:
1. Anglo
2. European
3. East Asian
4. Slavic
5. Who gives a shit about the rest
1016 AD:
1. ?
2. ?
3. ?
4. ?
>>917402
*are not
>>917403
1.muslim
2.european
3.china
4.india
>>917385
Happiness and satisfaction are actually psychological impossibilities as evolution dictates us to want more. The only people who are "happy" are mentally ill and not going anywhere in life
>>916873
>someone from some place, with certain traditions and manners is 'uncivilized'
Hard to say a culture is 'uncivilized'. The vikings were considered barbaric and uncivilized by the Christians they raided. The Christians were pretty bias considering they were getting slaughtered by them.
The vikings beat them to America by a few hundred years. Can you really say they were less "advanced" or "civilized"?
>>917366
>Technical advancement over the course of human history has extended our lives, and because of that, the cultures that do this best are superior to those who are terrible at it.
-fear death
-create gadgets to live longer because you fear death
-even with all the gadgets you still fear death
-claim that technology makes your life better, even though you still fear death
okay
>>917383
It is telling that you throw out these useful details in order to say whatever details you want to say, and then you handwave back towards this "hurr it's all the same" nonsense. And although my view is west-centric, you're reading a bit more into my view than I have actually said on the point. Your best point is the thing about post industrial society.
You yourself are tacitly ranking, judging, comparing cultures in your dismissal of me. The difference is that at the end of your thing you have to do the All The Same dance to wish it all away. But in dispatching me, you are obliged to count, rank, compare, draw conclusions.
>>917385
>Why is the extension of live the defining feature of a culture?
Because as I said earlier, all culture's have a component that attempts to make their lives longer (medicine, religion, weapons, armor, etc.) so the culture that is most successful at this is the superior one. Also, you can't objectively compare happiness or satisfaction.
>>917402
That is another way of looking at it, but I still say it's lifespan because the culture actively tries to keep people alive longer (as mentioned above) while birthrate is a byproduct of cultural factors.
>>917460
Shit argument. You're assuming all cultures fest death. Also, if I took away all modern medicine from you you would fear death MORE because you know your chances of dying are higher. But if I said there was a cure for cancer you would rejoice knowing that you would live longer if cancer ever threatened you
